Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

During day 3 of the WPT Main event I had a "non-standard" ruling come up. Often times when one of these situations happens, there is no black and white decision, just many different shades of gray. I made a decision that, though not by the book, was reasoned out to the table and made every efoort to protect all players involved. Here is a synopsis of the decision.

Blinds: 10-20K, 3K ante

Tom Franklin opens the pot from the butoon for 65K. Bill Edler, in the small blind, deliberates for a few seconds and announces reriase, as he put in the 65K calling amount. After a pause of a few seconds, the player in the big blind announces reraise, before Bill has the opportunity to announce the amount of his reraise. Before acting on his hand, Bill asks the dealer to call the floor.

I come to the table and get the details from the dealer, repeat them to verify what has happened, and begin to make my decision. Bill asks me what his options are, and what will happen in different scenarios. At this point, I tell Bill that I do not want to divulge the details of my decision until after he makes his decision, as different outcomes will result depending on several factors. At this point, Tom decides to tell Bill what he thinks will happen, including but not limited to making the 3rd player minimum raise after Bill's reraise. Bill asks m to verify this, and I refuse to do so. I did agree that Tom's decision could be a possible outcome, but would not necessarily be true if there were a "Gross Misunderstanding of the required calling amount". In other words, if Bill had raised exactly half of the players remaining chips, I would not have made him move all-in.

This was not an easy one. In this situation, I felt that any decision I made that was a standard decision would be completely unfair to one of the 3 remaining players in the pot. if I allowed Bill the information he asked for, he could effectively manipulate the pot and have last action on the hand, forcing a decision out of Tom that may or may not be the right one. This gives Bill way too much information on the hand, and allows him to completely shut Tom out of the pot. If I allow the verbal action to be taken back under every circumstance, I allow the 3rd player to completely pull a shot, by letting him off the hook and not binding him to an action that he should be comitted to. He then gains a big advantage in the pot, and Bill is put at a disadvantage. I felt this was a bad way to go, as I would be rewarding the guy who made the mistake.

To sum it up, I felt that any decision I could make would be grossly unfair to one of the 3 players in the pot. Due to the varying circumstances, and the fact that it was the final table of a 10K event, added pressures existed, as well as a WPT camera recording the whole decision. I am not sure that my decision was right, and ask for open criticism and discussion by all posters, as I would like to see a standard set on a decision like this to help us all moving forward. I have spoken with jan Fisher at TDA, and will probably ask Matt, David, Linda, and any and all TD's to chime in with opinions on this one. Establishing a precedent would be a good idea on this one.

Let the debate begin........

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

you are very well respected as one of, if not THE best in the biz, but imo, you are overthinking this. since bill edler hasnt announced a raise amount, player 3 cannot act yet. the fact that he tried to 3-bet is irrelevant because its not his turn. it gives bill edler an advantage because he knows player 3's intended action, but that happens sometimes, and you just have to live with it. i know you want to be fair, but just tell player 3 to wait his turn, and make bill edler raise at least the minimum.



p.s. i really don't like that you "won't divulge your decision" until bill makes his. this seems to give you a chance to affect the outcome of the tournament, which is just ridiculous. you are the boss, make your ruling, and keep the tourney moving along. thx.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Has there been an established "standard raise?" If there has been and Elder makes this size raise I would compel the third player to raise. If Elder makes some other size of raise I would rule this out of turn action to be non-binding. This is in a perfect world where you are aware of how the action has been going.

