Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

I am still reeling from the fact that JC got bad beat.

sheets

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions. Maybe Lee Jones can answer them:

1)Why is the OP so irate over this situation involving players whose tourney buy-in dwarfs his bankroll? JC Tran wasn't exactly irate over the situation, so why should the OP? Killing "the integrity of the game". Are you serious??? The AP situation kills the integrity of the game. This at most [censored] on it. More of a crop-dusting really . . .

2)Ok, so I only had one question.

3)More of a statement, than a question. OP, in your straight flush hand, the villain's hand was tabled in that he threw his cards - face up, mind you, onto the table. Yes, his intent was to muck. Yes, the mfing dickbag at the other end of the table needs to keep his mouth shut since it's not his hand. His cards are still live until the dealer turns them face down and places/mixes (in some casinos, aka my .25/.50 nl home game) them in the muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen very carefully. I understand what the ruling is. However, if this ruling (in place to prevent collusion) which can be EASILY be taken advantage of by those colluding, causes the villain to be awarded the pot, after having his cards hit the muck, it is disgraceful. Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings?

IMFHO, anyone who decides having their cards hit the muck, for WHATEVER reason, is more important to them than letting the cards read, deserves them to lose their right to the given pot and is MUCH more important than flipping cards up in every donkament all-in event to prevent "collusion". If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.

If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?

[/ QUOTE ]

your completely wrong.. there is no magical muck that cards touch killing a hand. In NLHE cash games if a hand is tabled face up cards speak not the players. It doesn't matter what the guy says although some places enforce a "you win" rule. Your saying If i table the nuts face up on the river after a guy calls me and it touches some area you consider the muck my hand is dead? In any casino cards always speak.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I charge by the hour but....making numerous large bets and leaving yourself with essentially nothing, without being felted and mucking. Moving AI and purposely having your cards irreversibly mucked. Which could be explained as, I didn't want anyone to see what I had, but either way, who is going to prove for what reason anyone makes any bet...blah blah blah. The donkish nature of this particular reply is a DIRECT function of how foolish the original rule is in the first place. The whole idea of keeping the cards out of the muck, even if put there by the player's own will in order to "prevent collusion" is stretching it reaaaalllll thin.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
If not, then why the [censored] have the 'cards hit the muck they're dead rule' at [censored]ing all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the differential between an all-in event in a cash game or a donkament that requires separate rulings?


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that you would have to be pretty retarded to chip dump in a live cash game. Whereas going all in to chip dump in a tournament could be beneficial to the two involved.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I charge by the hour but....making numerous large bets and leaving yourself with essentially nothing, without being felted and mucking. Moving AI and purposely having your cards irreversibly mucked. Which could be explained as, I didn't want anyone to see what I had, but either way, who is going to prove for what reason anyone makes any bet...blah blah blah. The donkish nature of this particular reply is a DIRECT function of how foolish the original rule is in the first place. The whole idea of keeping the cards out of the muck, even if put there by the player's own will in order to "prevent collusion" is stretching it reaaaalllll thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just wanted to waste a few more mins of your time. As for the second part of your statement, you cant muck your cards all-in in a tournament! When the AI is called, both hands are flipped face-up.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that retrieving somebody's hand from the muck in a tourney is more detrimental to the integrity of the game than chip dumping?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

the two hands are completely different situations with different rules. Cards speak has nothing to do with collusion it has to do with the spirit of the game, and prevents certain angles.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody is wound up because of three reasons:
2. The solid pro played well and lost


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget that Tran limped UTG with J9 (it looks like suited hearts) and then called a 5xBB raise from the Big Blind. We don't know anything about the game conditions and can't determine stack sizes. But, I think most players are folding that hand both times Tran had a chance to fold pre-flop. Then again, he's up against a bluff-monkey who pushed all-in with an unimproved A7.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. If a player wanted to collude, there are any number of ways to work out dumping a stack without turning up the cards. That is a pathetic excuse for allowing this [censored] to happen.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please, OP, explain to me in the next 5 minutes 3 ways to accomplish this. I'm just not following you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I charge by the hour but....making numerous large bets and leaving yourself with essentially nothing, without being felted and mucking. Moving AI and purposely having your cards irreversibly mucked. Which could be explained as, I didn't want anyone to see what I had, but either way, who is going to prove for what reason anyone makes any bet...blah blah blah. The donkish nature of this particular reply is a DIRECT function of how foolish the original rule is in the first place. The whole idea of keeping the cards out of the muck, even if put there by the player's own will in order to "prevent collusion" is stretching it reaaaalllll thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really just wanted to waste a few more mins of your time. As for the second part of your statement, you cant muck your cards all-in in a tournament! When the AI is called, both hands are flipped face-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddy, if the guy intentionally jammed his cards under the pile of muck laying in the middle of the table, there is NO way to tell which 2 are his....

