Poker rulings opinions (1 Viewer)

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
15,634
Reaction score
30,786
Location
Nashville-ish
I was going to respond but BGinGA hit on every point I wanted to make.

So to add, I would recommend the use of All-in plaques or buttons. One big enough to be noticed. It always catches attention, and in if that player still misses out, tough luck.

As I often tell my players when "following the letter of the law", it's best to make the mistake in a low-stakes friendly game than it is in a higher cost casino poker game.
 

rustycheerio

Two Pair
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
304
Reaction score
272
Location
south florida
as a dealer-
1. tournament rules are usually extremely strict and 'there's no take backs'.
all in button should be thrown, even if it's not it's a players job to know what's going on even if the dealer makes a mistake. 1 chip is always a call, if this happened in cash, almost every time is call floor and they'd likely rule it as a keep the chip in but you can fold.
2. no burn card, and the players hand is dead. if the player has 5 cards the burn card is already out there. the cards should be put out as they would normally.
 

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
15,634
Reaction score
30,786
Location
Nashville-ish
2. no burn card, and the players hand is dead. if the player has 5 cards the burn card is already out there. the cards should be put out as they would normally.
As Dave points out, the purpose of the burn card is to cover the top card of the deck, to conceal the top card in case of accidental (or intentional) marking. It is not to "preserve the order of the deck". Although this is a cash game, the TDA revamped one of their rules this year. There is no "order of the deck". The default phrase now is: "random is random"
 

rustycheerio

Two Pair
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
304
Reaction score
272
Location
south florida
As Dave points out, the purpose of the burn card is to cover the top card of the deck, to conceal the top card in case of accidental (or intentional) marking. It is not to "preserve the order of the deck". Although this is a cash game, the TDA revamped one of their rules this year. There is no "order of the deck". The default phrase now is: "random is random"
that makes sense. in my room i feel that is what would be ruled. now that i know the history of the burn card it makes more sense. id still go with the order of the deck, though.
 

timinater

Flush
Site Vendor
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
3,823
Location
SESKATCHWAN

AcesUp907

Pair
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
117
Reaction score
79
Location
99508
I have another scenario for you guys.
Setting : Tournament (2 tables) $100 rebuy

Player A goes all-in on the river and Player B begins to tank. There is 678Clubs and 10 of clubs on the board. Player B has the King of clubs and is considering the call. Player B starts to talk and says “you could have the straight flush” and a player C who already folded says “no, I had it”

Player B makes the call after and wins the hand. Player A is rightfully pissed off and demands and house call.

What do you think the right thing to do at that point is? I believer there is no recourse for player A and for player C?? What type of penalty?
 

SmiLee

New Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2022
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Location
Vancouver, WA
Opinion of a person just earning their 3 posts level...
#1: Depends on the game, a home game or friendlier game which is most of the groups I'm fortunate enough to play in would slide. At most cost the calling chip, a few games are too loose and would even let them get off with no call at all. In a cutthroat "by the book" environment it's a call, no if ands or buts.
#2 As a non-Omaha player (not super relevant, I don't think) Again depends on the game leaniency, If this is caught preflop casual games would call this a misdeal and repeat. But by "the book" SB hand is dead and one of their cards would have been the burn card so you can just toss the flop down and continue as "normal".
 

tabletalker7

Full House
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
5,817
Location
Buffalo NY
I have another scenario for you guys.
Setting : Tournament (2 tables) $100 rebuy

Player A goes all-in on the river and Player B begins to tank. There is 678Clubs and 10 of clubs on the board. Player B has the King of clubs and is considering the call. Player B starts to talk and says “you could have the straight flush” and a player C who already folded says “no, I had it”

Player B makes the call after and wins the hand. Player A is rightfully pissed off and demands and house call.

What do you think the right thing to do at that point is? I believer there is no recourse for player A and for player C?? What type of penalty?
I don't think there is any recourse for player A. I have no issues with a "one orbit timeout" for player C. If it was a stupid thing yeah give a warning but said player basically took the pot from one person and shipped it to another. Gotta put an end to that in a hurry
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
26,636
Reaction score
42,494
Location
Atlanta
Player A gets to bitch-slap Player C while Player C recites the phrase "I will not discuss the contents of any hand while live cards are in play" one hundred times while wearing a STFU chip glued to his forehead. (No more than one slap per sentence allowed -- gotta have reasonable limits on this stuff).

Other than that, there's not much of a viable recourse available to adequately compensate a negatively-affected player or to effectively penalize an offending player (short of event disqualification). A verbal warning with time-out penalty isn't very harsh (considering the impact of the offense) and does nothing to rectify the damage caused by the action.

Player B received information prior to his action that he had no right to have (and then both acted upon and benefitted from it), while Player A was harmed by the release of that same information. One could certainly argue that "in the best interest of the game", the hand is declared fouled, and the pot split between Player A and Player B (with warning/penalty issued to Player C). But that's a slippery slope to start down, as it sets a precedent where anyone could potentially alter future hands with similar actions.

Having Player C compensate Player A for his loss in the pot has some theoretical merit, but doesn't address the ill-gotten gains of Player B.

Pretty hard to calculate, but Player C could be required to financially compensate Player A for the amount of ICM lost due to his action.
 

doublebooyah85

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2021
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
6,926
Location
ohio
as a dealer-
1. tournament rules are usually extremely strict and 'there's no take backs'.
all in button should be thrown, even if it's not it's a players job to know what's going on even if the dealer makes a mistake. 1 chip is always a call, if this happened in cash, almost every time is call floor and they'd likely rule it as a keep the chip in but you can fold.
2. no burn card, and the players hand is dead. if the player has 5 cards the burn card is already out there. the cards should be put out as they would normally.
You’re the first person to not burn a card to protect the flop then and river order. That’s what I thought too.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
26,636
Reaction score
42,494
Location
Atlanta
I have another scenario for you guys.
Setting : Tournament (2 tables) $100 rebuy

Player A goes all-in on the river and Player B begins to tank. There is 678Clubs and 10 of clubs on the board. Player B has the King of clubs and is considering the call. Player B starts to talk and says “you could have the straight flush” and a player C who already folded says “no, I had it”

Player B makes the call after and wins the hand. Player A is rightfully pissed off and demands and house call.

What do you think the right thing to do at that point is? I believer there is no recourse for player A and for player C?? What type of penalty?
Thought about this some more, and if occurring in an event where I was TD, I'd rule as follows (based on 'best interest of game'):
-- Player A's all-in river bet is returned to him
-- Player B wins the remaining pot
-- Player C pays Player A whatever he lost in the hand from any betting prior to the river (Player C cannot be felted by such payment)
-- Player C is issued a warning but no sit-out penalty

Seems to be a more fair treatment for Player A (no stack loss, although no gain either), Player B wins with the best hand but gains no additional chips from the extra information, and Player C is penalized for the harm caused by his action.
 

DeusEx

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
2,985
Location
Indy
A verbal warning with time-out penalty isn't very harsh (considering the impact of the offense) and does nothing to rectify the damage caused by the action.

Player C could have been lying or mistaken. Player B could be a bad player or a non-believer and called anyway. Player A could have made a better read and not bet, or could have not enticed the conversation, obviously calling it out for Player B to consider that Player A could have 2 cards to beat him.

The punitive action needs to be issued to curve future behavior, no less than a 3 orbit penalty imo, dems da breaks
 

DeusEx

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
2,985
Location
Indy
Thought about this some more, and if occurring in an event where I was TD, I'd rule as follows (based on 'best interest of game'):
-- Player A's all-in river bet is returned to him
-- Player B wins the remaining pot
-- Player C pays Player A whatever he lost in the hand from any betting prior to the river (Player C cannot be felted by such payment)
-- Player C is issued a warning but no sit-out penalty

Seems to be a more fair treatment for Player A (no stack loss, although no gain either), Player B gains no additional chips from the extra information, and Player C is penalized for the harm caused by his action.
Wow this is harsh, not sure I'd return if this was the case.
 

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
15,634
Reaction score
30,786
Location
Nashville-ish
@DeusEx is right, a sit-out penalty is warranted for player C.

I cannot allow the moving of chips from C to A as this opens the door to possible angle-shooting chip-dumping. C sitting out will cost him chips, but with no idea of who would receive them. They would also be informed that future discussions of what you folded while the hand is still live will not be tolerated.

This sounds totalitarian (with the overwhelming urge to yell FASCIST), but in a friendly game the penalty can be handed down by preceding the penalty with an explanation of why it was so wrong. Much the way the investors on Shark Tank explain why they think the investment is not good, before the hand down their dream-crushing verdict.
 
Last edited:

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
17,520
Reaction score
26,498
Location
boston
Thought about this some more, and if occurring in an event where I was TD, I'd rule as follows (based on 'best interest of game'):
-- Player A's all-in river bet is returned to him
-- Player B wins the remaining pot
This seems like a pretty radical, but ultimately smart and just ruling.
Player C pays Player A whatever he lost in the hand from any betting prior to the river (Player C cannot be felted by such payment)
I’ve personally never heard of a ruling like this and I think it’s way out of line. (Though admittedly what C did was way, way out of line.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
146
Reaction score
205
Location
California
#1 Depends on the situation. I've given warnings for plays then enforced after the warning. If this player is known for repeating the offense, the all in should be enforced. I've had to enforce a rule on someone multiple times before they were able to stop repeating. Call it tough love. Also, if your game has higher stakes, I would add this to the opening rules and let everyone know so you don't have to make a judgment call if this happens. Just enforce the rule.

#2 Always burn right after the action, regardless. Announce this rule before the game too. The burn is to prevent cheating. I hate it when dealers burn before the current action is done. Idk if they are trying to stack the deck or peak. It gets my ocd going.
 

AcesUp907

Pair
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
117
Reaction score
79
Location
99508
I think its important to state,
Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the hand or not, must not:
  1. Discuss contents of live or mucked hands,
  2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
  3. Read a hand that hasn’t been tabled.
Player A gets screwed in this situation...
Player B Wins pot
Player C, 2 round penalty (maybe 3) sounds fair to me. If it happens again punishments will be harsher up to a DQ.
 

DeusEx

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
2,985
Location
Indy
Thought about this some more, and if occurring in an event where I was TD, I'd rule as follows (based on 'best interest of game'):
-- Player A's all-in river bet is returned to him
-- Player B wins the remaining pot
-- Player C pays Player A whatever he lost in the hand from any betting prior to the river (Player C cannot be felted by such payment)
-- Player C is issued a warning but no sit-out penalty

Seems to be a more fair treatment for Player A (no stack loss, although no gain either), Player B wins with the best hand but gains no additional chips from the extra information, and Player C is penalized for the harm caused by his action.
I keep thinking about this, I really like the out of the box thinking.
 

moose

Full House
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
4,862
Reaction score
9,829
Location
Lockdown
Your biggest problem stems from the fact that you haven't made clear to your players Rule #1 and Rule #2.

Rule #1:
House rules on irregularities everytime. All decisions are final.
Rule #2: See rule #1. STFU.
 

TheDuke

Flush
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
4,381
Location
Out of position
I have another scenario for you guys.
Setting : Tournament (2 tables) $100 rebuy

Player A goes all-in on the river and Player B begins to tank. There is 678Clubs and 10 of clubs on the board. Player B has the King of clubs and is considering the call. Player B starts to talk and says “you could have the straight flush” and a player C who already folded says “no, I had it”

Player B makes the call after and wins the hand. Player A is rightfully pissed off and demands and house call.

What do you think the right thing to do at that point is? I believer there is no recourse for player A and for player C?? What type of penalty?

No recourse for player A except maybe he gets to bitchslap player C or a kick him in the balls.

Player C should be disqualified, escorted out of the building, and permabanned. What a total asshat. A real shithead. Unless this is his first ever poker game, his comment is totally inexcusable and deserves ultra harsh consequences.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
26,636
Reaction score
42,494
Location
Atlanta
I keep thinking about this, I really like the out of the box thinking.
Thinking about it further, what should the TD do if alerted to Player C's speech ~before~ Player B acts?

Allow Player A to reconsider his action? If Player B is allowed to act with the new info, shouldn't Player A have that same opportunity?

Freeze the action (and rescind Player A's river bet) and go directly to showdown? Seems less clear under these circumstances, especially since Player B hasn't even acted.

Here's another twist: what if Player B has the suited ace vs holding the king? He would be a lot more likely to call with the nut flush before or after hearing Player C's remarks. Same as if Player C remark had been "I folded the ace!" -- because holding the King, Player B now only has to worry about the SF and would be more likely to call.


Player A doesn't deserve to get shafted here because of something done beyond his control by another player. And Player B doesn't deserve to get rewarded for it, but he also doesn't deserve to get shafted if he was going to call before he heard the 'helpful' remarks.

I actually think the proper rulings are probably different depending on whether or not Player B has acted after receiving the extra information. I'm just not yet sure what those rulings should be..... although protecting Player A from unwarranted damages is as high a priority (to me, in the best interest if the game) as ensuring that the best remaining live and untainted hand wins the pot.
 

