Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
DCSW7
Straight Flush


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 3981
Location: Spewing @ PLO

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:03 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Brings back memories of this hand from last years tourney...

http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournamen...ng_must_show_rule

They awarded a split pot there where no player had cards at showdown, even though one player had conceded the pot
_________________
Not surprised Xavi's been replaced. His pass completion rate was only 89%. Useless.
ZiggerZagger
Two Pair


Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 79

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
How bad must the dealing have been for this to have happened twice in one day. However in my experience easily identifyable cards can be retrieved, and in the interests of integrity playing out the hand is the only corrrect decision, its a no brainer imo and not even worth arguing over.
I dont know any of the parties involved and from what has been said in (Ollie's ??) defence certainly doesnt sound like an angle shoot more like intense frustration at inept dealing, but if these situations were ever ruled in favour of chopping the pot and Ive never seen them settled that way then it does open a whole can of worms for angle shooting and dealer collusion etc, at the end of the day the correct ruling was made end of story.
dik9
Straight


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 495

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:15 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Firstly can I say that I wasn't present so can't say 100% that the decision is correct, so can only go on the facts given as an impartial TD.

There have been a number of posts saying that the players should protect their hand. This is not true as once they are tabled they are the dealers responsibility. What should be raised is that it is the players responsibility to protect their own interest in the pot.

As the Vic is a grosvenor I do not know what their rule book says ( as grosvenors have some strange ones). By the rules of DTD, Fox Club and most major card rooms in the world are TDA the correct decision seems to have been made.

Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled.

In this case, we do not know which is the winning hand, but one of them obviously would be ( it is irrelevant what the tabled cards are, they are tabled and cannot be killed). The dealer, the players involved and the other players can verify what the tabled cards are, therefore they can be retrieved. *

If the new hand hasn't started I.e. The cards have not yet been riffled then any situation must be rectified. As we cannot distinguish between mucked cards and the stub as they are now being chemied. All cards bar the live hands must be shuffled together and continued from there, as that is the fairest way to deal with the situation as decisions by players have already been agonised over and 2 players were committed to the hand.

* This goes exactly the same way if players had protected their own hands and were not all in. I.e. Dealer has mucked everything but 2 players are still holding cards. Their hands are still live ( which I believe happened earlier in this tournament). It again is irrelevant if a player notices that the card he folded gave the underpair a set. Shit happens. But someone does need to have a word with the dealers to concentrate.
_________________
http://pokerforheroes.org

My decision is final, but I reserve the right to change my mind!
Matt101
Straight Flush


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 3285

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:38 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Grunching slightly on this thread (read 2 and a half pages then got bored) but I think the correct ruling was made. What's more I don't see how the argument can be made that the guy with AT was penalised by the deck being re-shuffled. He may have had a case with AK (more of a likelihood that the original board contained 2 kings) but to argue that the fact it was folded round to the SB meant there was a greater likelihood that all the tens were still in play is stretching it. At most he was losing 0.5% equity, and that's being generous.

SB was either angle shooting or he doesn't have a grasp of the maths. One or the other.

edit : BB could also have argued that he was being penalised as the other ace was more likely to have still been in play in the original deck which would have left the SB drawing very thin indeed.
Joe The Elegance Beevers
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:18 am
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?

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.


Hands can not be killed in all in situations where they have been tabled. Just imagine if they could!

Please read my long post re one hand being AA. The hand is not played out becuase of this at all. The same decision has to be made even if both hands are A10 os, you can't differentiate, it has to be the same every time. The hand plays out.

Rather than wait until the next series of YATTD I am happy to make this a special end of series case and do it now. If anyone wants to bet on what the six TDs will rule I will take bets and I will take substantial ones too if you like, but you can only bet one side. Sometimes you have to accept you have made a mistake and move on.

Here is the current YATTD panel:
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director4
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:45 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
dik9 wrote:
.If the new hand hasn't started I.e. The cards have not yet been riffled then any situation must be rectified.