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

chan=tran w/e. Lol at tran playing J9 like that and chiang limp folded 1010.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that retrieving somebody's hand from the muck in a tourney is more detrimental to the integrity of the game than chip dumping?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I said that.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
hey as people noticed in the video the guy inexplicably hands jc "some" chips. jc actually starts shuffling them as they are dealing out the hand LOL. did the guy get those chips back? There seems to be no way to know, but I have the sneaking suspicion that jc prolly scooped at least those chips and didn't give them back...maybe there is some justice?



[/ QUOTE ]

You can see the player take back those chips at about 1:35.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody is wound up because of three reasons:
2. The solid pro played well and lost


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget that Chan limped UTG with J9 (it looks like suited hearts) and then called a 5xBB raise from the Big Blind. We don't know anything about the game conditions and can't determine stack sizes. But, I think most players are folding that hand both times Chan had a chance to fold pre-flop. Then again, he's up against a bluff-monkey who pushed all-in with an unimprove A7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tran knows what he is doing......a la CP TLB

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow i was responding to your rediculous 1/2nl situation and i didn't even realize you were also the OP.

[X] IN BOTH HANDS FLOOR RULED CORRECTLY

[/ QUOTE ]

This is honestly the last time I'm going to say it. I understand what the current rules are. HOWEVER, the theory behind them are simply, ridiculous.

As I have stated already numerous times in this thread why that is, I'm not going to keep posting the same thought process over and over. If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that retrieving somebody's hand from the muck in a tourney is more detrimental to the integrity of the game than chip dumping?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I said that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I misunderstood, but this was the part I was referencing.

If you feel that the very avoidable security feature which this rule provides against collusion is more valuable to the integrity of the game, than a pot being awarded to a player who has every intention of folding his hand, up to and including physically placing the cards in the muck, then just wow. gl and gg

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

huh? it's a general rule to prevent collusion. it has nothing to do with this specific hand. it's a rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so. I don't think anybody believes there was attempted collusion, but were two players colluding, this is exactly how they'd do it. [1]

The dealer probably should have called the floor first, but the outcome is the same no matter what. If the floorman gets there, it goes like this:

Floor: "Are those his cards?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "You sure?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "Then turn 'em over; they're live."

Mike Ward made exactly the right ruling, and anything else starts you down a dangerous and slippery slope. It was just one of a gajillion bad beats at the Foxwoods that day. Next case.

I agree, BTW, that you should probably handle it differently in a cash game (clear intention to muck face down should be respected), but that's completely and totally irrelevant here.

Regards, Lee

[1] Erm, modulo the fact that the guy would probably bury his cards in the muck quickly so they couldn't be retrieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI: I was personally involved in a hand at Foxwoods, 1-2nl cash game. Where I moved all in at the river on a 4 flushed board, only to have the villain show the 35h for a straight flush wheel and say in anger "I had you til the [censored] river". He then flipped his cards FACE UP and threw them towards the muck.

Instead of the dealer killing his hand, loudmouth nit at the other end of the table yells out, "you have a straight flush". At which point villain begins to pull back his turned up cards and begin placing his barrels into the pot.

Dealer called floor. Floor called another floor. Floor x 2 decided hand was live. Monkey playing 35h who doesn't even realize when he picks up a gutshot straight flush draw on the turn and mucks when he binks river, is shipped the $$.