A more practical solution would be to rule this third player's action is not binding. I see no way for Elder to be put at a disadvantage from this player not being compelled to call unless he alters his bet size hoping to take advantage of this player intending to call.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
you are very well respected as one of, if not THE best in the biz, but imo, you are overthinking this. since bill edler hasnt announced a raise amount, player 3 cannot act yet. the fact that he tried to 3-bet is irrelevant because its not his turn. it gives bill edler an advantage because he knows player 3's intended action, but that happens sometimes, and you just have to live with it. i know you want to be fair, but just tell player 3 to wait his turn, and make bill edler raise at least the minimum.



p.s. i really don't like that you "won't divulge your decision" until bill makes his. this seems to give you a chance to affect the outcome of the tournament, which is just ridiculous. you are the boss, make your ruling, and keep the tourney moving along. thx.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the above. In addition, I feel that Tom should be IMMEDIATELY PENALIZED for commenting/influencing action on a hand that is not yet heads up. His action is momentarily complete. Why the hell is he opening his mouth?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

IMO, Edler announced reraise so he must raise and he can still decide the amount. The BB announced reraise so he should have to raise at least the minimum after Edler acts (or all-in if that happens to be the case based on whatever Edler decides to reraise).

Franklin was going to have to face two reraises before it got to him and that's still what he will face (or possibly a reraise and a call if Edler's reraise puts the BB all-in).

If anyone gets 'screwed' here then ideally it should be the BB because he acted out of turn. By allowing Edler to select his reraise amount after knowing the BB's intended action...it does give Edler an advantage...but mostly at the BB's expense. I don't think Franklin gets screwed by this decision much, if at all.

Telling Edler he must act before you announce your ruling was wrong IMO. That's the whole point of calling the floor immediately.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did agree that Tom's decision could be a possible outcome, but would not necessarily be true if there were a "Gross Misunderstanding of the required calling amount". In other words, if Bill had raised exactly half of the players remaining chips, I would not have made him move all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
The more I think about it the more I think this is where you went wrong (IMO of course). IMO, the BB is no longer entitled to 'an understanding of the required calling amount' because he acted out of turn. He apparently didn't care because he didn't know and didn't ask. If Edler had decided to raise exactly half of the BB's chips he damn sure should have been forced to reraise all-in. Why is the BB getting let off easy here...at the expense of the other two in the hand who did nothing wrong?

So I'm even more convinced that letting Edler decide his reraise amount and then forcing the BB to raise at least the minimum is the best decision here. No decision is going to be perfect but the best decision is the one that punishes the person who made the mistake and does not punish those that didn't.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think not telling him what the ruling will be is a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny was very right in this. The player does not get to find out exactly what the ruling will be and then use that to gain an advantage. It is very standard among people that understand how to make a fair decision that the pending action needs to be completed. Giving Elder the decision in advance puts him in too strong of a position.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Johnny,

How I seen it handled when this has happened elsewhere (aka Binions in Las Vegas), was this.

In this situation, the person acting out of turn, would of been required to leave at the very least, the amount of the bet in play of the person last to act prior to the person who's action it (currently) was, in there. (Personally, to be fair here, I think the person acting out of turn, should be required to leave in this case, the 65k that he put out there, period).

Then the other person who's turn it was, would be allowed to make his action. He/she could call, raise, the amount of the previous person before him/her (not based on the amounty of person betting out of turn, but rather the amount based on prior person who did act in turn), or go all in.

The person who acted out of turn, could then decide if he wanted to call, reraise what ever the action of the person he interupted or fold.

However, the amount of money he put in out of turn (which would of at the very least, been the amount of the current bet prior to), would be required to stay in play, no matter what the person who bet out of turn decided they wanted to do.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I believe the TDA rule is "Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Verbal declarations out of turn MAY be binding."

Leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Did the other player actually say "reraise" or did he just say "raise"? If Edler put the call amount out first, he may have thought it was a call, having not heard Edler say "raise".

If he actually said "reraise," then he knew Edler was raising, and I agree that he should have to make at least the minimum reraise, up to and including all-in, after Edler puts in his amount.

If he just said "raise" and didn't realize Edler was raising, not calling, then his action should be taken back. TD could consider giving a penalty for influencing action -- Edler's raise amount.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Jim,
Franklin opened the pot with a raise...even if Edler was just calling the BB would still be reraising instead of just raising.

