Question on a ruling in my WSOP (#8) event

[AThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
My question was regarding the floor ruling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Floor/TD comes over.
Situation explained.
Question: Did X have a 9 and a 4?
Answer: Yes (several players, including guy with chips). Nobody disagrees.
Question: Was flop 944?
Answer: Yes (several players, including guy with chips). Nobody disagrees.

<u>Nobody contradicted the two points.</u>

Only one possible ruling, the one given.

If there were disagreement about the board or his cards, especially by you, then it is mudddy.

But the way it went down, the ruling was "standard" and correct.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, this is what my original question was.

I did not post for a lesson on morals or ethics - I knew I would be berated for my original silence. But I was a little bothered by the fact the floor had not seen anything, the dealer had not seen anything, and it was simply the word of 2 players not even in the hand. And of course myself, and since I saw it I gave the chips up, but I still disagreed with the floor decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

But WarD, here's the problem- when players take your attitude towards their personal involvement in the "cards speak" rule, they force these kinds of rulings to have legitimate weight.

You knew you were only entitled to half the pot, yet said nothing before the pot was pushed to you. Others in this thread agreed with your actions.

That requires the floor to make these types of "blind" decisions to make sure the game is following the rules and that players can't arbitrarily decide when the correct decisions should be made and when they should be skipped.

I don't like these floor recreations either, as they can be fraught with peril on future situations. However, if you caused this situation, you can't complain when the floor rules correctly that you didn't deserve the FH's portion of the pot.

Answer this- if you hadn't been involved in the hand and would have seen this occur at your table, would you have spoken up before the dealer mucked the hand? Or afterwards?

Would your answer change if the scooping player was a feared opponent and the FH was not?

[WarDekar]

Not really, I haven't posted in disagreement with anyone that actually addressed the question. Why don't YOU get over YOURSELF and your o holiest of ethical standards.

[mlagoo]

I just want to make it known before it comes up, that I completely over myself.

[PokerJokerAA]

I agree with OP here. Its not a question of ethics, its a question of stupidity. Being able to read your own hand is part of the game. If everyone here is so ethical, what would you do if someone called a huge all in with rags, thinking they had a straight, and you know they thought they had a straight and werent angle shooting? This is basically the same situation as OP, and the basic ethical thing to do would be to give them at least half the pot, would you still do it?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are a cheater and an a$$. Cards speak and you saw it. You lied on purpose to win T200. Why even bother posting here, you know what kind of answers you are going to see.

Most posters here are in favor of playing by the rules to encourage a fair game. You sir clearly are not so you suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would like a basketball player stealing the ball, the ref not calling a foul on the play, and then the player stopping play and demanding that the ball be given back and free throws shot because he really did foul him on the steal. Its not your responsibility- its the official's(dealer's).

[/ QUOTE ]

This opinion is so dangerous it's scary. It harms the integrity of the game. It is EVERYONE'S job to make sure once a hand is tabled that the best hand get's the pot, no questions.
If the older man would've mucked his hand saying "eh all I had were three 4s with a nine" then it's 100% his fault and he get's nothing but as soon as he tables his hand it's your job to say "Don't push that at me it's not my pot" painful as it may be.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. In what respects do you think my analogy differs from the scenario in the present situation? And if you don't think they differ, then do you think that basketball players are immoral for not stopping play and admitting that they commited a foul?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
all you people saying OP is scum are idiots. like the basketball analogy, it's like a player got a call in his favor and didn't say anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basketball is not a good analogy. Golf is a better one. In golf, you're expected to call your own fouls. I think that in poker, it's expected that you don't accept a pot that you know doesn't belong to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a golfer at all, so forgive my ignorance...

But in golf, don't you keep your own scorecard by yourself and then turn it in at the end?

If thats the case, you're totally wrong. Poker has a referee(the dealer) there the whole time to make judgments and even has a backup ref(the floor). In that regard, it is NOT like golf but is instead like the other sports.

If poker did not have a ref there like golf, then I could see how it would be the player's responsibility to speak up here. But since there is a ref, I think that it is not the player's responsibility.

Lets take this one step even farther: In baseball, a catcher may know that a pitch his pitcher threw is outside, but he tried to "frame" it and make it look like a strike. Sometimes this works and the ump calls a strike on what was really a ball. So here we have a case of not only a player not speaking up when he knows the ref made a bad call, but a player intentionally trying to deceive the ref into making that call as well. And I've never heard anyone call the catcher immoral for this.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not at all like basketball, the rules are different

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this statement. Both are events which have a ref to make judgment calls. Sometimes the judgment calls are obvious, other times they are not. Sometimes the ref misses even the obvious calls. Yet in basketball/football/baseball/etc. its ok for a player to knowingly accept a bad call in his favor but its not in poker?

Is that what you're saying? If so, then I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I feel as if the onus is on you to explain why there is a difference between the two. Especially since those other sports in their current format have been around far longer than poker(which has just recently changed so much) I feel as if those established sports* are the standard and benchmark that we should look to.

*Please don't misinterpret any of this as me saying that poker is a sport.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
but poker is a game based on ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading your post here. I havn't read a ton about the history of poker, but from what I have learned, you are 100% incorrect.

[citanul]

i haven't reread this whole thread, and apologize for digging it up, but i was just rereading the rules (and found out that a face up hand is not dead) but also:

69. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the
cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed.

seems pertinent to the hand/situation discussed here.

citanul