I posted this same story a few months ago only to be told that the ruling was correct. Cash game? lolFlipament? Explain please.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice job leaving out the most important part of this story. did villain call your allin bet before throwing his cards away?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

i don't understand why this thread is so long. the obvious (correct) ruling was made in a very simple situation. waht's there to talk about?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
chan=tran w/e. Lol at tran playing J9 like that and chiang limp folded 1010.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chiang = Giang w/e. (OMG racist!?!?)


[ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tran knows what he is doing......a la CP TLB

[/ QUOTE ]

Chau Giang does too and he says he folded TT.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody is wound up because of three reasons:
2. The solid pro played well and lost


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget that Chan limped UTG with J9 (it looks like suited hearts) and then called a 5xBB raise from the Big Blind. We don't know anything about the game conditions and can't determine stack sizes. But, I think most players are folding that hand both times Chan had a chance to fold pre-flop. Then again, he's up against a bluff-monkey who pushed all-in with an unimprove A7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tran knows what he is doing......a la CP TLB

[/ QUOTE ]

I was kinda with you on this in spirit (even though ruling is clearly correct), mainly because Mr Fishcakes acted like such a dill-hole when floor came over. But, seriously, you are a moron.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to apologize in advance for being [censored] irate about this, but the bottom line is, the fact that this muppet villain in the hand is NOT walking away with his head down thinking "i'll never do that again" is a TRAVESTY to this game

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Check out the video. www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329



As I have posted in the past, I personally have been [censored] in the same way, where a player CLEARLY throws his had towards the muck, ad instead, the dealer decides to keep his hand live. Absolutely [censored] obnoxious....



During a tournament in an all-in situation it is the CORRECT ruling for that players hand to be turned up, despite tossing it face down towards the muck.

I do NOT care what the ruling is, Foxwoods or otherwise. If a player in ANY hand decided to so BLATANTLY throw their cards towards the muck, ALL IN OR NOT, the hand is OVER. Once that player decides to throw his cards into the muck, THERE IS ONLY ONE PLAYER REMAINING IN THE HAND.

Absolutely un[censored]ing real....Instead of this donkey walking away for the mistake he made after getting PWNED, JC Tran is sitting there without the 20k pot. Like Chau Giang said, JC should have been shipped that pot...period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like I answered this one in the wrong thread

Quite simply it is the rule, TDA Rule #9 states

"All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action is complete."

The dealer did his job by opening his hand. I totally agree this guy was trying to muck his hand and tried to say he was tying to turn it up. If JC would have one this hand it would have been mistake.

Matt Savage

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah,

It REALLY sucks to be JC in this spot, but actually, OP, you are wrong. Tournament rules state that all-in players must have their hands turned faceup, and this is for good and obvious reasons. In a cash game, this would be a travesty, but here, it's just a terrible beat (2 beats rolled into 1) for JC. Nice to see the dipwad who won the hand get eliminated, though; he is blatantly lying when the floor comes over.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly right. if you watch the video, he starts to push his chips over to JC, and then pounds the table when he sucks out. whata douche. but that is what you should expect when you play donkaments.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

huh? it's a general rule to prevent collusion. it has nothing to do with this specific hand. it's a rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so. I don't think anybody believes there was attempted collusion, but were two players colluding, this is exactly how they'd do it. [1]

The dealer probably should have called the floor first, but the outcome is the same no matter what. If the floorman gets there, it goes like this:

Floor: "Are those his cards?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "You sure?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "Then turn 'em over; they're live."

Mike Ward made exactly the right ruling, and anything else starts you down a dangerous and slippery slope. It was just one of a gajillion bad beats at the Foxwoods that day. Next case.

I agree, BTW, that you should probably handle it differently in a cash game (clear intention to muck face down should be respected), but that's completely and totally irrelevant here.

Regards, Lee

[1] Erm, modulo the fact that the guy would probably bury his cards in the muck quickly so they couldn't be retrieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI: I was personally involved in a hand at Foxwoods, 1-2nl cash game. Where I moved all in at the river on a 4 flushed board, only to have the villain show the 35h for a straight flush wheel and say in anger "I had you til the [censored] river". He then flipped his cards FACE UP and threw them towards the muck.

Instead of the dealer killing his hand, loudmouth nit at the other end of the table yells out, "you have a straight flush". At which point villain begins to pull back his turned up cards and begin placing his barrels into the pot.