[ QUOTE ]
The player does not get to find out exactly what the ruling will be and then use that to gain an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Edler doesn't get to hear the ruling prior to acting but the other two do (Johnny is going to have to spill the beans at some point)...one of which acted out of turn? Seems extremely unfair.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

The verbal declaration out of turn shouldn't be binding in my opinion, but I definitely think a penalty should be issued.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Not gonna make a judgment yet in this post, but I just want to point out that:

If a player acts out of turn, his decision is only binding if the action in front of him does not change.

For example, if the button says call in a limped pot before the CO acts, and the CO moves all-in afterwards, the button is obviously not forced to call the all-in.

Does that rule apply here? If it does, doesn't any raise amount Edler makes count as a change in action? What about a minraise? Would that constitute the only possible situation where the action has not changed?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

who cares , bill won, even if the big blind was taking a shot
just kidding
well i dealt for ya there johnny , and have no professional td experince , but im a simpilistic, it was the big blinds fault for acting "out of turn" i have played at casinos where out of turn verbal is binding and where it isnt. bill is commited to a raise obviously, but there does need to be a standard set in stone rule i agree, bill needs to raise , even tho his raise amount was not determined he now knows that the big blind has intended to raise , but the bigblind , in my opinion has not yet acted , it was not his action. so tell them, bill u have announced raise . the big blind has not been commited to an action yet. play on. thats jsut simpilistic, or u can go to a more complicated level and say yes they are both now commited to raises, either way theres a possible diffrent angle shot, a very ackward situation indeed.

Pat

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Not letting Bill know what the ruling is is crazy. A player has the right to know what the rules of the game are.

If someone were to ask you "Hypothetically, what would happen if someone left to act behind me announced reraise after I said raise but before I declared an amount?", shouldn't they be able to get an answer? Shouldn't the rule in all such hypothetical cases be consistent and shouldn't players be able to ascertain what it is at any point during play?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
of course bill is committed to a raise, a he was acting in turn, and must at least raise the minimum. If I answer Bill in asking what will happen, he has way too big an advantage in knowing how he commit the BB's chips. This effectively gives him last action in the pot, and IMO is grossly unfair to the 2 other players in the pot.

If we treat poker as a game of information, then Bill really is not entitled to know what I will force the BB to do until he acts on his hand. The raise sizes were approxximately 8% of the stacks, so to commit a guy to a all in in that spot would be really an unfair thing to do.

Flame on.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny,

Here is the problem I see for you, and it is worse than giving Bill and edge. If you don't announce your decision for the BB until after Bill acts, and your decision seems to favor the BB, it might look as if you were trying to play favorites. That is too big of a risk for you to take. If you do this, you need to at least write your decision on a piece of paper, and then reveal the paper after Bill acts, so it is clear that your decision has not been changed based upon Bill's action.

As you have said, there is no perfect ruling here. If it has not been said, the BB almost certainly thought Bill just called, since Bill said raise, but first put out calling chips. The guy probably didn't hear Bill, or didn't understand, and thought Bill was just calling. However, the mistake is clearly on the BB, and it is highly likely that Tom either has a hand that wants it all-in (AA or KK), or he has that is folding no matter what Bill and BB do. Only 3 of his possible hands are close decisions, and sometimes not even that many (AK, QQ, JJ). So, for statistical reasons, I'm not too worried about Tom, even though legitimately I should be.

My ruling is going to be that Bill raises any amount he likes, and then BB must raise afterwards, any amount he likes. Obviously both raises must meet normal raising minimums.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I was sitting at the table along with Hank and we both thought we were basically getting to the tv final table, as we were under the impression while the hand was going on that the bb would have to raise over whatever Bill raised, since he had enough chips to repush over Bill if he went all in. I was quite sad to see that this isnt what happened. I also though that the whole "i cant tell bill the options" was kinda crappy/shady, as I thought that a poker player could have the rules explained to him at any time. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I don't see how its unfair at all to the player who acted out of turn. He wasn't paying attention and did not realize the pot had already been raised. Why should he be protected in such a scenario. Paying attention and not making mistakes are pretty important aspects of poker, it seems that this player failed at both of those aspects and somehow he was protected.

