JoeIngram1 video: (MAJOR CONTROVERSY!) 11 Left WSOP Main Event 2019 (1 Viewer)

The issue is not the ruling, that was easy. The issue is how shitty Jack was to the player who acts in bad information.
True. His tone does project it as more of a needle as opposed to saying a call is a call.

It’s too bad the other floor staff didn’t end the situation sooner, they had the right ruling from the get go. Seems like they just keep asking the next guy in line lol.
 
This is one of those instances where a poker player is being a poker player. We whine a lot. Jack explained it several times. He wasn’t really out out of line imo until the third or forth iteration. It was a shitty customer service job but a correct ruling.

It’s ironic that people are calling for “a little empathy” from Jack but are unwilling to give him any for having to deal with this stuff all series long. Before anyone says “Yeah, but that’s his job!” isn’t also the players job to know the rules?
 
Do people really feel bad about Dario getting his feelings hurt when he was trying to get a freeroll ruling? He seemed pretty okay with the situation until the cards were flipped over and then started crying like a baby.

Every poker player knows this rule.
 
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.
 
Regarding the ruling it's correct, the dealer did made a mistake yes, but that's not way that the player take out his call. (Dealer mucking Estelle Denis aces in 2009 was more controversial)
But I think that Jack should had keep his comment to himself.
 
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.

Did you skip the reading of the applicable rule? It was right on point. In our home games, we might allow action to come back if there was a 'gross misunderstanding' of the amount wagered (the SB completes, not realizing the cutoff raised), but this was only a 'misunderstaning' of 30% (you call 17, you call 22) and as you said, once the cards are revealed, the action has to stand.
 
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.
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.

Let’s be completely honest here also and admit the count was super simple. For any poker player let alone someone who makes it to 11 players in the main event this should be like adding 2+2:
973A74E5-216F-4614-8129-D17F7ABDCDA3.jpeg


Just consider the barrel of reds (even has another barrel next to it verifying it is 20 chips) and two stacks of 5 yellows. That right there is 20M.

Notice how every other player (not even in the hand) immediately questioned the count provided by the dealer including the announcers. Dario has the right to be upset regardless (though he didn’t need to snap call after hearing 17) and I’m not conspiracy theorist here but it was a super easy count and his change in tone between when he finds the count is wrong and when he sees the cards... seems a bit fishy.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
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.
Pretty cut and dried here.

Just wondering, would it be same call if dealer did not lay out chips to be visible to Dario (25mil chip left behind stack, etc.)
 
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.

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.

But I think that Jack should had keep his comment to himself.

I'm also not following all the angst at Jack's comment. Everyone is saying it was an opinion/comment on strategy. I didn't hear it like that at all. Just a curt, "you call 17, [so by rule] you call 22." That's how I heard it.

Yea, he probably could've said it more eloquently, but like Joey said, it's been a long summer, and Jack is probably fed up with whiny poker pros.

310795
 
I think that even if "it's been a long summer", as professional you should separate emotion and facts.
"you're calling 17, you're calling 22" is an opinion and he should had keep that comment for himself.
By rule, Dario is calling the ALL IN from Nick which was 22, so again, the fact to mention "17" it make it a comment and not the rule.
"you're not calling 17, you're calling 22" it would have been more appropriated or "by moving forward your stack you're calling the all in" would be exact, but is not what he said.


t3qvm_.gif
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

310870


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.

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.

Again crappy situation which was caused by his inattentiveness but I don't think it could be more clearly spelled out in the rules.
 
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.

One thing I take away from this - I need to read the rules. Watched this happen on the stream and thought they kept saying "accepted action", but had no idea that was a defined concept until Effel mentioned it clearly. o_O
 
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.
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.
 
Player's only safe -- and smart -- recourse is to require that the dealer break down and count out the all-in opponent's stack in such a way that he (the player) can easily verify the count. Merely asking the dealer "How much is it?" is not sufficient, (especially if they are merely echoing what the opponent announced or what the dealer only visually counted with no stack breakdown), nor does it diminish the player's responsibility to know the actual anount of the raise/call in any way. Dario had no one to blame but himself, because he did not take the necessary steps to confirm the actual amount he was calling. He can't physically go to the opponent's stack and break it down and count it himself, but he damn sure can require it be done to his satisfaction before he makes a decision.

And Jack did nothing wrong, imo. Some people are attempting to somehow assign intent to his words, instead of asking him what he meant. Essentially, he merely said 'you called 17k, (and per the rules, that means) you called 22k (too). His phrasing may not be pitch-perfect, but he wasn't giving a running commentary -- he didn't need to in order to back up his ruling, as it was irrelevant.

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.
Makes absolutely no damn difference, as it's still Dario's responsibility to know the actual amount of the bet he is calling.

And in no case whatsoever should he EVER be allowed to change his call decision to a fold -- that's lunacy. Even if the actual call amount was different, he still already called 17k by his own admittance and actions -- those chips are gone and in the pot, and belong to the winner of the hand (whoever it might turn out to be).

But failing to take appropriate and adequate action to ensure he understood the actual bet amount does not get him off the hook for the extra 5k he overlooked.
 
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.
 
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.

+1

If he had a legitimate vision problem he should've mentioned it to the TD before play began, so he could be properly accommodated under ADA guidelines. Bringing it up for the very first time when he's dominated, and slightly embarrassed for making a bad call, is silly.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom