Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

I was playing a $2/5$ no limit game at the Rio today and I got into a very heated discussion with two floormen over this hand:

I had pocket twos in the cutoff and, with three callers in front of me (yes, it was a great table), I called. The button and blinds called behind me. The flop came ace high with two spades and it checked around. The turn came the seven of spades, pairing the board and making the flush a possibility. It checked around to the button, who bet sixty ( double the pot). To me it was a weak play, and screamed of something like KsQx or Ks10x. It folded back to me, and after posturing for about thirty seconds, I raised it $100 more. He leaned back in his chair and cursed under his breath. As he was thinking about the situation, his phone rang. He answered and quickly said, "I'm in a hand, I can't talk now." The person on the other line said something in response, and he said "Okay," and hung up. I immediately told the dealer that his hand was dead (talking on the phone, texting or communicating using an electronic device is prohibited while a hand is in play), and she agreed. He protested the ruling and the floor was called. The floorman said that I was right and that his hand was dead. He continued to protest, and a second floorman (presumably the first floorman's superior) approached the table. Unbelievably, he overruled the first floorman, saying that he was going to give my opponent a warning and allow his hand to stay live.
I couldn't believe his decision, and I argued my case for several minutes. A third floorman was called and backed up his decision, arguing that a floorman was allowed to use discretion in deciding whether the hand is live or dead. I argued that, even if he was allowed to use discretion, this was a case in which he had to rule the hand dead, given that I had given away the strength of my hand by so vehemently protesting my opponent's use of a phone during such a critical point in the hand, and because the dealer and first floorman had already ruled his hand dead. He refused to hear it and ruled the hand live. At this point, the player on the button offered to chop the pot with me and end the discussion. I agreed (though, again, I probably shouldn't have), but the floorman intervened once again, saying a chop amounted to collusion and that we had to play the hand out. The button said, "Well, I wasn't folding anyway" (yeah right), and pushed all in overtop of me for $400 more -- he now knew that I didn't have a hand -- and I folded (though I think now that I should have called).
Is there anything else I could have done? Was this ruling as ridiculous as I think it was? I'm fairly certain there's nothing I can do about this now, but does anybody know if there are any other avenues I can take on this? Any responses are greatly appreciated.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

Um....I thought phones were allowed in cash games, is this not the case at Rio cash games?

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

Um...I also thought chopping a pot headsup in a cashgame is allowed...either way, I'm sure the floor at the Rio has its head up its asss one way or another, but I'm not sure your beef is legitimate. And you definitely didn't should not have called.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

just play poker man..

everything seems wrong with this post

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

seems to me that you were shooting an angle and got what you deserved

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
seems to me that you were shooting an angle and got what you deserved

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um....I thought phones were allowed in cash games, is this not the case at Rio cash games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not aware of any room in Vegas in which somebody's hand would be declared dead in this situation.

In many rooms, dealers will not deal you in if you're on the phone. If you start talking in the middle of a hand, they usually ask you to discontinue the conversation and play the hand.

I'm not familiar with any specific rule at the Rio. But, I like the ruling which was made.


[ QUOTE ]
Um...I also thought chopping a pot headsup in a cashgame is allowed

[/ QUOTE ]

You can chop blinds. But, after others have put money into a pot, you can't bet opponents out and then chop with whoever is remaining.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

Play poker, don't ruleslaywer. It was your choice to give your hand away by being a dick, and I'm quite happy that you got what you deserved.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

OP,

"As he was thinking about the situation, his phone rang. He answered and quickly said, "I'm in a hand, I can't talk now." The person on the other line said something in response, and he said "Okay," and hung up. I immediately told the dealer that his hand was dead (talking on the phone, texting or communicating using an electronic device is prohibited while a hand is in play)"

"Is there anything else I could have done?"

Yeah, you could have tried not being a douchebag.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

man that turn ck raise from the cutoff after the flop cks around is always bs from bad live players.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
talking on the phone, texting or communicating using an electronic device is prohibited while a hand is in play)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is prohibited doesn't mean it kills someone's hand. A few examples of things that are prohibited that don't kill a hand : throwing a rack at the dealer, spitting on the dealer, or telling everyone around to go f themselves. Do you feel that talking on a phone should have a more severe penalty than those actions? Generally players that ask the floor to kill the other player's hand so they can win without the best hand should be pointed to the place down the street.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
talking on the phone, texting or communicating using an electronic device is prohibited while a hand is in play)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is prohibited doesn't mean it kills someone's hand. A few examples of things that are prohibited that don't kill a hand : throwing a rack at the dealer, spitting on the dealer, or telling everyone around to go f themselves. Do you feel that talking on a phone should have a more severe penalty than those actions? Generally players that ask the floor to kill the other player's hand so they can win without the best hand should be pointed to the place down the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in this case, if it is prohibited, the rule states that the hand is dead. In those other cases, it doesn't.
Wow, lotsa haters in this thread. I have to side with the OP on this one. Whether or not he was being a dick at the table or in this thread is incidental (and we don't know if he was anyway). No poker rules state, "If this happens, the correct ruling is X, unless one of the players is a douchebag."

