Fallsview or 13Cards... Question on ruling.

Voodoo

$160 Satellite this past Wednesday.

Here is the sequence that led to my question. Seat 2 has been given a 8 hand penalty (for exposing cards before a hand is over) and is sitting out.

Now for the hand in question (Button is seat 2) The hand is dealt and first 2 players muck then next player bets out 350 and action is on me, but before I can call or reraise (holding KK) the floor supervisor stops the dealer and action at the table and declares a misdeal because Seat 2 (the button and player that was penalized) had not been dealt cards. The original raiser argued that action had been initiated therefore a misdeal is not an option.

So my question is... Was that a proper ruling and which rules does your pokerroom abide by? I was reading Roberts Rules and they state that there cannot be a misdeal when there has been action by two players.

The fact I had a very decent hand to reraise is of no concern to me here, but knowing the proper rule and ruling decision is. Let me know please and again I don't know the floormans name but will begin taking note of it. The time of the satellite if that helps was 3:20pm.

Thanks in advance.

ScoobyD

Just on gut alone, killing a hand where action has already taken place is a big nono IMO.

ScoobyD

The floor was correct in that there SHOULD have been a misdeal because Seat 2 was entitled to a hand (maybe). But the fact that action had already occured forfeits the ability to call the misdeal.

Robert's Rules:

Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button game, action is considered to occur when two players after the blind have acted on their hands.

Fallsview

Hey Voodoo,

First of all, sorry for the error by missing the spot. The ruling was correct, sucks that you had Kings, but you wouldn't have had them if the hand was dealt out correctly. I appreciate you calmness about the situation, some may not have been as courteous.

It should have been caught sooner, it wasn't, so we turn to the rules of the Poker Tournament Directors Association which we follow, but can't officially say as much. Rule #30 (under Verbal Declaration) covers the definiton of "action". The rule states that a "check, call, or fold is not considered action changing". If you had raised before the Supervisor had stepped in, the hand would have played out as normal. Two decisions of "action" would validate the hand, one does not. Regardless of the fact that the missed spot was on a penalty, he has paid to recieve cards, to keep the integrity of the hands the hand is declared dead.

No one was hurt, the other guy probably would have sucked out on your Kings anyway. ??? I hope you ended up winning the satellite, if not, I hope everything else was a good experience.

ScoobyD

The rule states that a "check, call, or fold is not considered action changing".

This doesn't correspond to the "standard" definition of action at all.

So, according to your description of "action", the entire table could limp in, Hero could even raise, and everyone could call, and 2 "actions" wouldn't have taken place?

A misdeal cannot take place on 2 "actions", not 2 "action changing" events (ie. bets and/or raises). I strongly think your interpretation of "action" is wrong.

BlondeFish

Agreed. TDA Rule #30 refers to Verbal Declarations, not the definition of "action."

Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.

In Voodoo's case, since more than two players have already acted, I would use Rule #1 that it is in the best interest of the game and fairness to let the hand continue instead of retroactively calling a misdeal. My 2¢.

ScoobyD wrote: »

I strongly think your interpretation of "action" is wrong.

Fallsview

There is definitely arguments for both sides. Citing rule #1, I believe the decision that was made was in the best interest of the game due to the fact that the cards were not dealt in the proper order. In the hand as stated, Voodoo definitely would have re-raised (right Voodoo?), could have faced an all-in, etc, etc. Someone could have definitely been hurt or probably eliminated, since it was a satellite, all from cards that should not have been in that order. I understand your arguments as well, however, I believe that the proper cards were not there and we had an opportunity to stop the hand before a clash is the right decision. To put it another way to everybody, if you were Voodoo and came over the top with Kings, ran into Aces and were eliminated, would you not have a bigger issue/problem with the hand being played out at that point? I would sleep easier losing my Kings knowing that they would not have been mine if the hand were proper to begin with.

Dealer errors are never easy to fix but if we are able to correct the issue with stacks being minimally affected, if at all, as a player and a Manager I believe that is the right decision.

Voodoo

Thanks for the feedback on this gang. Although I wasn't bothered and rarely get upset because I have played enough to know this happens, what I do want to know is if the proper rule was enforced. Sure I would have reraised or if memory serves correct I was ready to move allin (only had about 1100) so regardless of the outcome of the hand it wouldn't have bothered me, what would bother me is if the wrong rule was enforced and I lost because of it.

It would upset me if I am there next week and the same things happens but the hand is allowed to be played out.

Voodoo

I think I have figured out the only way to win one of these satellites and that is to DONKEY your way through, which is exactly what I did and it took me 5 hands to win my $1200 seat.