Not sure how far along the shuffling process the dealer got. But you do seem to be implying that this could be an important factor.
stowjon
Royal Flush


Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 9071

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:52 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
dik9 wrote:
Firstly can I say that I wasn't present so can't say 100% that the decision is correct, so can only go on the facts given as an impartial TD.

There have been a number of posts saying that the players should protect their hand. This is not true as once they are tabled they are the dealers responsibility. What should be raised is that it is the players responsibility to protect their own interest in the pot.

As the Vic is a grosvenor I do not know what their rule book says ( as grosvenors have some strange ones). By the rules of DTD, Fox Club and most major card rooms in the world are TDA the correct decision seems to have been made.

Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled.

In this case, we do not know which is the winning hand, but one of them obviously would be ( it is irrelevant what the tabled cards are, they are tabled and cannot be killed). The dealer, the players involved and the other players can verify what the tabled cards are, therefore they can be retrieved. *

If the new hand hasn't started I.e. The cards have not yet been riffled then any situation must be rectified. As we cannot distinguish between mucked cards and the stub as they are now being chemied. All cards bar the live hands must be shuffled together and continued from there, as that is the fairest way to deal with the situation as decisions by players have already been agonised over and 2 players were committed to the hand.

* This goes exactly the same way if players had protected their own hands and were not all in. I.e. Dealer has mucked everything but 2 players are still holding cards. Their hands are still live ( which I believe happened earlier in this tournament). It again is irrelevant if a player notices that the card he folded gave the underpair a set. Shit happens. But someone does need to have a word with the dealers to concentrate.


this appears to be the voice of reason and the most sensible post of the thread.
GhostPirate
One Pair


Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:53 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Matt101 wrote:
SB was either angle shooting or he doesn't have a grasp of the maths. One or the other.


Pretty sure that the point being made is that say no body folded a club and nobody folded a Ten, K, Q, J.

Then the odds of picking up a lucky escape are obv better from 34 cards than 48.

Lets face it you get allin pre and your dominated but you have a suited ace, would you rather 9 outs from 34 or 9 from 48. Little bit more than 0.5% back to maths school for you.
galty
Flush


Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 566

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:09 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Only played live for a year BUT

When I go all in and am called EVERY time we wait for the dealer to say CARDS ON THE BACKS.

Mistakes by all.
_________________
Mongoloid


An extremely annoying person who usually thinks they are smart and/or funny, but is actually very stupid.
fadrus
One Pair


Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:10 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I don't play live poker and I'm confident that the TD in this case did what others would have done. Clearly the opinion of experienced players in this thread is on the TD's side.

However I thought this point made by Joe was flawed:

Quote:
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.


The premise, of course, is true. Rules are there to protect everyone involved and ensure fairness. In Joe's hypothetical we have a dodgy dealer and consequently the decision to split the pot looks unjust. But what about a different scenario:

It's on the bubble and, we have an all in from a short stacked player who's been running his mouth off and winding people up for hours. And he smells of rotting cabbage. There is a call from a sweet, lilac infused old lady who has the first guy covered and she earlier announced she was playing for Save the Hedgehog as she handed out homemade biscuits. Miss Marple shows KK and Worzel shows AA. The Dealer mucks both hands but it's ok because the other players at the table remember what everyone had. It was KK against 44 right? All the Dealer can say when the TD walks over is "Dunno what the cards were, I just mucked 'em". Goodnight Worzel and everyone cashes.

The problem in these cases is that evidence needs to be independent. Players involved in the hand, and even players not in the hand, can have incentives to lie. In the absence of cameras and microphones the only person at the table who's view should be considered impartial is the Dealer.

The rule that a mucked hand is dead will inevitably mean that players will occasionally lose when they should have won but as long as like cases are treated alike fairness is not at issue.
oneshotbob
Full House


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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:34 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
L67C wrote:
Secondly, the personal insults are just not fair game guys.