Dealer called floor. Floor called another floor. Floor x 2 decided hand was live. Monkey playing 35h who doesn't even realize when he picks up a gutshot straight flush draw on the turn and mucks when he binks river, is shipped the $$.


I posted this same story a few months ago only to be told that the ruling was correct. Cash game? lolFlipament? Explain please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you moved all in, he made a little speech, showed his cards and tossed them. someone noticed he had a str8 flush and then he was allowed to call your all in bet? this is ridiculous. I've misclick folded the nuts on Stars a few times and never had the option to have my cards back.
Regarding your OP, completely different situation and the correct ruling. If the guy doesn't win the hand, no fuss is ever made about this. I read somewhere that being results orientated is bad in poker.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

Can we have a happy ending of this thread by banning the OP please?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

Looks like the guy was trying to flip the hand up to me, and just missed badly.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

huh? it's a general rule to prevent collusion. it has nothing to do with this specific hand. it's a rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so. I don't think anybody believes there was attempted collusion, but were two players colluding, this is exactly how they'd do it. [1]

The dealer probably should have called the floor first, but the outcome is the same no matter what. If the floorman gets there, it goes like this:

Floor: "Are those his cards?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "You sure?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "Then turn 'em over; they're live."

Mike Ward made exactly the right ruling, and anything else starts you down a dangerous and slippery slope. It was just one of a gajillion bad beats at the Foxwoods that day. Next case.

I agree, BTW, that you should probably handle it differently in a cash game (clear intention to muck face down should be respected), but that's completely and totally irrelevant here.

Regards, Lee

[1] Erm, modulo the fact that the guy would probably bury his cards in the muck quickly so they couldn't be retrieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI: I was personally involved in a hand at Foxwoods, 1-2nl cash game. Where I moved all in at the river on a 4 flushed board, only to have the villain show the 35h for a straight flush wheel and say in anger "I had you til the [censored] river". He then flipped his cards FACE UP and threw them towards the muck.

Instead of the dealer killing his hand, loudmouth nit at the other end of the table yells out, "you have a straight flush". At which point villain begins to pull back his turned up cards and begin placing his barrels into the pot.

Dealer called floor. Floor called another floor. Floor x 2 decided hand was live. Monkey playing 35h who doesn't even realize when he picks up a gutshot straight flush draw on the turn and mucks when he binks river, is shipped the $$.


I posted this same story a few months ago only to be told that the ruling was correct. Cash game? lolFlipament? Explain please.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice job leaving out the most important part of this story. did villain call your allin bet before throwing his cards away?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained exactly as it happened. There was no verbal call, nor any chips placed into the pot. The man said "I had you til the river" (at which point a 4th heart fell and I shoved in on him) and threw his cards face up towards the muck so that everyone could see that a travesty that river giving him a wheel flush was. The villain is a donkey and should forfeit his right to collect the pot when he so blatantly makes a fold. The loudmouth should be banned for a period of time. Neither of which happened. That is the point here, certain scenarios occur where, a player BLATANTLY intends to fold, and is yet somehow eligible to receive the pot...negatively affecting the integrity of this game.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

can we ban this clown

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

huh? it's a general rule to prevent collusion. it has nothing to do with this specific hand. it's a rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so. I don't think anybody believes there was attempted collusion, but were two players colluding, this is exactly how they'd do it. [1]

The dealer probably should have called the floor first, but the outcome is the same no matter what. If the floorman gets there, it goes like this:

Floor: "Are those his cards?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "You sure?"
Dealer: "Yep."
Floor: "Then turn 'em over; they're live."

Mike Ward made exactly the right ruling, and anything else starts you down a dangerous and slippery slope. It was just one of a gajillion bad beats at the Foxwoods that day. Next case.

I agree, BTW, that you should probably handle it differently in a cash game (clear intention to muck face down should be respected), but that's completely and totally irrelevant here.

Regards, Lee

[1] Erm, modulo the fact that the guy would probably bury his cards in the muck quickly so they couldn't be retrieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI: I was personally involved in a hand at Foxwoods, 1-2nl cash game. Where I moved all in at the river on a 4 flushed board, only to have the villain show the 35h for a straight flush wheel and say in anger "I had you til the [censored] river". He then flipped his cards FACE UP and threw them towards the muck.

