JC Tran controversy poll
 

I'm going to make it as simple as possible. I want to get an idea of the #s on each side of this debate.

We all now know that the tournament ruling with JC Tran at Foxwoods was the "correct" ruling, according to the current guidelines. The question is....

Which is more important to you? The actual "rule" itself, which is currently in place to prevent collusion, and is easily avoidable by those who may decide to collude. Or, holding these people who decide to muck their hand while it is still live accountable. Maintaining the integrity of this game so that we will never see another player awkwardly pulling back their cards from the muck and simultaneously jamming their chips in the pot while we all shake our heads, because we ALL know the player has folded his hand.

Choose which you believe is BETTER for the integrity of this game...

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

nice unbiased, neutral framing of the question there lol

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

broken pole.

doesn't work.

and by doesn't work I mean I'm not voting in it.

unless there's a hidden bastard. then I choose that.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

This guy`s still not baned?

BAN!!!

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

I'm going to make it as simple as possible - you are a moron.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

I dunno whats worse, the fact i read the first 100 replies to the other thread or that i came here expecting more.

The rules are the rules are the rules. The rule DOES work.

In fact, for you or JC to claim the hand should be dead is angle shooting in its purest form.

Ive never heard of anyone ruling that you can muck in a tourney when you get all in with streets still to be dealt - and if they have they need a swift kick in the nuts.

This is NOT a debate. There is a rule. The rule was followed. The right outcome happened.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH SOMETHING PHIL SAID>. HOLLA [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno whats worse, the fact i read the first 100 replies to the other thread or that i came here expecting more.

The rules are the rules are the rules. The rule DOES work.

In fact, for you or JC to claim the hand should be dead is angle shooting in its purest form.

Ive never heard of anyone ruling that you can muck in a tourney when you get all in with streets still to be dealt - and if they have they need a swift kick in the nuts.

This is NOT a debate. There is a rule. The rule was followed. The right outcome happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree in every single word. It was just an unfortunate outcome for the hand. Note that it should be different in cash games

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

Poll results are very interesting. While obv a small sample, it is an educated one. Actual players of the game who know enough about the topic at hand to make a thoughtful vote.

I really don't know why some of you seem to take this so personally. There is clearly (look at the poll #s and the posts on the longer thread) an argument here for whether or not the current rule is the most valuable for the sake of this game. If you're plan on posting a response to reiterate the current rule itself as it pertains to the JC Tran incident, save it. This thread is to discuss the what is best for the integrity of the game, not the ruling in that specific instance.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

The integrity of the game? Yeah, it's best to let neophytes get angled out of a pot. That should keep the suckers in the game.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

No angle, you muck your cards, you lose. Noob to seasoned pro, if you feel the need to muck your hand while the pot is still live, you should be held accountable by losing your right to win the pot.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

LOL JC TRANNY

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

Well, in a tournament, for reasons you don't agree with, the rule is it's a live hand. Deal with it, or don't play tournaments.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
No angle, you muck your cards, you lose. Noob to seasoned pro, if you feel the need to muck your hand while the pot is still live, you should be held accountable by losing your right to win the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

I'm fully away what the rule is in donkaments. The point is, its ability to prevent collusion is NOT effective enough to warrant overlooking these types of scenarios, such as the JC Tran video. This situation happens more than you're aware of i think.....

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fully away what the rule is in donkaments. The point is, its ability to prevent collusion is NOT effective enough to warrant overlooking these types of scenarios, such as the JC Tran video. This situation happens more than you're aware of i think.....

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, no it does not. Collusion happens more than something like this does. In fact, if they applied this cash rule to tournaments, chip dumping would no longer occur in bathrooms anymore.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poll results are very interesting. While obv a small sample, it is an educated one. Actual players of the game who know enough about the topic at hand to make a thoughtful vote.