AcesUp907

Pair
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
117
Reaction score
79
Location
99508
Thinking about it further, what should the TD do if alerted to Player C's speech ~before~ Player B acts?

Allow Player A to reconsider his action? If Player B is allowed to act with the new info, shouldn't Player A have that same opportunity?

Freeze the action (and rescind Player A's river bet) and go directly to showdown? Seems less clear under these circumstances, especially since Player B hasn't even acted.

Here's another twist: what if Player B has the suited ace vs holding the king? He would be a lot more likely to call with the nut flush before or after hearing Player C's remarks. Same as if Player C remark had been "I folded the ace!" -- because holding the King, Player B now only has to worry about the SF and would be more likely to call.


Player A doesn't deserve to get shafted here because of something done beyond his control by another player. And Player B doesn't deserve to get rewarded for it, but he also doesn't deserve to get shafted if he was going to call before he heard the 'helpful' remarks.

I actually think the proper rulings are probably different depending on whether or not Player B has acted after receiving the extra information. I'm just not yet sure what those rulings should be..... although protecting Player A from unwarranted damages is as high a priority (to me, in the best interest if the game) as ensuring that the best remaining live and untainted hand wins the pot.
I see where you are coming from but I dont think its a viable option. What if player said he had it but really didnt? I think player C has to be punished, its something that should never happen and its a major offense imo.
 

DeusEx

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
2,985
Location
Indy
Thinking about it further, what should the TD do if alerted to Player C's speech ~before~ Player B acts?

Allow Player A to reconsider his action? If Player B is allowed to act with the new info, shouldn't Player A have that same opportunity?

Freeze the action (and rescind Player A's river bet) and go directly to showdown? Seems less clear under these circumstances, especially since Player B hasn't even acted.

Here's another twist: what if Player B has the suited ace vs holding the king? He would be a lot more likely to call with the nut flush before or after hearing Player C's remarks. Same as if Player C remark had been "I folded the ace!" -- because holding the King, Player B now only has to worry about the SF and would be more likely to call.


Player A doesn't deserve to get shafted here because of something done beyond his control by another player. And Player B doesn't deserve to get rewarded for it, but he also doesn't deserve to get shafted if he was going to call before he heard the 'helpful' remarks.

I actually think the proper rulings are probably different depending on whether or not Player B has acted after receiving the extra information. I'm just not yet sure what those rulings should be..... although protecting Player A from unwarranted damages is as high a priority (to me, in the best interest if the game) as ensuring that the best remaining live and untainted hand wins the pot.

Disclaimer: Okay I need to put this out there, I think we can run this down a few ways that this plays out, and its more of a though experiment than discourse / argument. The following scenarios I don't think are statistically likely but should at least be considered.

I love the rewind and let player A have the option, but I would limit the options as to take it back or let it stand.

If player A had put in 1/2 a stack, does this now open player A's option to push All in? Is there a world where player A checks and player B doesn't bet, at this point player A shows any weakness it means s/he doesn't have 1 of the 2 cards that could beat player B. (do you lose player A)

IQ 1million player A takes it back and checks to player B, who goes all in, player A snap calls with the nuts. (I think you'd lose a player)

If you give player A the option, and s/he doubles down on the 'move', does that harm player B in the process? Wouldn't the reaction of player B to player C's info be a change to the information, and would that info lopsided? Am I overthinking this? (spoiler I typically do hahaha)

A bit further down the rabbit hole, does the TD's knowledge of player A's cards taint the process, does player A's cards need to remain anonymous to the TD, should it have an impact on the decisions? In BlackJack you get the option for insurance...

If player C was mistaken or lying to bait player B into calling? (sticking with something punitive for the behavior but would this info change the severity of the penalty?)

If player A and player C are not colluding and player A has the straight flush, you still can't let player B know that player C was mistaken or lying if that is the case, and opening the up the option to let player A make it look like he's bluffing even more is kinda harsh to player B.
 

Frogzilla

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
5,338
Reaction score
7,059
Location
Frisco, TX
There are no ways in which player A or Player B have any action changed. Nor is player C required to give any chips. Nor is he required to give money.

Player C is subject to a penalty which ranges from a stern warning to complete disqualification from the tourney. Depending on the amateurness of the player probably an orbit or two feels right. It’s such an egregious foul.
 

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.

Top Bottom