Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
FUDGEB
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:16 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Grumbledook wrote:
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?



Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. I argued two things in the discussion. One was that the TD didn't even try to hide the fact that the bare fact that he had aces was a majorly contributing factor for the decision which should be completely irrelevant and just showed incompetence since it implied different holdings could have resulted in a diff ruling. and the second one was pure mathematical one where I see my odds affected by including discards. This, I agree is a tiny tiny edge but nonetheless affects the outcome of the hand. However it was not my main argument.
Joe The Elegance Beevers
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:28 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Hi Oliver,

One of the things that gets posted on poker forums are various rulings that happen at events and these are then discussed. It happens here all the time. We even have a regular feature that has been running for a few years now called 'You are the Tournament Director' where the world's best TDs give their opinions on certain situations.

The rulings are not based on the players but the situations and that is really all I was doing; giving my opinion on the situation that was laid out before me. The Matt Savages and the Thomas Kremsers have ruled on nearly 100 scenarios in our features and they weren't present at them either.

You are quite right that all the information may not have been given and that is why it is good that the forum is open so that things can be discussed. I thank you for coming here to give your side of the story.

I don't believe I have met you before and I have no opinion of you as a person, I simply gave my opinion on the situation and what I would have done if I had been the TD.

Let me ask you a question. Try to imagine that you saw this from the rail. Do you not agree that it looks like an angle shoot?

Rules are there to protect the players. They are there to try and stop players 'shooting angles' and to make sure the game is a fair one. Let's suppose a player (I'm not saying you, I am saying this hypothetically) was 'friends' with a dealer. Let's say the dealer realised the player was all in against aces with a very bad hand and so he pulled all the cards in after the two hands had been exposed. You can't just agree to chop the pot up there has to be a rule for it and it has to be fair. It doesn't matter what the cards are, the rule must be the same in every situation that this happens. If you are flipping with equal stacks then one of you could be eliminated. You could be on the bubble, splitting the pot prejudices all the other players in that spot. This is the exact reason why the player with aces must not be prejudiced in your hand. The ruling is not made because he has the aces at all. The ruling is the same whatever the hands, every time.

Both hands have been seen. The hand must play out. The fact that the dealer pulled all the other cards in and now must be reshuffled might work in your favour or it might work against you but it is the only fair way to rule. There is no tiny edge or argument here. Mathematically it all washes out even in the end.

I was not personal in my post, I see that you have been in yours and that is understandable. I can see that you feel like you are being attacked and that is not nice but I am certainly not a 'prick behind a keyboard talking bs'. I post under my own name, I am here for you to talk to and discuss with. I am not an anonymous keyboard warrior at all. In fact I will be at the Fox Poker Club on Thursday and I will be happy to buy you a pint and chat about it if you want to.

Maybe you weren't intentionally shooting an angle, maybe you were nave having not experienced something like this before, I don't know, I hope it is the latter.

We are about to start a new TD series and I will put this scenario to our expert panel so that you can see and hopefully understand what should happen and why. I am sure that they can explain it better than I can.
stowjon
Royal Flush


Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 9071

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:57 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Joe Beevers is Elegance personified.

(i will take his pint on Thursday Joe if he fails to be around. i will be at the Fox from mid-late afternoon.)
The Reverend
In Rhythm


Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 6193
Location: In Rhythm

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:01 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
FUDGEB wrote:
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.


I never said you were trying to angle shoot, but you certainly were trying to get chips you had no right to.

FUDGEB wrote:
One was that the TD didn't even try to hide the fact that the bare fact that he had aces was a majorly contributing factor for the decision which should be completely irrelevant and just showed incompetence since it implied different holdings could have resulted in a diff ruling.


Well that's the first we've heard of it, and if TD might have made a different ruling with different cards, of course that's pretty bad, but what does that have to do with this situation, where he's made the correct ruling?

I'm not sure that lying outright about the action was the easy option you seem to be suggesting, when several other players must have seen and heard what happened. Presumably if you were so outraged at the hand being played out, you were pretty sure that the ruling was going to be that the pot would be split so there was no need to lie either.
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
The Reverend wrote:
Might not know what sort of player he is but it's pretty clear what sort of person he is.


sums up what sort of person the reverend is would be more accurate
HopeItsChips
Flush


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 532

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:24 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
FUDGEB wrote:

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. I argued two things in the discussion. One was that the TD didn't even try to hide the fact that the bare fact that he had aces was a majorly contributing factor for the decision which should be completely irrelevant and just showed incompetence since it implied different holdings could have resulted in a diff ruling.


GhostPirate wrote:

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


Fudgeb is GhostPirate right or wrong about the TD saying this?

FUDGEB wrote:

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.


If you think that your opponent is entitled to the chips why were you pressing for a chopped pot before the TD even arrived at the table?
Roady_UK
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:26 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
(long time lurker, first time poster)

"I never said you were trying to angle shoot, but you certainly were trying to get chips you had no right to"

I was sat at the next table, and maybe some of the subtlety has been lost in translation, but i really dont think it was about chips, though i understand that's all some people see. The guy (oliver?) thought the ruling was wrong and argued his case. I actually think the ruling was right but may have been delivered badly but think no less of Oliver for his defense.
stowjon
Royal Flush


Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 9071

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:29 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
i think this thread has probably run its course and is only gonna cause arguments and mud slinging if its left open!

come on guys one big group hug will sort this all out.

its how me and my 6 brothers and our fairtale housekeeper sort things out.
oneshotbob
Full House


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

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:58 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
GhostPirate wrote:

sums up what sort of person the reverend is would be more accurate


You are my new favourite poster on here, GP. First we're batty boys, and now "we are what we say you are".

