Your mind is obviously already closed, no use discussing...
The false info statement meant extra effort, you clearly made no effort... And MOST tournament rules ie folding, etc are the same as cash game rules..... Maybe you should learn to use the google part....
I was a supporter..... I'm done... Seneca is clearly the winner here...
My mind is wide open to valid, reasonable debate. You provided a reasonable argument (which is better than most did!) and I replied with a breakdown of why I believe the rule you quoted would not be applicable for 3 reasons. I did not say your mind was closed nor did I say you are wrong.
All-Ins MUST be faced in tournaments to protect the interests of all of the players in the tournament (who have a vested interest in every hand that is contested between any two players). In cash games, only the two (or more) players involved in the hand have interest in the hand, and therefore showing down cards is NOT required.
The thread was not about choosing Seneca or another casino to play in. If that is the result you have come to, I can do nothing about it.
This is 100% my last response to this thread. Thank you to everyone that responded without threats to me, without talk of stabbing other humans, without passing judgment on
a casino over one HYPOTHETICAL situation. Your responses are much appreciated as always.
The thread was not about choosing Seneca or another casino to play in. If that is the result you have come to, I can do nothing about it.
Well I made that decision more than a year ago but it was not about a ruling, more about the way two of us were treated by a floor and we hadn't even got on a table at that point.
I am also done with this as we'll just have to agree to disagree and I don't want it to degenerate into more of a flame war than it already has.
Well I made that decision more than a year ago but it was not about a ruling, more about the way two of us were treated by a floor and we hadn't even got on a table at that point.
I am also done with this as we'll just have to agree to disagree and I don't want it to degenerate into more of a flame war than it already has.
Obviously, if you were 100% sure of your ruling there would be no post. I'm guessing that you're looking for something clear cut which indicates your ruling was incorrect. There is no clear cut rule.
But, there is RARELY a clear cut rule in poker. Hence the Robert's rules of poker --- and even those are not "official" rules.
What bothers me most about rulings is inconsistency. I suspect, that was the intention of your ruling. However, I believe your ruling is inconsistent and consistency is impossible when ruling a hand dead. Therefore you need to make the best possible judgement with all the facts in hand and not worry about trying to make it clear that "forward motion towards the muck" means the hand is dead.
The reason I believe it's impossible to be consistent is that there are many expectations which are allowed EVERY day at your casino and every casino. For instance the big blind doesn't post and tosses his hand towards the dealer, only to be told they are the big blind and there is "no muck" and is allowed to retrieve their cards. This doesn't always happen, but it is common. It's very rare that the dealer kills the hand in this situation.
So, many times a player will send his cards towards the muck face down and is able to retrieve them quickly and turn them over. Again, the hand is very rarely killed. The only times I've seen the hand killed is if the player is a nob, and the dealer quickly grabs the hand.
You are correct that the dealer did nothing wrong, but it's really a matter of who had the "faster hands" in grabbing the card. The ruling should not be based on how quickly the player can reach for the card.
Can you kill EVERY hand that has forward motion to the muck and is face down? Absolutely not. If the waitress accidentally hits the players hand and the card moves forward three inches, would the hand be ruled dead? If the player has a spasm, and the cards move forward 3.5 inches, is the hand ruled dead? If the player has use of only one hand (played with someone like that this weekend) and accidentally flips one card over with the other moving forward face down, is the hand rule dead? By your defintion, those hands would be ruled dead. "yuck"
There are so many instances where there is forward motion and the hand is live, that you must allow it to stand live.
There are other precedents to look at. String raises are your example. Someone brings out chips from there stack and counts them near his cards -- this is allowed and he can make multiple motions back to his stack. There are multiple forward motions with the chips and this may be considered a string bet or raise. However, players are allowed to count there chips -- you don't say "multiple forward motions string raise".
The player did not rule their hand dead. You had the opportunity to choose to make the hand live or dead. This was YOUR choice based on what happened. I think it's pretty clear that the hand should be ruled live.
The funny thing about this situation is when i was at FV on the weekend players were still talking about the hand....then i told them there was a debate on a poker forum and they were quite surprised.
Obviously, if you were 100% sure of your ruling there would be no post. I'm guessing that you're looking for something clear cut which indicates your ruling was incorrect. There is no clear cut rule.
But, there is RARELY a clear cut rule in poker. Hence the Robert's rules of poker --- and even those are not "official" rules.
What bothers me most about rulings is inconsistency. I suspect, that was the intention of your ruling. However, I believe your ruling is inconsistent and consistency is impossible when ruling a hand dead. Therefore you need to make the best possible judgement with all the facts in hand and not worry about trying to make it clear that "forward motion towards the muck" means the hand is dead.
The reason I believe it's impossible to be consistent is that there are many expectations which are allowed EVERY day at your casino and every casino. For instance the big blind doesn't post and tosses his hand towards the dealer, only to be told they are the big blind and there is "no muck" and is allowed to retrieve their cards. This doesn't always happen, but it is common. It's very rare that the dealer kills the hand in this situation.
So, many times a player will send his cards towards the muck face down and is able to retrieve them quickly and turn them over. Again, the hand is very rarely killed. The only times I've seen the hand killed is if the player is a nob, and the dealer quickly grabs the hand.
You are correct that the dealer did nothing wrong, but it's really a matter of who had the "faster hands" in grabbing the card. The ruling should not be based on how quickly the player can reach for the card.
Can you kill EVERY hand that has forward motion to the muck and is face down? Absolutely not. If the waitress accidentally hits the players hand and the card moves forward three inches, would the hand be ruled dead? If the player has a spasm, and the cards move forward 3.5 inches, is the hand ruled dead? If the player has use of only one hand (played with someone like that this weekend) and accidentally flips one card over with the other moving forward face down, is the hand rule dead? By your defintion, those hands would be ruled dead. "yuck"
There are so many instances where there is forward motion and the hand is live, that you must allow it to stand live.
There are other precedents to look at. String raises are your example. Someone brings out chips from there stack and counts them near his cards -- this is allowed and he can make multiple motions back to his stack. There are multiple forward motions with the chips and this may be considered a string bet or raise. However, players are allowed to count there chips -- you don't say "multiple forward motions string raise".
The player did not rule their hand dead. You had the opportunity to choose to make the hand live or dead. This was YOUR choice based on what happened. I think it's pretty clear that the hand should be ruled live.
Let me start by saying "This has been a most entertaining thread!"
I have just one question for 13CARDS...
If you're not going to rule this hand live, could you (or can you) describe a situation where you would rule a card live that has been "released, face-down, and with a forward motion". I would be interested in hearing if such a situation exists... and if it doesn't, then why aren't you training staff to scoop and muck these cards immediately?
I personally think it's a terrible ruling... not one I would tolerate even if you were able to be universally consistent in applying... which I doubt you (as a room) can be.
My wife and I are planning a trip to Niagara Falls soon... to play poker... and we had planned to check out all 3 casinos in the area... I won't say this thread will keep us away... but it will likely put you lower in the order!
As far as I can see, there hasn't been a single one in this thread.
I believe a post from 800over (sp?) has been removed. If I am correct he referred to the OP as a (short form of the name) "Richard". That may be what Graham is referencing. If I am mistaken please ignore this post.
As far as I can see, there hasn't been a single one in this thread.
There were a couple that kind of took it too far and I removed them after they were reported to me and notified the posters.
This has defintely been an interesting post and though I may not agree with the outcome, if these were actual house rules that were violated the OP was technically just doing their job. For that, I think we should try to avoid personal attacks whether or not we agree with their decision.
This may or may not have been a tough moral dilema for the OP but by posting it here I believe that the OP is questioning his decision and was looking to hear how the community felt about it.
I would like to know how the OP would feel though being in the player's shoes if this were a rule that you did not know about. Would you agree with the house decision?
I heard that somebody got censored and got here as fast as I could.
(Live FTW!)
Does the forum page out to you automatically? I was wondering what happened to you? Back from the vacation?
As I have always said, personal attacks will not be allowed.
It is one thing to say "you are an ass" but sexual/homophobic type jokes are what I consider taking it too far. If you have a problem with someone, say it directly to them, not on a public message board.
This may or may not have been a tough moral dilema for the OP but by posting it here I believe that the OP is questioning his decision and was looking to hear how the community felt about it.
Graham, do you even read the threads anymore or is it just continuous shilling to attempt to get more pageviews?
OP was looking for a big internet hug and got his feelings hurt because he's just plain 'ol wrong.
Graham, do you even read the threads anymore or is it just continuous shilling to attempt to get more pageviews?
OP was looking for a big internet hug and got his feelings hurt because he's just plain 'ol wrong.
I did read it all, but I also think there is more to the story than what's posted. If he thought he was going to get a "big internet hug" he must have been drinking when he posted it.
I just got back from Vegas last night. The rules are posted in the Flamingo poker room and rule #1 is the spirit of the game rule. It's probably like that in other rooms too.
I think that this is a clear example of when it should be applied.
If you flipped over the second card and someone complained, you could explain that it was the players clear intention to call and the card accidentally turned over, cite your "spirit" rule, and move on.
Poker rules are there to keep the game fair. In my opinion, that was not a fair decision.
P.S. I too would also give the player half the pot if I was the other winning player and the king was shown.
I just got back from Vegas last night. The rules are posted in the Flamingo poker room and rule #1 is the spirit of the game rule. It's probably like that in other rooms too.
I think that this is a clear example of when it should be applied.
If you flipped over the second card and someone complained, you could explain that it was the players clear intention to call and the card accidentally turned over, cite your "spirit" rule, and move on.
Poker rules are there to keep the game fair. In my opinion, that was not a fair decision.
P.S. I too would also give the player half the pot if I was the other winning player and the king was shown.
I completely agree with the quoted text. I would rule the hand dead in the following circumstances: a. one (or both) of his cards went into a live hand, b. one (or both) of his cards went off the table, c. one (or both) of his cards hit the muck facedown.
And of those cases, I would consider reversing the dead hand in case c. if it was abundantly clear which card(s) were his.
So I can't find a reason not to flip over his other card which is obviously his card and award a split pot.
I think after the RC we may need to have a PF.ca members <word removed at the request of GTA Poker> tournament.
QUOTE] errr, 90% of the Royal cuppers are PF.CA members. And I'm with whomever said about getting back on topic. There was a topic? We need a topic? Who the hell woulda known...?
Comments
My mind is wide open to valid, reasonable debate. You provided a reasonable argument (which is better than most did!) and I replied with a breakdown of why I believe the rule you quoted would not be applicable for 3 reasons. I did not say your mind was closed nor did I say you are wrong.
All-Ins MUST be faced in tournaments to protect the interests of all of the players in the tournament (who have a vested interest in every hand that is contested between any two players). In cash games, only the two (or more) players involved in the hand have interest in the hand, and therefore showing down cards is NOT required.
The thread was not about choosing Seneca or another casino to play in. If that is the result you have come to, I can do nothing about it.
This is 100% my last response to this thread. Thank you to everyone that responded without threats to me, without talk of stabbing other humans, without passing judgment on
a casino over one HYPOTHETICAL situation. Your responses are much appreciated as always.
I am also done with this as we'll just have to agree to disagree and I don't want it to degenerate into more of a flame war than it already has.
I'm pretty sure you won...gg sir
But, there is RARELY a clear cut rule in poker. Hence the Robert's rules of poker --- and even those are not "official" rules.
What bothers me most about rulings is inconsistency. I suspect, that was the intention of your ruling. However, I believe your ruling is inconsistent and consistency is impossible when ruling a hand dead. Therefore you need to make the best possible judgement with all the facts in hand and not worry about trying to make it clear that "forward motion towards the muck" means the hand is dead.
The reason I believe it's impossible to be consistent is that there are many expectations which are allowed EVERY day at your casino and every casino. For instance the big blind doesn't post and tosses his hand towards the dealer, only to be told they are the big blind and there is "no muck" and is allowed to retrieve their cards. This doesn't always happen, but it is common. It's very rare that the dealer kills the hand in this situation.
So, many times a player will send his cards towards the muck face down and is able to retrieve them quickly and turn them over. Again, the hand is very rarely killed. The only times I've seen the hand killed is if the player is a nob, and the dealer quickly grabs the hand.
You are correct that the dealer did nothing wrong, but it's really a matter of who had the "faster hands" in grabbing the card. The ruling should not be based on how quickly the player can reach for the card.
Can you kill EVERY hand that has forward motion to the muck and is face down? Absolutely not. If the waitress accidentally hits the players hand and the card moves forward three inches, would the hand be ruled dead? If the player has a spasm, and the cards move forward 3.5 inches, is the hand ruled dead? If the player has use of only one hand (played with someone like that this weekend) and accidentally flips one card over with the other moving forward face down, is the hand rule dead? By your defintion, those hands would be ruled dead. "yuck"
There are so many instances where there is forward motion and the hand is live, that you must allow it to stand live.
There are other precedents to look at. String raises are your example. Someone brings out chips from there stack and counts them near his cards -- this is allowed and he can make multiple motions back to his stack. There are multiple forward motions with the chips and this may be considered a string bet or raise. However, players are allowed to count there chips -- you don't say "multiple forward motions string raise".
The player did not rule their hand dead. You had the opportunity to choose to make the hand live or dead. This was YOUR choice based on what happened. I think it's pretty clear that the hand should be ruled live.
Cheers
Magi
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
Spot on!!! Excellent Post.
/g2
I have just one question for 13CARDS...
If you're not going to rule this hand live, could you (or can you) describe a situation where you would rule a card live that has been "released, face-down, and with a forward motion". I would be interested in hearing if such a situation exists... and if it doesn't, then why aren't you training staff to scoop and muck these cards immediately?
I personally think it's a terrible ruling... not one I would tolerate even if you were able to be universally consistent in applying... which I doubt you (as a room) can be.
My wife and I are planning a trip to Niagara Falls soon... to play poker... and we had planned to check out all 3 casinos in the area... I won't say this thread will keep us away... but it will likely put you lower in the order!
As far as I can see, there hasn't been a single one in this thread.
I believe a post from 800over (sp?) has been removed. If I am correct he referred to the OP as a (short form of the name) "Richard". That may be what Graham is referencing. If I am mistaken please ignore this post.
There were a couple that kind of took it too far and I removed them after they were reported to me and notified the posters.
This has defintely been an interesting post and though I may not agree with the outcome, if these were actual house rules that were violated the OP was technically just doing their job. For that, I think we should try to avoid personal attacks whether or not we agree with their decision.
This may or may not have been a tough moral dilema for the OP but by posting it here I believe that the OP is questioning his decision and was looking to hear how the community felt about it.
I would like to know how the OP would feel though being in the player's shoes if this were a rule that you did not know about. Would you agree with the house decision?
(Live FTW!)
Does the forum page out to you automatically? I was wondering what happened to you? Back from the vacation?
As I have always said, personal attacks will not be allowed.
It is one thing to say "you are an ass" but sexual/homophobic type jokes are what I consider taking it too far. If you have a problem with someone, say it directly to them, not on a public message board.
When you know the next card is a spade but hasn't come out yet.
Graham, do you even read the threads anymore or is it just continuous shilling to attempt to get more pageviews?
OP was looking for a big internet hug and got his feelings hurt because he's just plain 'ol wrong.
Oh MAN
Royal Cup could get REALLY interesting if too many people follow THAT advice....
Mark
I did read it all, but I also think there is more to the story than what's posted. If he thought he was going to get a "big internet hug" he must have been drinking when he posted it.
I think after the RC we may need to have a PF.ca members <word removed at the request of GTA Poker> tournament.
Okay... I digress... lets get back on topic.
I just got back from Vegas last night. The rules are posted in the Flamingo poker room and rule #1 is the spirit of the game rule. It's probably like that in other rooms too.
I think that this is a clear example of when it should be applied.
If you flipped over the second card and someone complained, you could explain that it was the players clear intention to call and the card accidentally turned over, cite your "spirit" rule, and move on.
Poker rules are there to keep the game fair. In my opinion, that was not a fair decision.
P.S. I too would also give the player half the pot if I was the other winning player and the king was shown.
I find this suggestion of violence offensive, please remove
Done as per your request.
Now lets get back on topic.
I completely agree with the quoted text. I would rule the hand dead in the following circumstances: a. one (or both) of his cards went into a live hand, b. one (or both) of his cards went off the table, c. one (or both) of his cards hit the muck facedown.
And of those cases, I would consider reversing the dead hand in case c. if it was abundantly clear which card(s) were his.
So I can't find a reason not to flip over his other card which is obviously his card and award a split pot.