As for Bill having an unfair advantage, I don't see what the big deal is there at all, people benefit from the inattentiveness/idiocy of other players all the time. I don't see how this is any different.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it has not been said, the BB almost certainly thought Bill just called, since Bill said raise, but first put out calling chips. The guy probably didn't hear Bill, or didn't understand, and thought Bill was just calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
By rule if he doesn't understand the action he is facing he gets to reconsider his action.

Randy

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I really dont care for the "shady" feeling people are getting. More shady would be to explain to bill that he raises to x, then BB must reraise to Y, If I set a minimum raise that must be reraised, then i definitely control the outcome of the hand. As there is no previous rule that dictates exactly what would happen in his situation, I felt the lesser of 2 evils would be to have bill act on his hand, then make the ruling.

Is Bill entitled to know EXACTLY waht action will happen if the guy never says reraise? No
When making a decision, I want to get a close as possible to the natural outcome of the hand. By giving Bill the information on what I was going to do, I would be giving him strategic advice on how to play his hand.

It is a common rule that if a player grossly misunderstands the amount of the bet, he is allowed to take back his action. This is only in obvious cases. Had Bill min raised, I probably make BB reriase at least the min. Had bill moved all-in (which he did) I allowed the BB to take back his action.

Had I told Bill this before I made my decision, then I basically tell Bill "here's the way to get maximum value out of your hand", or "heres how to get away with the smallest loss" or "This is exactly the limit you can raise and commit his chips to the pot".

As a player playing out of position in the pot, it is my feeling that he is not entitled to that information until he acts on his hand.

By the way Greg, in hindsight, the written choices on paper was an excellent suggestion.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

This seems like a straightforward rules question that should have a definitive answer.

That's not to say there is only one correct answer. Different cardrooms could handle out-of-turn verbal bets differently and all could be reasonable.

However, what is most important is that the rule for such out-of-turn bets (a) be determined beforehand, (b) be applied consistently, and (c) be available to ascertain by any player who asks about it.

Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a player doesn't have the right to ask what the rules of the game are at any point?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a player doesn't have the right to ask what the rules of the game are at any point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule at this point is that the floorman will make a decision in the interest of fairness. The floorman is permited to change the rules if enforcing the rules as written would be grossly unjust. This generally occurs when a player is looking to use a rule as a weapon, so in cases like this the floor is very correct to withhold the ruling. What the floor is looking to do when something like this occurrs is put the game back as close as possible to the situation that would have existed with no breach.

edit to add: I jsut read that and my explanation isn't very good. I hate to say something is true just because I say so, but you should probably consider the chances of me and Johnny agreeing on something and us both being wrong. I mgiht take a better crack at this when I am not at work.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I don't mind you not telling the player what your ruling will be, since your future ruling is not necessary for him to take his action. And the player is entitled to know the RULE at any time (a gross misunderstanding can be undone), not whether or not you considered it a gross misunderstanding.

However, I do have two problems with the way you handled this (and I've judged another card game that has even more ambiguous situations come up frequently), and they're related.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a common rule that if a player grossly misunderstands the amount of the bet, he is allowed to take back his action. This is only in obvious cases. Had Bill min raised, I probably make BB reriase at least the min. Had bill moved all-in (which he did) I allowed the BB to take back his action.

[/ QUOTE ]

The BB either understood there was a pending raise or he didn't. The amount of the raise *CANNOT* change this answer, so it shouldn't change your ruling. If he didn't realize there was a pending raise, he has a clear misunderstanding of the bet coming to him (minimum 50% on a minraise- robert's rules say 80%, so 20% misunderstanding, so we're minimum 2.5x that threshold). Saying "oh, it's only 8% more of stacks" is completely arbitrary and can't be applied consistently (unless you actually create an exact threshold in a rule, which just lets the missed-raiser exploit it, which is pointless).

