Again, I use the string-raise example to show that "intent" cannot always be considered when a player's "actions" (or the result of said actions) do not correspond and do not fall within the "rules" surrounding the action (or the result of said action).
But they cannot always be ignored.
This thread has gotten way out of hand.
Is it hard to understand that a player holding the nuts...
...who may have gotten a little excited due to the pot size...
...who throws his hand down and has 1 card fall face down...
... and who then tries to reach out and turn that card back over...
...MAY BE TRYING TO TABLE HIS HAND!!!
Strict interpretation of the written rules can lead to angle-shooters screaming for rulings over the tiniest little abnormality... Good luck with that!!
Here's how it should have went down...
Floor (upon arriving): "What's the story here?"
Dealer: ...explains situation
Floor (to seat 8.): "What were you trying to do sir?"
Seat 8: "Trying to table my AK... I got a little excited... then the dealer tries to stop me from turning my card over."
Floor: "Hand's live... let him turn it over... (pause)... OK... chop it up."
Floor (to all at table): "Please table your cards in front of you, don't toss them in the middle of the table. It saves us all some time and energy... and me a lot of paper work. Thank-you!"
I think a major flaw in your argument 13cards regarding the two scenarios (tabling example vs. string raising example) once again lies in intent.
Not however the intent to commit the action so much as in the intentionality of their action. Allow me to explain.
A person who wishes to raise - as I'm sure all of us have at some point - can out of ignorance verbal a string bet. The whole "I see your $x, and raise $y more" has been done on television and movie poker scenes too numerous to count. However, this person is acting out of ignorance to the rules and procedures of the game, and if he is intending to play a game, he does have some responsibility to know the rules.
The "tabling" example however, is different in that the person is INTENDING to flip his cards over, but neither through ignorance or angle shooting, but rather simple klutziness / physics / muscle spasm, what have you, made an error. However, unlike in the string raise scenario, this person cannot possibly (especially in your original example) be said to be acting completely out of ignorance for the rules, but rather seems more likely to have made an "honest" mistake.
I have thought on this for some time now, and I think what I've said here is the fundamental problem here. Rules are there to ensure a fair and balanced game that runs smoothly. The "spirit of the game" clause is there to take into account the differences between your two examples. We're all human, and we all make mistakes, in this situation, seat #8 made a simple mistake, not out of malice, not out of an intention to gain advantage (or even open up the potential for some advantage), but out of human error - just as you did in this scenario 13cards.
in this situation, seat #8 made a simple mistake, not out of malice, not out of an intention to gain advantage (or even open up the potential for some advantage), but out of human error - just as you did in this scenario 13cards.
numerous times in this thread you have requested reasoned responses... between our chats both here and via PM I have provided numerous examples not only of hypothetical misinterpretations, but also most recently in what I felt was an excellent example and explanation (using your own scenarios no less) of the why behind the nearly 5:1 ratio of people who say you erred.
You responded to me with assurances... I request a reasoned and logical counterpoint to my explanation. Upon review of the OP, the only possible way you can assure that you made no respect is either you have information to which the rest of us are not privy, or there is restrictions and limits to the decision making abilities bestowed on your position by the management. If *I* have made a mistake, please tell me!
You just made another one, by failing to admit you were wrong. It has become clear to me (as a result of this Thread) that you have little grasp of what customer relations is truly supposed to be about.
I think it is all a scam...13cards is obv cpf buck whoring
Actually Kristy (via ItsaMe), this may be 13cards proper response to your epic thread a couple months back regarding asshole things you've done at a poker table. I think if I was a player at the table I would have dropped a good GFY on him too.
Just in case I ever have a complete brain meltdown could someone please explain the process to get self-banned from Fallsview casino? Better safe than sorry.
Just in case I ever have a complete brain meltdown could someone please explain the process to get self-banned from Fallsview casino? Better safe than sorry.
