Ruling Request!! (1 Viewer)

[stumc51]

Hi All,

I am sure I have read something on this before! But I am struggling to find it!

At a Pub game last night, we were 6 handed. EP says all-in, it folds around to the BB who in a world of his own watching football and not aware of the action says Call.

He is then informed that EP is all in and to turn over his cards. He says I didn't know and goes on to protest.

I am sure I have heard something that it is down to the player making the verbal action to be aware of what is happening and as such the call stands! Is this correct or have I missed something.

I did take a look at the TDA rules, but was struggling to find something on this!

Any help and views much appreciated.

Stu

 

[Rakrul]

TDA has no "gross misunderstanding of bet"-rule, it's only in RROP so it depends on house rules which I guess doesn't exist.

In short, it's the player's responsibility to understand the chip amount he has committed to.

 

[drdr]

TDA has no "gross misunderstanding of bet"-rule, it's only in RROP so it depends on house rules which I guess doesn't exist.

In short, it's the player's responsibility to understand the chip amount he has committed to.

Good reply.
Now, do the 'discretion of tournament director ruling' rules have the ability to overrule any of the TDA or RROP?

 

[ekricket]

It’s a loose bar game. Loose games use loose rules. It’s not like it’s the WSOP with dedicated dealers and expected attention to action. If you want clearer action then provide a better atmosphere.

 

[WedgeRock]

Absent written rules, in a friendly pub game, I would consider the intent of the BB.

Given that the BB said "Call," not "Check," he must've known there was a raise in front of him and he must've intended to commit more chips to the pot than just his BB. The amount of the raise (and they way it was made) might change my opinion (for example, if EP said, "All in" but then threw out his only two large chips such that BB may have thought that was the amount of the raise), but I'm leaning toward a ruling that the call was binding.

 

[Rakrul]

Good reply.
Now, do the 'discretion of tournament director ruling' rules have the ability to overrule any of the TDA or RROP?

The TDA TD can do whatever the fuck he wants to if it's "in the best interest (/fairness) of the game". E.g. TD can rule that a mucked hand is alive (if it's identifiable) in given circumstances.

Edit: TD, not TDA

 

[ekricket]

Good reply.
Now, do the 'discretion of tournament director ruling' rules have the ability to overrule any of the TDA or RROP?

Are you trying to get kicked out of this game?

 

[drdr]

Are you trying to get kicked out of this game?

Flips table over and whips the bank.

 

[drdr]

The TDA can do whatever the fuck he wants to if it's "in the best interest (/fairness) of the game". E.g. TD can rule that a mucked hand is alive (if it's identifiable) in given circumstances.

Pretty much was my understanding.

 

[WedgeRock]

Anybody else hear this when reading a post by @drdr?

 

[aildeokl]

Absent written rules, in a friendly pub game, I would consider the intent of the BB.

Given to hat the BB said "Call," not "Check," he must've known there was a raise in front of him and he must've intended to commit more chips to the pot than just his BB. The amount of the raise (and they way it was made) might change my opinion (for example, if EP said, "All in" but then threw out his only two large chips such that BB may have thought that was the amount of the raise), but I'm leaning toward a ruling that the call was binding.

I'm with this. My first course of action would be to ask the BB "What did you think was going to happen when you said call?" And go from there. If its a scenario where the raiser verbally announced all-in but flicked in a lesser amount of chips, a reasonable answer might be "I thought I'd be in for X amount that was pushed in" and Id hold them to that. Things get a little tricker if the answer is "Uhhhh, I dunno. I wasn't paying attention" but at that point it's probably a binding call.

 

[Josh Kifer]

If he called, he called.

In our game, the dealer would clarify if it's obvious he didn't know, but in general spoken actions are binding. It's the players duty to know what's happening at the table when playing.

 

[GreekRedEye]

If the raiser clearly said "all-in" then I think the call is binding. Otherwise the game is just broken. Caller needs to pay attention or pay for his inattention. If he was not sure what the raise was, he could have just asked. This may be a good time to suggest the introduction of "all in" chips.

If you let him take the call back, you just opened the door to a world of angle shooting. What's next? "Fold. What, oh, he is in for half his stack? I mean call. Ur...what's the bet right now? Make that a raise of $20...um...$30! Hang on...they're on the 4th down, I gotta watch this. BRB."