So when you are called over, you should have decided if you're going to compel a raise or not. To avoid the appearance of arbtrariness or impropriety, writing down the ruling before the raise amount is announced is a great idea. That provides the minimum external influence on the hand while making it clear that your ruling doesn't depend on anything but your judgment of whether or not the player knew that he was facing that raise.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
The rule at this point is that the floorman will make a decision in the interest of fairness... What the floor is looking to do when something like this occurrs is put the game back as close as possible to the situation that would have existed with no breach.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't making it non-binding do this also? and it's a lot simpler to explain?


i don't see how the guy acting out of turn gains an advantage, most likely he didn't see that bill was reraising but he still has given a little info about his hand which bill can use however he wants. i doubt the guy was trying to get a read on bill in this situation, however you are the floorman and if you think that is going on then you can give the guy a penalty.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

RR,
The rule that a player can retract action if there was a gross misunderstanding of the amount is for cases where the player was told an incorrect amount. It is not for cases where the player didn't know and didn't bother to ask.

The BB [censored] up...the BB is the one that gets the short end of the deal. As it turned out...the BB got saved by the floor and Edler got screwed out of chips.

Edler must raise...BB must raise after. Normal raising guidelines apply. Duck soup.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
The rule that a player can retract action if there was a gross misunderstanding of the amount is for cases where the player was told an incorrect amount. It is not for cases where the player didn't know and didn't bother to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

What on Earth gave you that idea? It is for anytime that based on their actions it is clear they didn't understand the action they were facing. This is a rule that is missed by a lot of people in the industry because they have never bothered to bring someone to their room to teach them about poker.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
What on Earth gave you that idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
Common sense.

Think of the implications otherwise...I could say anything as long as it was out of turn and just claim I didn't know what was going on in the game and not be bound by my verbal declarations.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Follow me here.

In most cases, out of turn action is not binding if the calling amount changes to the player who acted out of turn. In most cases, that amount is predetermined, as the raiser has either stated the raising amount, or has placed the chips in the pot.

That did not happen here. There was no pre set calling amount. RR's mention of the players' use of a certain rule as a "weapon" is exactly the probelm I have here. The rules don't exist for players to use them as a tool to exploit weaker players, or a tool to extract information or chips out of a weaker player. They exist to combat irregularities in procedure, or to prevent certain types of unetical or unsportsmanlike behavior. To use the rule as a means of manipulating another players' action is as "unsportsmanlike" as the original action out of turn.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I think the reason the amount changes should make a difference. If the player was told the wrong amount then that's one thing but if the player was not paying attention enough to know and didn't bother to ask...tough toenails IMO.

I understand how Edler could use the info to his advantage, that was made pretty clear in the op. But again, tough toenails for the one who screwed up...i.e. the BB. It just seems like a huge injustice for the BB to get bailed out by the floor at the expense of Edler. Edler got screwed.

[ QUOTE ]
The rules don't exist for players to use them as a tool to exploit weaker players, or a tool to extract information or chips out of a weaker player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether the player is weaker or not isn't relevant...just sub the word 'other' for 'weaker' in that statement and it is much more accurate. And that's exactly what the BB was allowed to do here...a rule allowed him to extract information out of a player (i.e. the info of how Edler would react to his reraise before he ever puts a chip in the pot).

