Another ruling thread

[Cf]

. Cutoff says call and just put 1500. I immediately turned my hand over. Now, cutoff says he just wanted to call 1500, now that my hand is exposed. Dealer called the TD. TD's ruling was: I only get the 1500 and the cutoff serves one round penalty.
Is this correct? Shouldn't I get another 4500?

Why would you do this?

He's presumably misunderstood the bet, and it reads as if you have noticed this. If I'm going to accuse anyone of angle shooting in this scenario it's you because you acknowledge you noticed he only put in 1500 and by turning over you're trying to force him to commit to the 6000.

As for the ruling itself... it's an interesting one. And as long as sufficient justification is given I don't disagree with ruling either way as it's one of those that boils down to TDs discretion based on the specific scenario, characters involved, etc.

That said I see no reason why the caller was given a penalty. And the just receiving 1500 isn't right either as there was no bet made for 1500. Either return the 1500 and fold, or call 6000. He can't raise as he has made it clear his intention to call a bet.

[celtic]

. Cutoff says call and just put 1500. I immediately turned my hand over. Now, cutoff says he just wanted to call 1500, now that my hand is exposed. Dealer called the TD. TD's ruling was: I only get the 1500 and the cutoff serves one round penalty.
Is this correct? Shouldn't I get another 4500?

Why would you do this?

He's presumably misunderstood the bet, and it reads as if you have noticed this. If I'm going to accuse anyone of angle shooting in this scenario it's you because you acknowledge you noticed he only put in 1500 and by turning over you're trying to force him to commit to the 6000.

As for the ruling itself... it's an interesting one. And as long as sufficient justification is given I don't disagree with ruling either way as it's one of those that boils down to TDs discretion based on the specific scenario, characters involved, etc.

That said I see no reason why the caller was given a penalty. And the just receiving 1500 isn't right either as there was no bet made for 1500. Either return the 1500 and fold, or call 6000. He can't raise as he has made it clear his intention to call a bet.

It's quite common to put in less that the amount bet. It's not angle shooting. I made a comment about me doing it a few pages back and the dealer took it as a call.

If vinodh is correct, and the guy 100% said call, then it doesn't really matter how much he put in.

It's probably all best left til Simon comments anyway.

[Boba Fett]

. Cutoff says call and just put 1500. I immediately turned my hand over. Now, cutoff says he just wanted to call 1500, now that my hand is exposed. Dealer called the TD. TD's ruling was: I only get the 1500 and the cutoff serves one round penalty.
Is this correct? Shouldn't I get another 4500?

Why would you do this?

He's presumably misunderstood the bet, and it reads as if you have noticed this. If I'm going to accuse anyone of angle shooting in this scenario it's you because you acknowledge you noticed he only put in 1500 and by turning over you're trying to force him to commit to the 6000.

As for the ruling itself... it's an interesting one. And as long as sufficient justification is given I don't disagree with ruling either way as it's one of those that boils down to TDs discretion based on the specific scenario, characters involved, etc.

That said I see no reason why the caller was given a penalty. And the just receiving 1500 isn't right either as there was no bet made for 1500. Either return the 1500 and fold, or call 6000. He can't raise as he has made it clear his intention to call a bet.

Why would someone turn their hand over when they bet and are called?  Are you serious???  Why wouldnt they turn their hand over?

Im finding it hard to imagine any scenario where a caller can throw in a chip and not have to pay the full amount.  If situations are reversed and the bettor misclicks and accidentally throws in a large denomination chip, if the other player notices this and calls, should the bettor get the chip back since he "meant" to bet less?  Has anyone ever seen someone be allowed to take back a bet after throwing the wrong chip in?

[MC]

mably misunderstood the bet, and it reads as if you have noticed this. If I'm going to accuse anyone of angle shooting in this scenario it's you because you acknowledge you noticed he only put in 1500 and by turning over you're trying to force him to commit to the 6000.

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

[outragous76]

Dik9

This is a genuine question. Why have they "reached showdown". Nothing has occurred for that to be the case

Edit: I have more questions

1. Is the amount of the bet relevant? If so why? ie, if hero hasn't overbet pot and instead bet 2k (lets call it a "normal sized bet", and villain throws in 1.k, would the ruling be different.  The point I am getting to here is that hero may have skillfully read his opponents hand perfectly, knowingly overbet pot and is being punished for it.

2. Should the TD ever check Villains hand to make his decision? If not then why is he checking hero bet size either?

2. What would the ruling be if the same thing happened with different players at the same table 10 minutes later.

3. What would the ruling have been if the player just flicked it 1 smallest denomination chip?

[doubleup]

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

This is the kind of sh1t that really annoys me.  Why do you do that?  Do you throw a random amount at the supermarket checkout person and wait till she asks for the rest?  You know what the bet is, so just put in an amount that covers it or say call.

[tikay]

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

This is the kind of sh1t that really annoys me.  Why do you do that?  Do you throw a random amount at the supermarket checkout person and wait till she asks for the rest?  You know what the bet is, so just put in an amount that covers it or say call.

It seems to have been accepted as a convention in the last 3 or 4 years, from my observations. I'm not sure it is enshrined in the Rule Books though.

Personally, I do everything I can to avoid potential situations like this. The right or wrong is irrelevant. I just think it makes sense to avoid potential conflict.

The rights or wrongs in this thread dont really matter to me in the greater scheme of things. But it could not have happened to me, ever, as before opening my hand, I'd seek clarification of the "call", from the player &/or Dealer, even though some cynics may say I am effectively giving away my hand strength. 