 

[Blaster]

... The problem with Pub games is, if you let one bet "slide" and return it to the player, the pub director/dealers will eventually have drunk player(s) arguing / complaining that they should be able to re-consider their verbal bet too, because " They let Finster & Bill both do it last week or month " ....
Years ago I played in a pub league, where they were strict about betting, If someone grabbed a stack of 10 chips in their fist, and intended & did show/drop 3 chips intending to call a 3 chip bet, that player was told to bring the other 7 chips back out, as that was their bet now, regardless of clear intention or whatever ...

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

... The problem with Pub games is, if you let one bet "slide" and return it to the player, the pub director/dealers will eventually have drunk player(s) arguing / complaining that they should be able to re-consider their verbal bet too, because " They let Finster & Bill both do it last week or month " ....
Years ago I played in a pub league, where they were strict about betting, If someone grabbed a stack of 10 chips in their fist, and intended & did show/drop 3 chips intending to call a 3 chip bet, that player was told to bring the other 7 chips back out, as that was their bet now, regardless of clear intention or whatever ...

Ayo, just had someone pull this last night. Went to one of those free pub games again and someone raised me: grabbed a barrel of blacks, brought it way out watching me, and dropped 2 off the bottom. Mentioned it to the dealer but its free lol, not going to push the issue.

 

[ValueTown]

This what makes Pub games so frustrating. Too drunk or too distracted with TV and then you get these moments. For me, the call stands. Players in the hand still have responsibility to know whats going on.

 

[glynn]

If the raiser clearly said "all-in" then I think the call is binding. Otherwise the game is just broken. Caller needs to pay attention or pay for his inattention. If he was not sure what the raise was, he could have just asked. This may be a good time to suggest the introduction of "all in" chips.

If you let him take the call back, you just opened the door to a world of angle shooting. What's next? "Fold. What, oh, he is in for half his stack? I mean call. Ur...what's the bet right now? Make that a raise of $20...um...$30! Hang on...they're on the 4th down, I gotta watch this. BRB."

You have certainly played in a room where there is a mechanism for rolling back a call of a gross misunderstanding of the action, whether by a rule meant for that specific situation or by Rule #1.

Has that led to players being able to pull back their fold or change their raise amount? Men marrying their dogs?

Cause if not, then it's hard to take your slippery slope argument seriously.

 

[TheOffalo]

Ayo, just had someone pull this last night. Went to one of those free pub games again and someone raised me: grabbed a barrel of blacks, brought it way out watching me, and dropped 2 off the bottom. Mentioned it to the dealer but its free lol, not going to push the issue.

That does seem to be more and more acceptable way of betting, except for the waiting and watching while doing it.

Also grabbing a stack setting it in the betting area, cutting out chips, and then pulling back some. But most of the time it’s done in a continuous motion, rather than waiting for reactions like the guy did to you.

I wouldn’t do either personally but I’ve seen it done and people don’t seem to bat an eye.

 

[Machine]

grabbed a barrel of blacks, brought it way out watching me, and dropped 2 off the bottom.

So I wouldn't put it past some jackass who doesn't know better to do this as they seen it on TV and doesn't understand its angle shooting, it's just as the kool kids do. I would laugh at this ...

But .. I may be reading into this, but it would seem you agree with the ideal that chips crossing a betting line are in play regardless of the actual bet?

For the sake of the OP - Verbal is binding short of completing an action prior to declaration, one exception if you declare 'BANKRUPTCY!!!!' the you don't owe the federal gov anything!

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

But .. I may be reading into this, but it would seem you agree with the ideal that chips crossing a betting line are in play regardless of the actual bet?

For the sake of the OP - Verbal is binding short of completing an action prior to declaration

Wasn't too upset and certainly didn't gasp or smile when I saw the angle lol.

Depends on the table, I don't hold the betting line sacred for most tables but fully extended arm with forward motion will be a bet of that amount in my house for any repeat offenders. If someone's shuffling past a line that's close to them, or counting it out on/past the line before clearly pushing part of it out, that's great.

Well said about OP.

 

[Machine]

Wasn't too upset and certainly didn't gasp or smile when I saw the angle lol.

Depends on the table, I don't hold the betting line sacred for most tables but fully extended arm with forward motion will be a bet of that amount in my house for any repeat offenders. If someone's shuffling past a line that's close to them, or counting it out on/past the line before clearly pushing part of it out, that's great.