I agree. So was "batty boys" an affectionate term?

The cards could be indentified and retrieved. Everywhere i have played enforces this rule because it is the fairest way. Just repeating "the hand is dead the hand is dead" does not make it so.

Whatever you employ with mind tricks, angle shooting, poker faces, acting, feinting and table demeanour, the person with the best cards should win, once the chips are down. This is what happened - end of story.

Joe - can i have a tenner on the panel unanimously agreeing to do what was actually done?
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:35 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
fadrus wrote:
I don't play live poker and I'm confident that the TD in this case did what others would have done. Clearly the opinion of experienced players in this thread is on the TD's side.

However I thought this point made by Joe was flawed:

Quote:
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.


The premise, of course, is true. Rules are there to protect everyone involved and ensure fairness. In Joe's hypothetical we have a dodgy dealer and consequently the decision to split the pot looks unjust. But what about a different scenario:

It's on the bubble and, we have an all in from a short stacked player who's been running his mouth off and winding people up for hours. And he smells of rotting cabbage. There is a call from a sweet, lilac infused old lady who has the first guy covered and she earlier announced she was playing for Save the Hedgehog as she handed out homemade biscuits. Miss Marple shows KK and Worzel shows AA. The Dealer mucks both hands but it's ok because the other players at the table remember what everyone had. It was KK against 44 right? All the Dealer can say when the TD walks over is "Dunno what the cards were, I just mucked 'em". Goodnight Worzel and everyone cashes.

The problem in these cases is that evidence needs to be independent. Players involved in the hand, and even players not in the hand, can have incentives to lie. In the absence of cameras and microphones the only person at the table who's view should be considered impartial is the Dealer.

The rule that a mucked hand is dead will inevitably mean that players will occasionally lose when they should have won but as long as like cases are treated alike fairness is not at issue.


Primarily your argument is flawed as the first person the TD would go to is the dealer.

If the dealer wasn't able to handle it then if one of the players in the hand disagreed with the version of events then the TD wouldn't be able to over rule his memory of the event and so would probably just have to rule the hand dead.

It would help the 'dirtier' players this way but obviously would be fairer then the whole of the rest of the table colluding against him
_________________
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
Joe The Elegance Beevers
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:07 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
fadrus,

I don't think there was a dispute as to whether or not the two players had the right cards here. It doesn't as you assert have to be independent. The two players themselves agreed that they had the right hands. I agree it would be better if the dealer knew what was going on and had seen the cards though but even if he hadn't the TD will often listen to what other players at the table heard and saw.

If they couldn't verify their own hands, and no one else had seen them, then there is a dispute as the whether they had been tabled at all and that is a totally different scenario.

Your 'hedgehog' scenario is based around everyone on one table cheating and colluding against an unpopular person. Everyone except mr Nasty could de disqualified in this spot.
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:26 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Since it will be unanimous, perhaps YATTD could include side questions -

What if they agree on the hand values but can't figure out the correct cards? (I want to say that an approximate match is better than a chop, defaulting to suits combos with the most even equity, but I'm not happy that it is a good robust answer)

What if there is disagreement about hand values?

Also looks like there may be good demand for an article explaining why whether the 'pre-destined' deck is in play for the board cards should make (very little to..) no difference to rulings, strategy or player happiness.
X
Quads


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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:38 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
GhostPirate wrote:
X wrote:
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


I got this bit of my post (the bit you quoted) confused (I am easily confused), so please accept my apologies. The point of my post, however, was that a dealing error should not impede a hand in play, unless it needs to... which I think is the approach that the TD also took.

I was a bit surprised by your [homophobic] insult... it doesn't really cast you in a very favourable light.
_________________
Homer wrote:
Among all creatures that breathe on earth and crawl on it there is not anywhere a thing more dismal than man is
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 4 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