[/ QUOTE ]Crikey, your humility is to be applauded

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't know why some of you seem to take this so personally. There is clearly (look at the poll #s and the posts on the longer thread) an argument here for whether or not the current rule is the most valuable for the sake of this game.

[/ QUOTE ] TBH, outwith your posts, there weren't many others thinking that allowing angle shooting as you suggest was a good thing

[ QUOTE ]
If you're plan on posting a response to reiterate the current rule itself as it pertains to the JC Tran incident, save it.

[/ QUOTE ] So this thread is only for those who agree with you? Your running a dictatorship now?

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is to discuss the what is best for the integrity of the game, not the ruling in that specific instance.

[/ QUOTE ]as decided by you, you've already stated there can be no dissenting voices to your opinion, which clealry wrong as it is is meant to be for the good of the game because you say so?

Calm down, take a chill pill, and LISTEN to what everyone has told you.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

The only thing I'm "listening" to is the poll #s. Awfully interesting considering the 2nd option is an idea that just came about as of yesterday in the longer JC Tran incident thread...

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I'm "listening" to is the poll #s.

[/ QUOTE ]We know.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poll results are very interesting. While obv a small sample, it is an educated one. Actual players of the game who know enough about the topic at hand to make a thoughtful vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You're asking [censored] NVG. This is not an "educated sample" and the results are not interesting in the least.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fully away what the rule is in donkaments. The point is, its ability to prevent collusion is NOT effective enough to warrant overlooking these types of scenarios, such as the JC Tran video. This situation happens more than you're aware of i think.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Name three other instances where this has happened, ever.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

Looks like the rule is winning in the poll. Maybe you should rephrase the question though since it is clearly biased towards the current rule. I don't think that you are giving the "If a player folds their hand, for sake of tilt or any reason, they are held accountable by losing their right to win the pot, no showdown, hand is over....cards speak, just DONT do it" a fair chance.... maybe put it in bold and capitalize it or something.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

not by much, which is the point

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
not by much, which is the point

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with the biased phrasing your opinion is losing in the poll.

New poll
 

Re: New poll
 

Am I the only one seeing OP 40 years in the future, with his grandchildren on knee, telling them all the story of THE HAND - the hand where someone else called villains straight flush and cost him a huge pot.

Re: New poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I'm "listening" to is the poll #s.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the rule is winning in the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not by much, which is the point

[/ QUOTE ]

So i guess you're not really listening to the pole if it doesn't get the results you want.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
nice unbiased, neutral framing of the question there lol

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who works with many Ph. D scientists designing survey questions and stuff I can honestly say this is one of the most heavily biased polls in terms of wording I have ever seen.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
so that we will never see another player awkwardly pulling back their cards from the muck and simultaneously jamming their chips in the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

this isnt what happened. his chips clearly were in the pot prior to his attempted much. like way before.

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so that we will never see another player awkwardly pulling back their cards from the muck and simultaneously jamming their chips in the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

this isnt what happened. his chips clearly were in the pot prior to his attempted much. like way before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesnt it show the guy putting his own chips in front of JC's chips as if he is GIVING him the chips? I could be wrong, thats just how I remember it.

Possibly Unrelated
 

I had a questionable mucked/unmucked situation occur when playing a 1/2 hold em cash game. After approximatedly 80 in the pot I was heads up. The other guy acted first on the river and pushed another 60 in the pot. I called and held my winning cards up for the dealer and the other player to see. When throwing my cards to the dealer they landed face down and the dealer forfeited the pot to the other player saying I intended to muck my hand. That was after I called a river bet and held up the cards for both to see. Has anyone had a related situation or interpretation of this ruling?

Re: Possibly Unrelated
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had a questionable mucked/unmucked situation occur when playing a 1/2 hold em cash game. After approximatedly 80 in the pot I was heads up. The other guy acted first on the river and pushed another 60 in the pot. I called and held my winning cards up for the dealer and the other player to see. When throwing my cards to the dealer they landed face down and the dealer forfeited the pot to the other player saying I intended to muck my hand. That was after I called a river bet and held up the cards for both to see. Has anyone had a related situation or interpretation of this ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont understand why poker players have such a hard time turning their hand upwards when the hand finishes. My homegame has turned into a massive quagmire of "okay you turn your hand over then i will too!" and then negotiations. TURN YOU HAND FACE UP WHEN YOU CALL IMMEDIATELY AND PROTECT IT. THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. THIS IS INCREDIBLY SIMPLE.

Re: New poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I'm "listening" to is the poll #s.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the rule is winning in the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
not by much, which is the point

[/ QUOTE ]

So i guess you're not really listening to the pole if it doesn't get the results you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

You couldn't be more wrong. I fully expected the #s to be extremely skewed towards the current ruling. Most people would rather keep things the way they are than bothering putting thought into the most appropriate rule, given the circumstances.

Contrary to your seemingly random comment, I'm actually shocked that after this many votes, it sits at about 60/40. Shocking considering the 2nd of the two concepts, for whatever reason, seems to rub so many of you the wrong way. When in reality, a certain % of those who voted in this poll, just stuck with the current guidelines without considering the pros and cons of each comparatively. Making these results even more interesting...

As for the whining about the wording...Ty capt. Obv for noting that the wording of the poll was written by someone who clearly favors the latter option of the two. I hope however, that you realize that has zero affect on each users vote in the poll and only informing voters of the basis for the 2nd option, while the 1st is already well known.

Re: Possibly Unrelated
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a questionable mucked/unmucked situation occur when playing a 1/2 hold em cash game. After approximatedly 80 in the pot I was heads up. The other guy acted first on the river and pushed another 60 in the pot. I called and held my winning cards up for the dealer and the other player to see. When throwing my cards to the dealer they landed face down and the dealer forfeited the pot to the other player saying I intended to muck my hand. That was after I called a river bet and held up the cards for both to see. Has anyone had a related situation or interpretation of this ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont understand why poker players have such a hard time turning their hand upwards when the hand finishes. My homegame has turned into a massive quagmire of "okay you turn your hand over then i will too!" and then negotiations. TURN YOU HAND FACE UP WHEN YOU CALL IMMEDIATELY AND PROTECT IT. THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. THIS IS INCREDIBLY SIMPLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Whatever it is you did to warrant the dealer mucking your hand, I guarantee you won't do that again. Donkament or cash game, if a player mucks their hand, it should be dead. Be responsible for your own actions at the table.

Re: Possibly Unrelated
 

At TS a few months back, I reraised allin with AA from the BB and the LP raiser called. I didn't notice the dealer reaching over to rake my blind to the middle, and so when I flipped my cards over they bounced off his arm and almost landed face down in the muck. After I won the hand, the dealer informed me that had the cards landed in the muck, my hand would have been dead because no one would have seen the cards and it would be impossible to know which cards were actually mine.

Now I believe in the JC Tran situation this ruling is irrelevant because his opponent showed his cards prior to flicking them away. I'm just curious to know if the ruling the TS dealer gave me was in fact correct.

Re: Possibly Unrelated
 

The TS dealer was correct. This is one of the many problems with the current rule. ONLY if the cards are 100% recoverable from the muck can they be turned up. If that isn't a gray area then I don't know what is....

Re: Possibly Unrelated
 

[ ] you really needed to start another thread on this topic, good job

Re: JC Tran controversy poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
We all now know that the tournament ruling with JC Tran at Foxwoods was the "correct" ruling, according to the current guidelines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Re: New poll
 

[ QUOTE ]

As for the whining about the wording...Ty capt. Obv for noting that the wording of the poll was written by someone who clearly favors the latter option of the two. I hope however, that you realize that has zero affect on each users vote in the poll

[/ QUOTE ]


It's fairly well known that the way a question or poll is worded can significantly impact the results.

Re: Possibly Unrelated