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

Richard Tanner · #71 07-05-2006, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it's an equal number, and I would further guess that if we were to poll all the pro players that play here, it would be 100% you were incorrect (give or take 1).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you 20:1 on any amount I can scrape up

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're making a joke about the 100% estimate (as opposed to 90% or something less certain) then you're very funny, nice hand and all that, yes it's a little exaggeration.

If, however, you mean to say that the majority of pros (when I said this I was refering to TV pros here, not just someone grinding 200NL, but that's my fault for not being clear) would not say that they would correct a dealer error at the table, then I think that's pretty unlikely.

For some reason I just can't see Huck Seed or Greg not saying anything if someone has properly tabled their hand, but maybe they can post and correct me.

Cody

Khabbi · #72 07-05-2006, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that the interpretation of the "Cards Speak" rule, is that cards speak if they are properly called by the player and no one can intervene.

I think the ruling was made perfectly with the integrity of the game in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point here...other players are welcome to intervene during the showdown. But if everyone misses it and its mucked, then its a dead issue imo.

I agree with the poster who said that the floor decision should be respected, and I do respect it. And since thats their decision, I wouldn't hold it against them in any way. However, I do personally think that it was the wrong decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP knew the pot wasn't his, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. OP is a cheater and he got was he deserved... none of that pot.

WarDekar · #73 07-05-2006, 10:40 PM

Just for the "record" on this one Cody....

Huck Seed was at the table at the time. He did not say a word. Not when the hands were shown-down, not when the other player said there was a boat. So on this one, in the least, you are wrong.

Maybe it would be different had he been in the hand, but I'm pretty sure he'd be more willing to declare a winning hand when he's NOT in the hand than if he had been the one to scoop. So at the very least, you are wrong on that account.

WarDekar · #74 07-05-2006, 10:42 PM

No, if I got what I "deserved" by traditional rules, I "deserved" the entire pot.

Rzitup · #75 07-05-2006, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, if I got what I "deserved" by traditional rules, I "deserved" the entire pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost all rulebooks have a rule that states that a player loses any rights to the pot once the shuffle for the next hand begins. The common definition of the 'next hand' begins when the dealer is actually shuffling the cards, not washing them.
In your OP you stated: "He pushes his cards to the dealer who procedes to push me the pot and begins shuffle the cards (on the table, not riffling yet)."
That leads me to believe the dealer was not yet shuffling, which means that the next hand had not yet started and the pot could still be pushed to the 'correct' person.
Where the chips are is completely irrelevent. You could have put them into your pocket and it wouldnt matter. If the pot can be pushed to the right person according to the rules, it will be.

GTL · #76 07-05-2006, 11:55 PM

While this topic is controversial (changing the outcome of a hand after the hands have been mucked and the pot has been pushed), this particular case is not controversial at all. The OP saw the boat along with several other people at the table. There is no question in his mind that the villain gets half the pot. In this case OP should have spoke up and only taken half the pot. Thats my take on it. This is not the same as not speaking up when there is a bad call in basketball. Poker is not a sport, it is a game.

There is nothing subjective about whether or not the villain had a full house. OP saw the full house, there is no question in his mind, no judgement to be made. If you are playing a game, you do everything possible to make sure no one is cheated.

In my opinion, the villain was inadvertantly cheated out of half the pot by the dealer. OP should have spoke up, just like anyone else at the table who noticed should have spoke up. Floor rectified the situation, end of story.

CardSharpCook · #77 07-06-2006, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I would think a lot (if not most?) would have had a similar line as mine on this. And I think a lot of the naysayers on this board would have as well if they were in my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is common to assume that others have similar moral standards to your own especially when it can be used to justify actions that you know are wrong. Shoplifters tell themselves that everyone steals a little something every once in a while. Adulterers assume that most married people cheat occasionally. Etc. In contrast to you, I actually believe that most people are honest, decent, and believe in fair-play.

Also, I don't even find this a difficult moral/ethical decision. It wouldn't even cross my mind to cheat the player out of half the pot. I'd help the dealer see the correct winner. Of course, I'm sure there are ethical situations that are difficult to me in which you would automatically do the "right" thing.

CardSharpCook · #78 07-06-2006, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I appriciate what you're saying, but poker is a game based on ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get this crazy idea? Poker is based on bluffing. That is why these situations come up. If you play the game trying to get your opponent to fold the winner during the hand, how far of a stretch is it to get him to fold the winner after the hand?

tpir · #79 07-06-2006, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
and once chips are raked and cards are starting to shuffle it is too late to change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, no. This sounds like a rule that you made up because you really want to keep the part of the pot that you do not deserve.

Transference · #80 07-06-2006, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appriciate what you're saying, but poker is a game based on ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get this crazy idea? Poker is based on bluffing. That is why these situations come up. If you play the game trying to get your opponent to fold the winner during the hand, how far of a stretch is it to get him to fold the winner after the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe its two plus twos own Dr. Al that has repeated many times that poker is a predatory game. My comments about giving 20:1 were tongue in cheek but the suppostion that anywhere near 100% of pros would take the "high road" was way off as has been demonstrated many many times in the B&M forum.

One last note for this thread, many of you would do well to follow CSC's example by showing some tact and respect for people who have differing opinions and motivations. It's classy and its smart, rampantly insulting people who have differing opinions than you isnt moral, its childish and irritating.