Instead of the dealer killing his hand, loudmouth nit at the other end of the table yells out, "you have a straight flush". At which point villain begins to pull back his turned up cards and begin placing his barrels into the pot.

Dealer called floor. Floor called another floor. Floor x 2 decided hand was live. Monkey playing 35h who doesn't even realize when he picks up a gutshot straight flush draw on the turn and mucks when he binks river, is shipped the $$.


I posted this same story a few months ago only to be told that the ruling was correct. Cash game? lolFlipament? Explain please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you moved all in, he made a little speech, showed his cards and tossed them. someone noticed he had a str8 flush and then he was allowed to call your all in bet? this is ridiculous. I've misclick folded the nuts on Stars a few times and never had the option to have my cards back.
Regarding your OP, completely different situation and the correct ruling. If the guy doesn't win the hand, no fuss is ever made about this. I read somewhere that being results orientated is bad in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. The only reason I bring it up, is all the talk of the differential between a cash game and donkament scenario. When clearly, the same ruling was imposed, both at Foxwoods. As far as the JC Tran donkament ruling, yes they made the correct ruling given the tournament rules as of now, but I'm asking....Do any of you honestly feel that the "rule" that hands must be flipped up and finished, even if a player folds the hand (for the sake of deterring collusion, which it doesn't even do) is more valuable than allowing someone like this to take down a pot after they clearly intend to fold and thereby should be forfeiting their right to proceed in the outcome of the pot?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
can we ban this clown

[/ QUOTE ]

Please let me know if I am in any way breaking a rule of the 2+2 forums by asking and responding to questions regarding my Views on this topic.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why this thread is so long. the obvious (correct) ruling was made in a very simple situation. waht's there to talk about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

I want to throw a wrench in the works....

Tournament Scenario:
-------------------

Two players heads-up in a pot. The flop is out. Player A shoves ALL IN. Player B goes into the tank. Player A gets up from his seat (which he is allowed to do) and walks over to the railbirds (which he is allowed to do). Player B takes so long to decided, Player A yells back to the table "I'm going to the bathroom. Let me know if I win." and walks out of the tournament area.

Player B now announces "I call.".

Who should turn over Player A's cards? The dealer? The Floor? Another player? No one?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

this dude at the bike always used to shove all in and immeadiately go outside for a smoke.. we were all freindly about it but i'm pretty sure if you were a nit or an angle shooter you could call the clock on him at showdown and get his hand killed.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

052446546+643465464, i think you got screwed on that one but it should be obv that your situation is far different from trans.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
052446546+643465464, i think you got screwed on that one but it should be obv that your situation is far different from trans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one was comparing the two. Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned repeatedly that the rules differ between donkaments and cash games. My story was to provide evidence that, at Foxwoods at least, that is not the case.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

by rule all all in hands must be turned face up.

End of thread

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I want to throw a wrench in the works....

Tournament Scenario:
-------------------

Two players heads-up in a pot. The flop is out. Player A shoves ALL IN. Player B goes into the tank. Player A gets up from his seat (which he is allowed to do) and walks over to the railbirds (which he is allowed to do). Player B takes so long to decided, Player A yells back to the table "I'm going to the bathroom. Let me know if I win." and walks out of the tournament area.

Player B now announces "I call.".

Who should turn over Player A's cards? The dealer? The Floor? Another player? No one?

[/ QUOTE ]

This happened once in my local casino (right down to going to the bathroom). The guy who walked out had his hand killed. I felt that this was entirely the correct ruling, because a short while before that I caught him peeking over my shoulder at my cards.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

dumb goomba liar. And idiot dealer.

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

He CLEARLY mucks and then only wins the argument by lying. How on earth is this the correct ruling?

Re: Absolutely heated about JC Tran situation at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
He CLEARLY mucks and then only wins the argument by lying. How on earth is this the correct ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule is in place to avoid collusion. The dealer and the floor made the correct ruling according to the tournament guidelines. However, it is the rule that is in question, not the floor's decision, at this point.