Donkey Play #1 ... Blinds at 50/100 and with 2 limpers I move ALLIN with AQ off for 1150 chips and get 1 caller with A 10 off and the board bricks out.

Donkey Play #2 ... Blinds at 100/200 and UTG pushes ALLIN for 750 and CO pushes ALLIN for 700... I am big blind and look down at J 9 off and decide I am in great shape to call. UTG has 89 and CO has A 6... flop is Jack high and bricks outs giving me the pop.

Donkey Play #3 .... Blinds at 100/200 and another UTG raises to 700 and its folded to me... I have A 5 off in the SB.. So I figure I should call the raise out of position and see a flop.. flop is A Q 10 and I check and he bets 600 and I reraise ALLIN figuring my 5 kicker is huge... he calls and shows K 7 (wtf?) and board bricks out and we are now 3 handed.

Donkey Play #4 ... Blinds are still 100/200 with 25 ante, I have 7600 in chips, the guy in second has 3650 and 3rd has 750. I am small blind and the guy with the 2nd stack moves ALLIN from the button, not sure why when we have a short stack but the Donkey in me doesn't care since I look down and see AJ and figure a coin flip is a great play. So I call .. the BB gets out of the way and the button shows me 87 off... I flop an A and when the board bricks out I am heads up.

Heads up lasted a hand when my 77 held up.

Seriously though, I never had a pair until that hand and never needed one, I basically tossed aside any strategy I have used for sit n go's in the past and played reckless. My table didn't have any Niagara regulars and was easily the worst group of players I have seen play and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

westside8

Congrats on the win Voodoo. I wish I can say the same, but in the satellite I played in...there was easily 3-4 regulars I recognized (granted, I don't go there alot and I still recognize them), and also 1 player that has placed 2nd 6 times...and I was playing the $90 step 1...

beanie42

Fallsview wrote: »

Rule #30 (under Verbal Declaration) covers the definiton of "action". The rule states that a "check, call, or fold is not considered action changing".

ScoobyD wrote: »

This doesn't correspond to the "standard" definition of action at all.

BlondeFish wrote: »

Agreed. TDA Rule #30 refers to Verbal Declarations, not the definition of "action."

Blondefish - I thought the same thing - this makes no sense - but I decided to check it out before replying. Fallsview is totally correct - rule 30 is exactly as he stated. I dislike the rule (strongly, since it's counter-intuitive and contrary to the common definition) but totally agree with the ruling (since this is what is clearly written). Good job Fallsview (and staff).

However:

Fallsview wrote: »

It should have been caught sooner, it wasn't, so we turn to the rules of the Poker Tournament Directors Association which we follow, but can't officially say as much.

Fallsview - why can't you "officially say as much"? Are the rules you follow clearly posted, or are they available upon request (specfically, prior to the tournament)?

BlondeFish

What TDA Rule #30 is saying is that an action out of turn is binding unless the action to that player is subsequently changed by a bet or raise. If player B declared a raise out of turn, and player A before him decides to check, call or fold, then player B is obligated to stick to his raise. If player A raises instead, then player B's out-of-turn raise is not necessarily binding.

30 Verbal Declarations- Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding and will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call, or fold is not considered action-changing.

TDA's Verbal Declaration rule has nothing to do with its Misdeal rule (#27) or Voodoo's incident. If you are getting confused by the use of the word "action," see TDA Rule #38:

38 Action Pending- Players must remain at the table if they still have action pending on a hand.

Obviously, "action" includes a check, call or fold, not just a bet or raise.

beanie42 wrote: »

I dislike the rule (strongly, since it's counter-intuitive and contrary to the common definition) but totally agree with the ruling (since this is what is clearly written).
:
Fallsview - why can't you "officially say as much"? Are the rules you follow clearly posted, or are they available upon request (specfically, prior to the tournament)?

Good question.

Fallsview

All of our rules require submission and approvals from the Gaming Commission. We can't say that we use a set of rules that we have no control over when they change. I submit our rules based on the current TDA rules, if they change I need to submit and receive approvals - not always a short process. In essence, we use TDA rules based on my submissions, but technically we use Ontario Gaming Commission rules.

As for the ruling, I still believe that if an opportunity is there to stop a hand that is not proper before any major action, it should be done.

Congratulations Voodoo, good luck in the $1200.

MidnightMike

I dont even have words to comment. Opps I thought internet play was bad. So sad to see that a live game can go so poorly managed. Like I said I dont even want to comment, but you know its a load of crap Fallsview.

NegMike