BTW - I said in the other thread that I thought the GCPC was well run and I had a great time. And I still think that...one floor decision is just a drop in the bucket and I'm not trying to make a big deal of it. But you asked so I'm replying. There are constellations of different scenarios that a simple set of rules just can't fully cover. I just look for solutions that have as little injustice to them as possible and I think Edler suffered an injustice. Just my stinkin' opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

While there may be disagreement on this decision, it seems obvious that Mr. Groom's intent was to do that right thing for all parties and the fact he is discussing it here deserves credit.
How many times has a TD made a decision that turned out wrong and through ego and arrogance defended that decision just so he would not admit a mistake?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Warm fuzzy.....LOL

players' insight, as well as the insights of other knowledgeable TD's is a great tool here. Consensus seems to indicate that while my intentions were good, most would have rules that the reraise was rewuired by the BB. still open for debate, but at least this thread has been productive. I hope it sheds a little light into the thought processes a TD must go through in order to make a decision with gravity....

TY,
JG

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]



It is a common rule that if a player grossly misunderstands the amount of the bet, he is allowed to take back his action. This is only in obvious cases. Had Bill min raised, I probably make BB reriase at least the min. Had bill moved all-in (which he did) I allowed the BB to take back his action.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if Bill knew the common rule, and expected you to follow it, he could "manipulate" the pot, etc. Mainly because the BB had acted early.

If Bill did not know the common rule, and you clearly were determined to keep him in the dark, he would not know how to "manipulate" the pot, etc.

So, is it better that players do not know the "common rules"?

RR seems to feel that the only reason players want to learn the rules is to shoot angles. Do you feel the same way?

Should players be kept ignorant, or should the poker community try to educate everybody?

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Bill (second raiser) will obviously have to put in at least 110K (45K min raise over 65K open) as he is obligated to raise at least the minimum.

Also, the BB (third raiser) should now be obligated to put in at least 155K (45K min raise over minimum 110K reraise) regardless of the amount of Bill's chosen raise. If BB now chooses to fold, that 155K would be added to the pot.

I would guess that the BB's reraise effectively folds out Tom and Bill like 80% of the time regardless...

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

Kinda loaded question there Angus. Obviously worded that way i can answer neither way. I would prefer everyone know the rules perfectly, but in an instance they don't, and my floor call may or may not influence a player's decision about a hand in progress, I would say yes, keep them in the dark until the hand is over. Gregs suggestion about writing down my call on a piece of paper, then showing it to them after the decision is made. It meets the qualifications of
A. Not aiding a plyer in a decision
B. Keeping the decision above board so as not to look arbitrary or biased.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

BTW,
IMO the "rules" for procedure and the "rules" for dealing with irregularities are 2 totally different things.

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

[ QUOTE ]
RR seems to feel that the only reason players want to learn the rules is to shoot angles. Do you feel the same way?

Should players be kept ignorant, or should the poker community try to educate everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

I spend a lot of time here and in person educating people, but I have never have someone in a casino ask for rules that wasn't up to no good. The two circumstances I have had someone come up and ask me for a set of rules was someone looking to shoot an angle or someone wanting to argue about a floor decision that someone made. Normally the second type is looking for a rule they know is in there so they can argue while ignoring the relevant rule (ie verbal action in turn is binding vs if a player has a gross misunderstanding of the action he faces he may retract his action if no harm is done).

In the OP the decision wasn't about protecting the BB from Elder, it was about protecting Franklin (who has done nothing wrong).

Re: Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT
 

I'm not so sure that questioning for a ruling de facto equals angle shoot. In event 1, our table asked for a couple floor rulings, but they were both after the down was complete. Don't recall the particulars of one, but the other was a simple question about when a single exposed card while dealing turns into a misdeal and when it just becomes the initial burn. The dealer considered it a misdeal under any circumstances. A few of us were more used to it only being a misdeal if it were the first couple cards dealt, and otherwise the exposed card became the burn. The floor ruled the latter, and that was that. As a player, I'm of mixed feelings on the question at hand. On the one hand, there should be a general set of guidelines. On the other, the floor is there to make rulings when the exception tests the rule. That being said, I think Johnny did what a TD should: he tried to make as fair a decision as he could in the interest of the game.