honkydevil
Straight
Interesting situation at the WSOP.
True. His tone does project it as more of a needle as opposed to saying a call is a call.The issue is not the ruling, that was easy. The issue is how shitty Jack was to the player who acts in bad information.
After the cards are exposed, its done. It would be super-unfair to Marchington to allow Dario to take his call back after he sees the QQ.
But had Dario made a stronger objection before the cards were turned over (as he should have), then I think he'd have a
pretty strong case.
Yeah, I get that its the player's responsibility to know the count. But he did, he asked the dealer and the dealer said 17M.
So that's not good enough? Players are not supposed to trust the dealer? He is supposed walked across the table, to double check the stacks and
do his own count. Imagine players doing that every time they don't trust the dealer. That's not good for the game.
If there is no action behind him and no other considerations, Dario should have ( would have should have) been allowed to
rethink his call.
No, the dealers count alone is not good enough. No doubt players should to some extent be able to trust the dealer’s count but they also need to verify it themselves (trust but verify). If he’s unsure on the dealers count, why he would need to get up and walk over either? Just verbalize you think the count is different and ask for the dealer to count again.So that's not good enough? Players are not supposed to trust the dealer? He is supposed walked across the table, to double check the stacks and
do his own count. Imagine players doing that every time they don't trust the dealer. That's not good for the game.
One of the reasons dealers break the chips into groups of 20, 4-5, and odd chips is so that any player can visually count the action to them.So that's not good enough? Players are not supposed to trust the dealer? He is supposed walked across the table, to double check the stacks and do his own count.
Pretty cut and dried here.104. Accepted Action: Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or Participants. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or Participants, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.
But had Dario made a stronger objection before the cards were turned over (as he should have), then I think he'd have a pretty strong case.
But I think that Jack should had keep his comment to himself.
Yes, I agree. But my point was that "IF" he had made an objection before the hand were exposed....What objection? He nodded in agreement when the first floor guy explained that, even though the dealer's count was wrong the ruling is a call of 22.2M.
See: head nod at 3:35 in Joey's video. Almost like Dario is saying "sure, I get it, it's a 22.2M call ... ok."
It's not until he sees he's dominated by QQ that he lodges any kind of protest.
Player's aren't forced to ask dealers for a count in the first place nor at they forced to not bother to count the chips themselves. He's either shifting the blame away from himself for being lazy or inattentive or angling.Yes, I agree. But my point was that "IF" he had made an objection before the hand were exposed....
As it played out, he agrees to the 22M and clearly doesn't get upset and start to argue until after he sees the QQ.
Ruling is correct and straight forward.
But a much more interesting and less clear-cut situation is what I was commenting on and what I'd be interested in
hearing others comments is :
What if Dario had strongly objected to the dealers mistake BEFORE the cards were turned over. What if he would have called
Eiffel down then?
In that situation, (with no action left after him) then I think he has a pretty strong case.
I think the dealer's actions should mean something. Do we really want player's to be forced to ask dealers,
"Are you absolutely sure its 17M?", "Are you super-duper positive?" "Are those stacks of 20?" "Are those yellow chips or beige chips?"
I think he should have the option to take back the 17M and fold if he wants to.
Maybe he still calls but that's not really the point.
104. Accepted Action: Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or Participants. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or Participants, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.
2019 World Series of Poker® Official Tournament Rules
SECTION VI – POKER RULES
62. Count of Opponent’s Chip Stack: Participants are entitled to a reasonable estimation of opponents’ chip stacks. Participants may only request a more precise count if facing an all-in bet. The all-in Participant is not required to count; if he opts not to, the dealer or floor will count it. Accepted action applies.
104. Accepted Action: Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or Participants. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or Participants, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.
Is what I feel when I see his reaction after seeing Q Q.He's either shifting the blame away from himself for being lazy or inattentive
Dario mentions on the broadcast that he can’t see very well. I don’t enough about him, but if there is any true to that, and given that its a really big table by poker standards, and they are as far away as you could be....well then I don’t think we should be quite so harsh.He's either shifting the blame away from himself for being lazy or inattentive or angling.
Let's call a spade a spade... If you can't count this stack within 25% of what it actually is at the second to final table of the WSOP Main Event, you don't belong there.
Again crappy situation which was caused by his inattentiveness but I don't think it could be more clearly spelled out in the rules.
Makes absolutely no damn difference, as it's still Dario's responsibility to know the actual amount of the bet he is calling.my point was that "IF" he had made an objection before the hand were exposed.... a much more interesting and less clear-cut situation is what I was commenting on and what I'd be interested in hearing others comments is :
What if Dario had strongly objected to the dealers mistake BEFORE the cards were turned over. What if he would have called Eiffel down then?
In that situation, (with no action left after him) then I think he has a pretty strong case.
I think he should have the option to take back the 17M and fold if he wants to.
You could be 100% right but I'd put money on my take as:Dario mentions on the broadcast that he can’t see very well. I don’t enough about him, but if there is any true to that, and given that its a really big table by poker standards, and they are as far away as you could be....well then I don’t think we should be quite so harsh.
Either way the rule is completely clear that knowing the action towards you is ultimately the player’s responsibility, so unambiguously he called that all-in.
You could be 100% right but I'd put money on my take as:
1)he only mentioned his "poor eye site" in reaction (in the type of way where a cartoon lightbulb goes off in his head and he sees a possible way out) to one of the staff mentioning that as a possible reason he could get out the situation, just like he only got upset in reaction to seeing he was dominated in the hand
2) there's plenty of eye issues out there I know but very few that result in having trouble seeing 8 ft in an extremely well lit room where a set of corrective lenses wouldn't solve (unless he's saying he's got super super super early onset glaucoma)
3) if his eye sight is apparently so bad he still can't make out that it's over 20M, he would also have a hard time seeing the community cards yet during the onscreen time he's never once asked what one of the cards is nor have I seen him squint once trying to see anything on the table (nor was he squinting when looking at the all-in stacks)
4) even if he isn't completely making up the extent of his poor eyesight then he should still be able to make out the count - see the blurry screen shot I posted where it's still clear it's over 20M
His issue with the miscount and apparent eye issues are just too knee-jerky and convenient for me to give him much benefit of the doubt.
The fact that this a-hole made it to the final 3 tilts me to no end.
Argh, WSOP spoilers