If the rule in that poker room is that a hand is supposed to be dead if someone answers a phone with a hand in play, then there isn't much room for floorman discretion.

People make mistakes in poker and these mistakes make the game profitable for the other players. Whether the mistake is in the form of game strategy or game procedure, it doesn't matter. This guy made a mistake of answering his phone and the hand should've been dead, and the OP has every right to ask for the rules of the game to be followed. Doesn't make him a dick.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
if it is prohibited, the rule states that the hand is dead

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP makes no such claim. He is claiming since it is prohibited that it follows that his hand is dead.

[ QUOTE ]
No poker rules state, "If this happens, the correct ruling is X, unless one of the players is a douchebag."

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure of that? Perhaps you should look at this:
[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the rule in that poker room is that a hand is supposed to be dead if someone answers a phone with a hand in play, then there isn't much room for floorman discretion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is this rule that the guys saying "kill that hand so I can steal his pot" forget about.
[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if it is prohibited, the rule states that the hand is dead

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP makes no such claim. He is claiming since it is prohibited that it follows that his hand is dead.

[ QUOTE ]
No poker rules state, "If this happens, the correct ruling is X, unless one of the players is a douchebag."

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure of that? Perhaps you should look at this:
[ QUOTE ]
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the rule in that poker room is that a hand is supposed to be dead if someone answers a phone with a hand in play, then there isn't much room for floorman discretion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is this rule that the guys saying "kill that hand so I can steal his pot" forget about.
[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about all of it. So I guess then all I have to say is that although the floorman has a right to use his own discretion, etc. I think he made a bad decision. Especially after the dealer AND floorman #1 ruled it one way.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

This is where understanding the actual rules is very important.

Talking on a phone is prohibited, but obviously the rule does not state that anyone on the phone has a hand declared dead. Most rules give the floor a great deal of discretion as to what to do.

I wouldn't have gone angle shooting, if only for the reason that if my angle shot fails, I lose. If I was that unconfident about my read, I wouldn't have shot that angle unless I was damn sure it was the only way I could win that hand. (Maybe you knew this subconsciously.)

You got very close to pulling it off, though. If the game is that juicy, I don't understand why you'd want to do anything to antagonize the players in what is obviously a very profitable game if they are there. You want them to be happy to ship you money.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

In general, the rule at the Rio this year has been that if you talk on a phone, your hand is ruled dead. I've seen it enforced at both cash games and tourney tables. I've also seen dealers and floor people let it slide. In this case it seems clear that the floor decided that the OP was an angle-shooting scumbag and ruled against him. C'est la vie.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seems to me that you were shooting an angle and got what you deserved

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

Seriously, nobody who plays the game for real would ever call for a decision here. It's like calling a string bet against someone for the slightest infraction. It puts a target on your back as both a douche and a newbie.

If you'd have said "Look, we're in a hand here--you shouldn't even answer your phone," that would have been douche-ish, but not full-blown douche.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

What's with all of the angle-shooting douchebags posting on here all of a sudden? It seems like there's a new one every day.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Is there anything else I could have done?"

Yeah, you could have tried not being a douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're right about all of it. So I guess then all I have to say is that although the floorman has a right to use his own discretion, etc. I think he made a bad decision. Especially after the dealer AND floorman #1 ruled it one way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't usually put too much stock in a dealer's "ruling."

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
seems to me that you were shooting an angle and got what you deserved

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

If it was against the rules and if the house rules were 'it's a dead hand' then you shouldn't have had to say anything. Any good dealer would have already said something as soon as the phone reached his ear.

I had a floorman make me pull a big turn bet back after he had already ruled that my bet stood. The river completed villain's straight vs. my set...but villain had mucked when the floor made their first ruling (that my bet stood). Talk about livid.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

I HATE LIVE POKER SO MUCH THANKS TO RETARDED NITS LIKE THIS GUY.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

you're not crazy, you're just an idiot.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

bet 3/4 pot on the turn you angle shooting d-bag. problem solved.

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
seems to me that you were shooting an angle and got what you deserved

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Am I crazy or is this a ridiculous ruling? (side game post)
 

I've played at the Rio and had dealers say it was fine to be on the phone and others say not. Bellagio, Ceasars and Venetian all allow being on the phone during cash games...

Rio/Harrahs is being highly inconsistent with the application of the rule because they have a bunch of non-regular people from all over working various games. I've been at 2/5 at the Rio and had someone come try and break the table and give us seat cards lol. They are barely in control of all that is going on.