How about "Reverend the Beverend the big fat Sheverend?". Or "Your mum shoots angles"?
Bogus
At Won with No 28


Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 5245
Location: Hendon (Deception Central)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:03 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
oneshotbob wrote:
GhostPirate wrote:

sums up what sort of person the reverend is would be more accurate


You are my new favourite poster on here, GP. First we're batty boys, and now "we are what we say you are".

How about "Reverend the Beverend the big fat Sheverend?". Or "Your mum shoots angles"?


POTW Very Happy Hearts
_________________
TWUNTICUS MAXIMUS

wowsickriver
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:59 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
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.


You do realise Joe that the dealer has killed both hands, right? And as you state yourself, it is a dealer mistake, and it has to be dealt with. The dealer didn't mean to kill both hands, but he did. And so the hand is over. You don't see this?

You state yourself it is a dealer error and that it is, but the correct ruling in this situation as a result of the dealer's action is in fact a dead hand, for the very reason that the dealer has killed both the hands and there are none left. There's nothing else that should be done, whether cards can be retrieved or not, as the hand is dead as a result of the dealer action. Both hands have been mucked. It's a dead hand. And someone arguing this valid point when they are being told an alternate plan is going to be enforced to benefit one particular player in this position is, quite obviously, justified. How can you not see this.

Quote:
I can't see any other fair way to rule it. If you kill both hands the player with AA has been massivily prejudiced.


This is exactly the wrong way to be handling this situation. You cannot just recreate the hand after it has been killed just because it will benefit one particular player. Why do you feel it is appropriate to justify making a ruling that the hand should be recreated after it has been killed, just to satisfy the person who is ahead in the hand? Accidents happen. It has happened in this case. But bottom line, the hand as a result is now over, and no matter what you feel the fairer ruling might be, the hand has to be treated as a dead hand as it is one, and chips need to be returned in this situation. It was a dealer error but the hands have been killed and it is a dead pot. I'm still not seeing why you think you can restart a previous hand once it is over.


Quote:
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.


Probably not, I can't see why anyone wouldn't be supportive of a TD making a wrong decision if it benefits their own cause. But I'm positive he would have been telling the TD the exact same had he not been one of the two players in the hand but had been a player at the table, simply because he knows what the correct decision should be and to stop the TD from making a wrong decision, AA vs AT or not.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
wowsickriver wrote:
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.


You do realise Joe that the dealer has killed both hands, right? And as you state yourself, it is a dealer mistake, and it has to be dealt with. The dealer didn't mean to kill both hands, but he did. And so the hand is over. You don't see this?

...


Hasn't this point been covered already?


The Reverend wrote:
...
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.


I've never seen this scenario before, but I've seen other decisions from top TDs where the correct decision involved retrieving hands that had been killed.

And it is noticeable that all the most experienced players and casino staff who have expressed an opinion have said that this TD made the correct - and the only correct - ruling.
_________________
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
wowsickriver
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:15 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Jon MW wrote:

Hasn't this point been covered already?


I would not be looking for clarification if it was, Jon. If this had been covered properly, we would all have seen that the SB was in fact correct in his assessment of what should have happened, which doesn't seem the case in this thread.


Quote:

I've never seen this scenario before, but I've seen other decisions from top TDs where the correct decision involved retrieving hands that had been killed.


Well I see your hands that have seen killed cards retrieved, and I raise you my own experiences where hands that have been killed stay killed. Your experiences are irrelevant, the only thing that matters in this situation are the facts.

Quote:

And it is noticeable that all the most experienced players and casino staff who have expressed an opinion have said that this TD made the correct - and the only correct - ruling.


Not all of them. And for the record, the TD did not make the correct decision, please read my previous post to see the facts that would ally with this. The hand has been killed, the next one is in preparation, it was a dealer mistake but it's done. I fear for anyone that doesn't see this.
L67C
High Card


Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:45 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I'm a friend of Ollie's and read this thread this morning. I wanted to wait until I got home so I could gather my thoughts prior to posting.

A few things:

I was in the camp that felt that the pot should have simply been chopped up. I'm no TD and have much less live experience of situations like this than some ITT, but I felt like some people were trying too hard to find the most favourable outcome for the player who had the AA.

I just wonder if the hand had been ATo v ATo with all four suits in the mix, whether the same efforts would have been made to recover the mucked cards and run the board through. That setup would be chopped 99% of the time, so why bother with the hassle? The fact that one player had AA should not affect what the ultimate decision is. I'd love to hear what Thomas Kremser has to say about it, because I think every opinion on the thread so far has at least one flaw in it.

Secondly, the personal insults are just not fair game guys. Ollie is certainly not an angle-shooter and even making insincere allegations about something like that isn't the best idea; mud sticks. Joe has been very dignified in his latest post and I give him credit where it's due in the face of Ollie's angry response, however, I'm sure even he'd agree that saying it ''looks like an angle shoot'' without knowing the full details of the hand and then asking who was involved was at best a little nave and unfair.

The Reverend's post about this scenario somehow showing ''what type of person'' Ollie is was absolutely ridiculous. You just can't recklessly tar someone over something you have extremely limited knowledge of. Ollie is an extremely nice guy and shouldn't have to read shit like that.

FWIW, he's sponsored by Black Belt Poker and was mainly playing the tournament to both represent and show support for the site. If there was ever a time where he had an opportunity to shoot an angle (not that he would anyway), this would be the absolute nut-worst time to do it. It's a $275 buy-in, it's level 4 and he's sponsored by the tournament organiser. Come on guys, have some sense.

Let's try and get back onto solving the question in the OP now eh? And maybe cut down on attacking innocent parties?
Puma
Trips


Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:53 pm
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. 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


Surely if this is true, and that is the decision that was made previously, then there is only one decision that can be made this time?
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 3 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