Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
stowjon
Royal Flush


Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 9071

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:57 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:

@stowjon that makes no difference to the cards


i never disagree with you mate BUT i believe it does make a diff. for example if 3 people had mucked 10s then he couldnt even hit a pair but as all the cards have been shuffled back into the deck he can now hit the previously folded cards.
darrensprengers
Misclick


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 7551

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:17 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
stowjon wrote:
darrensprengers wrote:

@stowjon that makes no difference to the cards


i never disagree with you mate BUT i believe it does make a diff. for example if 3 people had mucked 10s then he couldnt even hit a pair but as all the cards have been shuffled back into the deck he can now hit the previously folded cards.


the only possibility how this could affect it mathematically would be if people at the table said something like "You are a lucky fuc*er mate i folded a 10" and somebody else said "i folded jq" etc. with all the dealt cards unknown the 5 cards will be as random as it would be at the other time.
Checkov
Royal Flush


Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Posts: 10111

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:34 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:
stowjon wrote:
darrensprengers wrote:

@stowjon that makes no difference to the cards


i never disagree with you mate BUT i believe it does make a diff. for example if 3 people had mucked 10s then he couldnt even hit a pair but as all the cards have been shuffled back into the deck he can now hit the previously folded cards.


the only possibility how this could affect it mathematically would be if people at the table said something like "You are a lucky fuc*er mate i folded a 10" and somebody else said "i folded jq" etc. with all the dealt cards unknown the 5 cards will be as random as it would be at the other time.


The unshuffled deck is slightly more likely to contain high cards since the mucked cards won't be that strong on average. There is a specific term for it, basically it makes very little difference.
evelyn
Quads


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2123

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:13 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Checkov wrote:
darrensprengers wrote:
stowjon wrote:
darrensprengers wrote:

@stowjon that makes no difference to the cards


i never disagree with you mate BUT i believe it does make a diff. for example if 3 people had mucked 10s then he couldnt even hit a pair but as all the cards have been shuffled back into the deck he can now hit the previously folded cards.


the only possibility how this could affect it mathematically would be if people at the table said something like "You are a lucky fuc*er mate i folded a 10" and somebody else said "i folded jq" etc. with all the dealt cards unknown the 5 cards will be as random as it would be at the other time.


The unshuffled deck is slightly more likely to contain high cards since the mucked cards won't be that strong on average. There is a specific term for it, basically it makes very little difference.


It's known as card bunching. The AT will have less equity with the folded cards back in the pack as the percentage of cards which are Ks, Qs, Js and Ts is likely to be lower.
redkite
High Card


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:35 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
The "protect your cards" argument can only be used when they are supposed to be behind the line and face down.

How on earth are you supposed to protect them when you turn them face up ready for the allin showdown.

I think the ruling is right, not sure what Ollie's problem is , I wonder if he will post his views on the BBP forum as he is one of the sponsored players.
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:24 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
As I understand it prior to the TD retrieving cards and reshuffling, 2 'helper' TDs had decided that a split pot was best. Then the TD (pretty sure it was Tom) came over and gave his ruling, saying that exactly the same thing had happened earlier and the ruling had to be the same as before (in other words twice within the space of 5 hours 2 players have been allin and the dealer has mucked both sets of cards without bothering with the inconvenience of a flop - extra training needed me thinks)

And the up to player to protect cards arguments are gibberish. it is an allin that has been called they have tabled their hands.

KITN for the dealer seems like them gettng off lightly.
christakis.poutashi
High Card


Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:30 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
i was seating in position one on this table,the dealer made a complete f up,but i think a fair decesion was made and the correct one
oneshotbob
Full House


Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 1305
Location: York, United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:39 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Just how distracted were the dealers? Were there topless massage girls knocking around? How can you not notice an all in and a call?

Absolutely correct decision. SB trying to steal BB, gets caught, changes his mind.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:56 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
GhostPirate wrote:
As I understand it prior to the TD retrieving cards and reshuffling, 2 'helper' TDs had decided that a split pot was best.....