Well said about OP.

Hope to sit at a table with you some day, have you considered checking out the meet ups?

 

[buzzmonkey]

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Hope to sit at a table with you some day, have you considered checking out the meet ups?

You've asked me that same thing to me many times, not sure what percent sarcasm it is but yes, would love to play eventually. Just not the time, powering through a degree. Obviously not giving rulings at a meetup, just developing good habits with my people.

 

[Machine]

You've asked me that same thing to me many times, not sure what percent sarcasm it is but yes, would love to play eventually. Just not the time, powering through a degree. Obviously not giving rulings at a meetup, just developing good habits with my people.

0% sarcasm! 100% fun!

 

[allforcharity]

Ruling = off with his head!

 

[Tonystark137]

I would rule it as a call. Specially considering that the verbal is a "call" and that EP or UTG would sit next to the BB.

If BB tapped the table to check I would have reminded him there is an all in. You don't "call" the BB...

 

[ekricket]

The problem with Pub games is

fill in the blank with anything you can think of, lol

In an ideal situation under ideal conditions it’s for sure a call.
In a pub game it’s like getting upset over a hand in a game of hearts with your grandma.

 

[Budha]

It’s a loose pub game, so that does factor into it. Me personally, if it was clear the guy wasn’t paying attention, I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape with allowing him a mulligan and a warning. Next time, your bet counts, period.

I have enough things to get pissed off about already - lol. I’d let this slide (once), in this situation - me personally.

Thats said, in a serious game, by the rules - verbal bets are binding.

 

[Kyle]

Pub game I would just relax and give him a warning and let him know next time his call will stand. You said he was in this own world watching the game. Let him have fun.

People are not primarily there to play poker. They want to drink, get buzzed or drunk, look at the waitresses tits and ass, tell bullshit stories or watch the game on TV because they have money on it etc.

No need to be that by the book guy in that atmosphere.

 

[GreekRedEye]

You have certainly played in a room where there is a mechanism for rolling back a call of a gross misunderstanding of the action, whether by a rule meant for that specific situation or by Rule #1.

Has that led to players being able to pull back their fold or change their raise amount? Men marrying their dogs?

Cause if not, then it's hard to take your slippery slope argument seriously.

Granted, I was being hyperbolic. My point is it seems to set a precedent for sloppy/inattentive play or worse is an invitation to angle shoot.

I'm a very casual player, with much less experience than many (even most) folks on PCF. So maybe allowing a player to fold after calling is more common than I realize. This is a sincere question: Would it make a difference if the guy was wearing headphones? Or texting on his phone? Or chatting up the waitress? My instinct would be to grant him a redo only if others at the table were similarly confused or something strange occurred (e.g. someone loudly drops a plate at the time the bet was made and this distracts the player).

To answer your question about playing in a room where a gross misunderstanding occurred, I can only think of one relevant experience. Maybe the TD made the wrong decision and I learned the wrong lesson? This was about 8 years ago, but as I recall...

It is early in a 3 table tournament (at a small, not the best well run place). Player A goes all in on the turn. Next players fold. Player B (on far side of table from Player A) calls, reaches for his chips, freezes like he realizes he made a mistake, then asks Dealer to clarify the bet. When the dealer tells him Player A is all in and they are now heads up, Player B tries to fold. Dealer tells him he can't. Player B gets angry, shows his cards to the table, and asks us if we really think he would call a pot that size with this hand. No one answers except Player A who insists the call is valid. TD hears the commotion and comes over. Dealer explains situation. TD then asks the players not in the hand, one by one, if we heard the all in. We all say we did except for one guy (Player C) who refuses to answer. TD declares the call binding. Player B loses the hand and is short stacked. Player B then proceeds to hold up gameplay, refusing to act on the next hand till he "gets his chips back" and we get a new dealer. TD comes back over, reminds him he can rebuy and offers to move him to another table. Player B agrees to move to another table. (I didn't see Player B again, I assume he busted out shortly thereafter). After Player B leaves, a couple players at the table reassure the dealer he was in the right. Player C then speaks up. Says he heard the "all in" but says the Dealer erred by not repeating the "all in" for the table and that the TD should not have asked for our opinions.