No, no. Not DrTyore banned. I want them to prevent me ever from walking in the place and if they do, then I can countersue their asses after I cause a workplace injury.
It is quite possible for your ruling to have been correct. If the card was indeed in the middle of the table, your ruling is definitely correct.
I think the general negativity & hostility (well, that's how I interpret most people's responses here) towards the situation (and to a lesser extent your role as the floor @ Fallsview) is based on your stance that your ruling is indisputable according to "the rules" of poker.
Like it or not, you cannot fully convey what transpired in a couple of paragraphs...so, to some degree, we are incapable of making a ruling with the same information that you had. Furthermore, I would sincerely hope that you don't believe that rulings SHOULD be made based on a two paragraph abstraction of a scenario. Potentially controversial issues such as "intent", "honest mistakes", and "latitude" are relevant in making the decision. They may not be able to override a particular rule (e.g. "I call and raise you $x"), but they are relevant. If this were not true, judges should simply receive a written report (no more than 3 pages) from both sides and make all decisions, regardless of magnitude, based on the report.
So, 13CARDS, suppose the situation happened as MickeyHoldem described. The dealer's explanation nor the position of the facedown card was not condemning and seat #8 explained he was merely trying to table his cards. Based on that information, how would you rule?
13cards... I have given you 2 days to respond, and have presented what I feel makes the best case argument for this hand (post #154). Coupled with a side argument I presented in PM's with you regarding the fact that due to your establishment's poker tables not having distinct betting / action lines means that "forward motion" does somewhat become an arbitrary judgment call versus a definitive "muck / folded hand area".
Further, I requested a reasoned and logical response, I received "assurances". I can only say one thing.
I am disappointed.
You are in a very unique position, one that I feel could really allow us "regular players" the opportunity to get an inside look at a different side of this game we love. Your decisions here however, coupled with the way in which you have handled feedback has negated these benefits. You have a way of thinking, a routine that has become both your protection and your cage. Nobody can approach you, but you are trapped.
However, I will provide you with one more bit of information that may help.... it sounds like an insult, but read it and understand it, and it may just change your life....
I think both rulings would be valid. Rules are rules, but they also have to be brief. This is also why the rule would exist that the floor managers ruling is final. But this should also mean, just as with the law, your case should be heard by the floor manager, the circumstances weighed and a fair decision made.
I think the proper and fair ruling is to keep the hand live.
The reasoning is pretty obvious:
1) There is no race line (bet-line) on the table (this crap I read once and a while about it being a line to make it easier for the dealers to reach chips is silly. It's a line for the dealers allright, to know what hands are mucked, and to easily recognize betting and string betting.)
2) The face down card did not touch the muck
3) The guy had the nuts. Knew he had the nuts. No way was his intention to fold.
4) He tried to correct the mistake instantly.
Beyond this ruling, the fact that FV still has session fees and actually has a rule about standing up in an all-in situation with a 500xBB pot is ridiculous. If it's these odd rules (forward motion, no race line, standing up) that caused the ruling, my opinion would be it's time to change the rules.
I also think if I was the player who was ruled in favor of, I would demand the ruled mucked card be shown and ask the other players at the table if it was okay to chop the pot with the guy. I would feel a little dirty taking down that whole pot, in this situation. That said, if the casino refused to turn the card over (which in this ruling, it had better refuse to take the pressure off the winning player) I would not chop.
No, no. Not DrTyore banned. I want them to prevent me ever from walking in the place and if they do, then I can countersue their asses after I cause a workplace injury.
Go to the security cage fill out a form they take a picture and you are banned for 6 months. Problem is they ban you from all OLG casinos. I did this about 8 yrs ago.
No, no. Not DrTyore banned. I want them to prevent me ever from walking in the place and if they do, then I can countersue their asses after I cause a workplace injury.
Go to the security cage fill out a form they take a picture and you are banned for 6 months. Problem is they ban you from all OLG casinos. I did this about 8 yrs ago.