Not to the table they didn't - the 2 supervisor types heard what happened and immediately went off to ask the next level up.

They heard it from the players as the dealer wasn't capable of relaying it succinctly or accurately enough.

oneshotbob wrote:
Just how distracted were the dealers? ... How can you not notice an all in and a call?
...


To be accurate he missed: 'all in' - 'is that an all in' - 'yes, all in' - 'call'
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:26 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Just been reading from the other incident that involved AA vs 66. One of the players had mucked the 6 that fell on the re-shuffled board and the AA guy went packing.
FUDGEB
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:00 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Right, I think there are a few things that need to be cleared up here 'cause whats going on ITT is getting redic.

I didn't even know about this thread until a few hours ago after my mate posted the link telling me people would rip me apart on the hendon mob forum for trying to angle shoot my way out of giving the man the chips he was entitled to.

First of all:

Jon MW wrote:
GhostPirate wrote:
As I understand it prior to the TD retrieving cards and reshuffling, 2 'helper' TDs had decided that a split pot was best.....


Not to the table they didn't - the 2 supervisor types heard what happened and immediately went off to ask the next level up.

They heard it from the players as the dealer wasn't capable of relaying it succinctly or accurately enough.

oneshotbob wrote:
Just how distracted were the dealers? ... How can you not notice an all in and a call?
...


To be accurate he missed: 'all in' - 'is that an all in' - 'yes, all in' - 'call'


What happend was that the first supervisor was called over and asked the dealer what happened. The dealer was unable to to explain as he didn't have a clue. So me and the other gentleman explained the situation and i ended my mine with asking "This should just be a chopped pot, right?", to which she replied, I think so but I will have to get someone else. The second one didn't want to give any statement and the third one then called this ruling.

As for the actual argument:

The reason why I kicked off in the cardroom was not because I wanted to get out of giving the man his chips but because of the REASONING they gave behind the ruling. And its the same useless and irrelevant reasoning that is used ITT. It should not matter what his hand or my hand is. Just because he has Aces and is in best possible shape vs my hand doesn't mean the ruling can/should be a diff one to if it was, say, a straight flip. Joe Beevers said if any other ruling was made he would have been massively prejudiced. How is his hand OR mine affecting the ruling? Also, you can be sure I would have kicked off if it was me having aces. One because I know the dealer just cost me chips and two because this shouldn't happen in the first place.

My argument was not based on probabilities or tiny mathematical edges that I might lose by including the discards. That IS a factor obv and something I insisted on would be taken into consideration but not my main reason. Just because of the exact scenario of him holding aces, a ruling was made with exactly that reasoning. I highly doubt the same ruling would have been made had the TD not known the holdings.

So much for technicalities. Now to some personal stuff.

Joe The Elegance Beevers wrote:
To me it looks like an angle shoot.

It's a dealer mistake and it has to be dealt with. I can't see any other fair way to rule it. If you kill both hands the player with AA has been massivily prejudiced.

The equity split is exactly the same as the ruling in theory but you can't do things like that in tournaments anyway.

Quote:
he refused to accept the randomness/probability being the same argument

This is just laughable to be honest.

I wonder if he would have made such a fuss if he had the AA and the other player had the A10. I seriously doubt it.


The Reverend wrote:
Jon MW wrote:
The small blind was Oliver Schaffmann I don't know how much of a player he is, but however strongly he felt about it I thought he was completely wrong to argue with the TD once the decision was made.


Might not know what sort of player he is but it's pretty clear what sort of person he is.

Who was the TD? I'm actually surprised the correct decision was made. Even though it's clearly the only fair solution, and rectifies the dealer's error, I'm sure some a few TDs would have decided both hands were dead because they hit the magical muck, and nothing is more important than that.



WHO THE FCUK do you think you are to question my integrity on a public forum. You have never met me in your life, yet you think you can from an opinion about my character and my poker etiquette? I am extremely surprised and disappointed by Joe Beevers. I didn't expect someone of your status and popularity to resort to forming opinion about a third party based on some half knowledge you read in a thread. Sorry but it just makes you look like another prick with a keyboard talking bs behind his screen where he won't have to say it to someones face.