OK, I'm an old fart, I just sit there enjoying myself, but I don't like this sort of potential conflict at the poker table, so I do my best to avoid it by ensuring these things cant generally happen to me. The PLAYERS are the cause of most of these misunderstandings, & the TD ends up getting the blame. It is all very well standing on our supposed rights, but surely we want the game to run smoothly, dont we?

[outragous76]

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

This is the kind of sh1t that really annoys me.  Why do you do that?  Do you throw a random amount at the supermarket checkout person and wait till she asks for the rest?  You know what the bet is, so just put in an amount that covers it or say call.

It seems to have been accepted as a convention in the last 3 or 4 years, from my observations. I'm not sure it is enshrined in the Rule Books though.

Personally, I do everything I can to avoid potential situations like this. The right or wrong is irrelevant. I just think it makes sense to avoid potential conflict.

The rights or wrongs in this thread dont really matter to me in the greater scheme of things. But it could not have happened to me, ever, as before opening my hand, I'd seek clarification of the "call", from the player &/or Dealer, even though some cynics may say I am effectively giving away my hand strength. 

OK, I'm an old fart, I just sit there enjoying myself, but I don't like this sort of potential conflict at the poker table, so I do my best to avoid it by ensuring these things cant generally happen to me. The PLAYERS are the cause of most of these misunderstandings, & the TD ends up geting the blame. It is all very well standing on our supposed rights, but surely we want the game to run smoothly, dont we?

Not sure the TD is getting the blame here. I think Dik9 made his point very well. But I think people would like to hear the reasoning behind the ruling.

That being said, I am of the general opinion that there is too much protection of people making mistakes.

[tikay]

I barely ever call with the correct amount on river decisions like this. I usually just chuck a random chip in, and it always goes as a call whereby my opponent should show me their cards.

This is the kind of sh1t that really annoys me.  Why do you do that?  Do you throw a random amount at the supermarket checkout person and wait till she asks for the rest?  You know what the bet is, so just put in an amount that covers it or say call.

It seems to have been accepted as a convention in the last 3 or 4 years, from my observations. I'm not sure it is enshrined in the Rule Books though.

Personally, I do everything I can to avoid potential situations like this. The right or wrong is irrelevant. I just think it makes sense to avoid potential conflict.

The rights or wrongs in this thread dont really matter to me in the greater scheme of things. But it could not have happened to me, ever, as before opening my hand, I'd seek clarification of the "call", from the player &/or Dealer, even though some cynics may say I am effectively giving away my hand strength. 

OK, I'm an old fart, I just sit there enjoying myself, but I don't like this sort of potential conflict at the poker table, so I do my best to avoid it by ensuring these things cant generally happen to me. The PLAYERS are the cause of most of these misunderstandings, & the TD ends up geting the blame. It is all very well standing on our supposed rights, but surely we want the game to run smoothly, dont we?

Not sure the TD is getting the blame here. I think Dik9 made his point very well. But I think people would like to hear the reasoning behind the ruling.

That being said, I am of the general opinion that there is too much protection of people making mistakes.

Well, DTD & the TD have been described as "incompetent" over this matter by more than one poster. They were not present when it went off, of course, so cannot possibly know the precise circumstances. 

They are not incompetenent. They may have made a mistake, of course. That does not make them incompetent, it makes them human - just like the players.

We are amateur poker players, the TD's are professionals, so I'm not sure we are well-placed to suggest they are incompetenent. They may well have made a mistake here, of course. That is a quite different thing.

We can so easily point the finger at others, but try wearing those shoes. Being a TD these days must be a proper nightmare. 

[George2Loose]

I do the same. Speeds the game up plus I don't ever call expecting to be giving the amount up so why put the correct amount in?

[tikay]

I do the same. Speeds the game up plus I don't ever call expecting to be giving the amount up so why put the correct amount in?

Yes, many do nowadays, but how much more time would it take to put the correct amount in George? Half a second?

[outragous76]

I do the same. Speeds the game up plus I don't ever call expecting to be giving the amount up so why put the correct amount in?

Yes, many do nowadays, but how much more time would it take to put the correct amount in George? Half a second?

Didn't you make a mistake in Vegas 2012 and get a time penalty (possibly even for exposing early?) 

[Karabiner]

I do the same. Speeds the game up plus I don't ever call expecting to be giving the amount up so why put the correct amount in?

Yes, many do nowadays, but how much more time would it take to put the correct amount in George? Half a second?

Didn't you make a mistake in Vegas 2012 and get a time penalty (possibly even for exposing early?) 

I think the exposing early was in the Rio's corridors in his undies.

[Tal]

It's far easier to conclude that the TD made what he considered to be the best decision on the facts as presented, that he did so entirely reasonably but that you disagree with the outcome than it is to label the decision-maker an imbecile.

But then we all know what the referee is. He must be. He was two metres away and I could see from fifty feet away that it was a foul. Not fit to referee. And as for that striker...

[h]

internet poker so much easier

click call and its call no debate

if I was villain I would put the 6k in my mistake
if I was hero I like to think I would wait until action confirmed
although I have made lots of mistakes playing live acting out of turn mostly
as played I would accept I made a mistake by exposing cards  before the 6k was in or action is confirmed and accept ruling
from reading thread do not think anyone is angle shooting so if I was involved would be happy with TD decision  either way

the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do any thing