2 players are all in on the river.
Player A calmly tables the nut straight.
Player B slams his cards down... one of them bounces off the table. He picks it up and puts it on the table showing the nut straight.
2 players are all in on the river.
Player A calmly tables the nut straight.
Player B slams his cards down... one of them bounces off the table. He picks it up and puts it on the table showing the nut straight.
Player A gets the whole pot.
Where was this? At FV. Please note this is not the same thing, in your case a card left the table...
I think thats why he added "pretty much same thing"... but in this case the guy is pretty dumb for slamming his cards down hard enough that they could go flying off the table.
2 players are all in on the river.
Player A calmly tables the nut straight.
Player B slams his cards down... one of them bounces off the table. He picks it up and puts it on the table showing the nut straight.
Comments
Any comment re the rest of that post or just on the last line?
But they cannot always be ignored.
This thread has gotten way out of hand.
Is it hard to understand that a player holding the nuts...
...who may have gotten a little excited due to the pot size...
...who throws his hand down and has 1 card fall face down...
... and who then tries to reach out and turn that card back over...
...MAY BE TRYING TO TABLE HIS HAND!!!
Strict interpretation of the written rules can lead to angle-shooters screaming for rulings over the tiniest little abnormality... Good luck with that!!
Here's how it should have went down...
Floor (upon arriving): "What's the story here?"
Dealer: ...explains situation
Floor (to seat 8.): "What were you trying to do sir?"
Seat 8: "Trying to table my AK... I got a little excited... then the dealer tries to stop me from turning my card over."
Floor: "Hand's live... let him turn it over... (pause)... OK... chop it up."
Floor (to all at table): "Please table your cards in front of you, don't toss them in the middle of the table. It saves us all some time and energy... and me a lot of paper work. Thank-you!"
Not however the intent to commit the action so much as in the intentionality of their action. Allow me to explain.
A person who wishes to raise - as I'm sure all of us have at some point - can out of ignorance verbal a string bet. The whole "I see your $x, and raise $y more" has been done on television and movie poker scenes too numerous to count. However, this person is acting out of ignorance to the rules and procedures of the game, and if he is intending to play a game, he does have some responsibility to know the rules.
The "tabling" example however, is different in that the person is INTENDING to flip his cards over, but neither through ignorance or angle shooting, but rather simple klutziness / physics / muscle spasm, what have you, made an error. However, unlike in the string raise scenario, this person cannot possibly (especially in your original example) be said to be acting completely out of ignorance for the rules, but rather seems more likely to have made an "honest" mistake.
I have thought on this for some time now, and I think what I've said here is the fundamental problem here. Rules are there to ensure a fair and balanced game that runs smoothly. The "spirit of the game" clause is there to take into account the differences between your two examples. We're all human, and we all make mistakes, in this situation, seat #8 made a simple mistake, not out of malice, not out of an intention to gain advantage (or even open up the potential for some advantage), but out of human error - just as you did in this scenario 13cards.
Mark
I assure you, sir, that I made no mistake.
13cards...
numerous times in this thread you have requested reasoned responses... between our chats both here and via PM I have provided numerous examples not only of hypothetical misinterpretations, but also most recently in what I felt was an excellent example and explanation (using your own scenarios no less) of the why behind the nearly 5:1 ratio of people who say you erred.
You responded to me with assurances... I request a reasoned and logical counterpoint to my explanation. Upon review of the OP, the only possible way you can assure that you made no respect is either you have information to which the rest of us are not privy, or there is restrictions and limits to the decision making abilities bestowed on your position by the management. If *I* have made a mistake, please tell me!
Mark
Note to self (again): LOG ITSAME OUT THEN POST
Kristy
I'm not
Actually Kristy (via ItsaMe), this may be 13cards proper response to your epic thread a couple months back regarding asshole things you've done at a poker table.
Just in case I ever have a complete brain meltdown could someone please explain the process to get self-banned from Fallsview casino? Better safe than sorry.
Stand-up during a hand obv.
No, no. Not DrTyore banned. I want them to prevent me ever from walking in the place and if they do, then I can countersue their asses after I cause a workplace injury.
I think the general negativity & hostility (well, that's how I interpret most people's responses here) towards the situation (and to a lesser extent your role as the floor @ Fallsview) is based on your stance that your ruling is indisputable according to "the rules" of poker.
Like it or not, you cannot fully convey what transpired in a couple of paragraphs...so, to some degree, we are incapable of making a ruling with the same information that you had. Furthermore, I would sincerely hope that you don't believe that rulings SHOULD be made based on a two paragraph abstraction of a scenario. Potentially controversial issues such as "intent", "honest mistakes", and "latitude" are relevant in making the decision. They may not be able to override a particular rule (e.g. "I call and raise you $x"), but they are relevant. If this were not true, judges should simply receive a written report (no more than 3 pages) from both sides and make all decisions, regardless of magnitude, based on the report.
So, 13CARDS, suppose the situation happened as MickeyHoldem described. The dealer's explanation nor the position of the facedown card was not condemning and seat #8 explained he was merely trying to table his cards. Based on that information, how would you rule?
- Mark
13cards... I have given you 2 days to respond, and have presented what I feel makes the best case argument for this hand (post #154). Coupled with a side argument I presented in PM's with you regarding the fact that due to your establishment's poker tables not having distinct betting / action lines means that "forward motion" does somewhat become an arbitrary judgment call versus a definitive "muck / folded hand area".
Further, I requested a reasoned and logical response, I received "assurances". I can only say one thing.
I am disappointed.
You are in a very unique position, one that I feel could really allow us "regular players" the opportunity to get an inside look at a different side of this game we love. Your decisions here however, coupled with the way in which you have handled feedback has negated these benefits. You have a way of thinking, a routine that has become both your protection and your cage. Nobody can approach you, but you are trapped.
However, I will provide you with one more bit of information that may help.... it sounds like an insult, but read it and understand it, and it may just change your life....
You broke the WIZARD'S FIRST RULE
Mark
I think the proper and fair ruling is to keep the hand live.
The reasoning is pretty obvious:
1) There is no race line (bet-line) on the table (this crap I read once and a while about it being a line to make it easier for the dealers to reach chips is silly. It's a line for the dealers allright, to know what hands are mucked, and to easily recognize betting and string betting.)
2) The face down card did not touch the muck
3) The guy had the nuts. Knew he had the nuts. No way was his intention to fold.
4) He tried to correct the mistake instantly.
Beyond this ruling, the fact that FV still has session fees and actually has a rule about standing up in an all-in situation with a 500xBB pot is ridiculous. If it's these odd rules (forward motion, no race line, standing up) that caused the ruling, my opinion would be it's time to change the rules.
I also think if I was the player who was ruled in favor of, I would demand the ruled mucked card be shown and ask the other players at the table if it was okay to chop the pot with the guy. I would feel a little dirty taking down that whole pot, in this situation. That said, if the casino refused to turn the card over (which in this ruling, it had better refuse to take the pressure off the winning player) I would not chop.
Go to the security cage fill out a form they take a picture and you are banned for 6 months. Problem is they ban you from all OLG casinos. I did this about 8 yrs ago.
Go to the security cage fill out a form they take a picture and you are banned for 6 months. Problem is they ban you from all OLG casinos. I did this about 8 yrs ago.
2 players are all in on the river.
Player A calmly tables the nut straight.
Player B slams his cards down... one of them bounces off the table. He picks it up and puts it on the table showing the nut straight.
Player A gets the whole pot.
Can you please post some more rules?
It would be most helpful to know the rules to the game I'm betting money on.
Did this happen at FV, or another casino?
In a cash game can you expose a card from your hand to get a read on a player?