I understand its very easy to point a finger and criticise when you weren't involved OR present at the time.
What you also obv don't understand, be it because your outrage took your focus away from the facts or because you didn't read the thread properly is that IF i was to try and angle shoot I could have easily kept all my chips if that was what I had in mind. The dealer at NO time heard me say all in, the only two people who remembered the suits were me and my opponent, and according to the next dealer it would have been impossible to reconstruct the action via cameras or microphones. If it wasn't for me TELLING the TD that I had actually said all-in there would have been NO board, NO pot and NO argument. The one person who would have been entitled to explain the facts to the TD was the dealer and he didn't have a clue who did what so if I would have kept my mouth shut, not remembered my hand, or admitted I actually said all-in none of this would have happened.

OP came on here with a technical question concerning a situation in a tourney and thx to Mr. Beevers and Co. this has turned into "Who can I slaughter today on a public forum just like I see the "big boys" do it everyday on 2p2?!" I would appreciate if everybody would restrain themselves from attacking me as a person or question my integrity and focus on the actual thread and the ruling in question. A number of cases or experiences would be much more helpful than the ongoing discussion that I was trying to angle shoot a man for 30 bigs in a deepstack tourney on level 5, which is just laughable.
Grumbledook
Royal Flush


Joined: 25 Dec 2003
Posts: 16061

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:27 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I don't think you managed to get your point across as to why the hand shouldn't have been played out when you both knew what cards you had? How was that a bad decision on the part of the TD?

Quote:
The reason why I kicked off in the cardroom was not because I wanted to get out of giving the man his chips but because of the REASONING they gave behind the ruling. And its the same useless and irrelevant reasoning that is used ITT. It should not matter what his hand or my hand is. Just because he has Aces and is in best possible shape vs my hand doesn't mean the ruling can/should be a diff one to if it was, say, a straight flip.


I don't think the fact the hands were specifically what they were had anything to do with the decision, yet you seem to think it was? What makes you think the TD wouldn't have run the board out if it was AK vs TT or whatever? I don't think anyone pointed at the fact you were in bad shape was the reason behind the ruling and it being a good decision.

I can't see any reason why that should have been the decision (regardless of the hands) unless there is some extra info you have that we don't know about?
tjm8
Straight Flush


Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 2562
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:41 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
FUDGEB wrote:

The dealer at NO time heard me say all in, the only two people who remembered the suits were me and my opponent, and according to the next dealer it would have been impossible to reconstruct the action via cameras or microphones. If it wasn't for me TELLING the TD that I had actually said all-in there would have been NO board, NO pot and NO argument. The one person who would have been entitled to explain the facts to the TD was the dealer and he didn't have a clue who did what so if I would have kept my mouth shut, not remembered my hand, or admitted I actually said all-in none of this would have happened.


You have defo confirmed that the TD made the correct ruling, as both hands could be identified correctly. The cards can be retrieved, deck shuffled and the board dealt out.
X
Quads


Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Posts: 2462
Location: Earth X

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:56 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
FUDGEB wrote:
Just because of the exact scenario of him holding aces, a ruling was made with exactly that reasoning.


The last time I had the 'exact scenario' of holding Aces, a [general] ruling was made with exactly that reasoning. This happens every time that I am, and am known to be, holding aces. A dealing error, shouldn't get in the way of that, unless it needs to, in my opinion... why should it?

This dealing error is atrocious, to be fair... but there's got to be some onus here on both players for not protecting their cards (your) adequately.
_________________
Homer wrote:
Among all creatures that breathe on earth and crawl on it there is not anywhere a thing more dismal than man is
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:12 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote="X"]
FUDGEB wrote:
This dealing error is atrocious, to be fair... but there's got to be some onus here on both players for not protecting their cards (your) adequately.


wtf are you on about 2 players all in table their hands there is nothing to protect.

and to Olly dont worry about what forum batty boys and has been poker pro's think
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Mob Poker Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum