JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Very interesting...check it out:

http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329

I can't believe what I just saw the dealer do. Is that procedure in most major circuit tournaments? I know that the all-in player most flip over his hand to protect against collusion but it should at least be ruled dead.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting...check it out:

http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329

I can't believe what I just saw the dealer do. Is that procedure in most major circuit tournaments? I know that the all-in player most flip over his hand to protect against collusion but it should at least be ruled dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone that thinks this hand is dead does not understand tournament rules and procedures. The dealer should have called for the floor first, but you cannot muck when a player is all in. I am glad Mike Ward has it exactly right.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting...check it out:

http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329

I can't believe what I just saw the dealer do. Is that procedure in most major circuit tournaments? I know that the all-in player most flip over his hand to protect against collusion but it should at least be ruled dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the right decision, when heads up and all-in cards must be turned face up. I saw the clip and even though it WAS obvious the guy was stupidly trying to fold the ruling was correct.

Matt Savage

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

I think what it comes down to is...

(a) that the dealer made the correct decision based on the rules.

(b) that really sucks for JC.

(c) that guy was kind of a douche with his whole "I didnt muck, i turned my cards up" routine.

Right result...horrible circumstances.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what it comes down to is...

(a) that the dealer made the correct decision based on the rules.
(b) that really sucks for JC.

(c) that guy was kind of a douche with his whole "I didnt muck, i turned my cards up" routine.

Right result...horrible circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
(a) that the dealer made the correct decision based on the rules.


[/ QUOTE ]

The correct thing is for the dealer to call the floor here. There are enough people out there that are going to insist the dealer is wrong that the floor needs to do it because he can rule and then leave the table.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

FWIW, I agree with Matt nd Randy...
Foxwoods has been a successful event for a long time, and the abilities and leadership of Mike have a lot to do with that. In this instance it is a clear cut situation.
We have all heard about the classic example of this involving Daniel N. and his bluff at a player holding a stright flush on the flop. Daniel mucked, but his cards never touched and were ruled live.... Runner runner straight flush...Chopped pot.

Had JC won the pot it would be a moot point.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the decision should be made before the result of opposing hands are complete. When the player making the decision to muck his cards, nevermind grab a handful of chips and hand them to Tran (in this case), he should be forfeiting his right to win the pot. It's like this.....The rule is in place to prevent collusion. Any reasonable argument will conclude that collusion is still very much possible, even this this rule in place. That being said, these people who eventually realize they've made a mistake by folding, whether it be by another player speaking up, or by realizing the've made the best hand after they've folded, need to be held accountable.

There is nothing more awkward for a poker player than to watch someone foolishly trying to grab back their hand and simultaneously jam his chips into the pot and act like he was calling the whole time, imo.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

The problem with this is that it forces the floorperson or TD to decide whteher or not it was a legitimate "play" at the pot, or if it was collusion. For example:

A player moves all in and is called by another player. He has no pair no draw. The other guy has a big hand....

As a tournament director, at that point if you are called, you must decide (without being at the table for play of the hand) whether or not this guy was making a play at the pot or chip dumping. How do we decide?

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

The decision will revrert to whether or not we "know" the players, or how we feel about it. Nothing is worse than having a person make a decision and not be able to back it up with logic...

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Also, I found it interesting that the guy slid chips to JC and JC started shuffling them before the turn and river had been put out... he had admitted he had lost the pot when he did this. That tells me that he meant to fold....BUT HE STILL HAD A LIVE HAND

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

I think that's the point. JohhnyG. It was not legal for the other player to muck his cards in that situation, therefore the hands must be tabled and shown down.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the decision should be made before the result of opposing hands are complete. When the player making the decision to muck his cards, nevermind grab a handful of chips and hand them to Tran (in this case), he should be forfeiting his right to win the pot. It's like this.....The rule is in place to prevent collusion. Any reasonable argument will conclude that collusion is still very much possible, even this this rule in place. That being said, these people who eventually realize they've made a mistake by folding, whether it be by another player speaking up, or by realizing the've made the best hand after they've folded, need to be held accountable.

There is nothing more awkward for a poker player than to watch someone foolishly trying to grab back their hand and simultaneously jam his chips into the pot and act like he was calling the whole time, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that there are other ways of colluding and chip dumping. However, what would you classify as worse, bringing an all in hand that was mucked back or letting people chip dump? I don't need an explanation, just which one you think is worse.

This question is for JohnnyG, Matt Savage or RR preferably all 3 as I would like to know if this is feasible. What if there is a way to prevent collusion/chip dumping and kill the hand at the same time. Instead of having the hand still be live when the dealer turns it over, why not have the hand be dead but still flip the cards over. This would then prevent the colluding/chip dumping and punish the person for mucking, instead of rewarding them, when they intend to muck and then get lucky. Because I'm sure we all agree that the rule in the cash game is ideally the best ruling in regards to mucking, but the need is still there to prevent the collusion/chip dumping.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

The rule is simple and clear: you CANNOT fold the hand in this situation. It does not matter that the dumbass "intentionally" tried to muck his hand. He didn't have that option. And he didn't pull his hand back from the muck. The dealer, appropriately, did. I'm not sure what the griping is about. This was a bad beat. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Seems like a very easy ruling. The player is all-in both hands must be turned face up, regardless of whether they would like to muck or not. Good dealer. Good floor ruling (Mike Ward). I agree with Matt Savage and Johnny Grooms.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

here's a what if situation.... What if the person turned their cards up, and was on an absolute steal and got busted. How do we disprove the collusion? If the hand is dead, then the chip dumping happens, and cannot be stopped(unless you arbitrarily decide that the player was on a "legitimate steal attempt" and was not chip dumping).

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
here's a what if situation.... What if the person turned their cards up, and was on an absolute steal and got busted. How do we disprove the collusion? If the hand is dead, then the chip dumping happens, and cannot be stopped(unless you arbitrarily decide that the player was on a "legitimate steal attempt" and was not chip dumping).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand the situation. I don't think that you can ever "prove" collusion. You can only shine the light on it and make threats to deter it.

Ok, there might be a few constructed situations where it could be proven (one ratting out the other). But usually collusion is undectable, often identical to sharp poker play, and it can always be explained away.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the decision should be made before the result of opposing hands are complete. When the player making the decision to muck his cards, nevermind grab a handful of chips and hand them to Tran (in this case), he should be forfeiting his right to win the pot. It's like this.....The rule is in place to prevent collusion. Any reasonable argument will conclude that collusion is still very much possible, even this this rule in place. That being said, these people who eventually realize they've made a mistake by folding, whether it be by another player speaking up, or by realizing the've made the best hand after they've folded, need to be held accountable.

There is nothing more awkward for a poker player than to watch someone foolishly trying to grab back their hand and simultaneously jam his chips into the pot and act like he was calling the whole time, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that there are other ways of colluding and chip dumping. However, what would you classify as worse, bringing an all in hand that was mucked back or letting people chip dump? I don't need an explanation, just which one you think is worse.

This question is for JohnnyG, Matt Savage or RR preferably all 3 as I would like to know if this is feasible. What if there is a way to prevent collusion/chip dumping and kill the hand at the same time. Instead of having the hand still be live when the dealer turns it over, why not have the hand be dead but still flip the cards over. This would then prevent the colluding/chip dumping and punish the person for mucking, instead of rewarding them, when they intend to muck and then get lucky. Because I'm sure we all agree that the rule in the cash game is ideally the best ruling in regards to mucking, but the need is still there to prevent the collusion/chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this, the player paid enough to win the pot and he had the best hand. What is wrong with that?

Matt

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that there are other ways of colluding and chip dumping. However, what would you classify as worse, bringing an all in hand that was mucked back or letting people chip dump? I don't need an explanation, just which one you think is worse.

This question is for JohnnyG, Matt Savage or RR preferably all 3 as I would like to know if this is feasible. What if there is a way to prevent collusion/chip dumping and kill the hand at the same time. Instead of having the hand still be live when the dealer turns it over, why not have the hand be dead but still flip the cards over. This would then prevent the colluding/chip dumping and punish the person for mucking, instead of rewarding them, when they intend to muck and then get lucky. Because I'm sure we all agree that the rule in the cash game is ideally the best ruling in regards to mucking, but the need is still there to prevent the collusion/chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this, the player paid enough to win the pot and he had the best hand. What is wrong with that?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with the rule the way it is but it seems that other people do. My statement was purely a suggestion and was curious to see if that was at all feasible as it seems that half the people in the forum are convinced that the cash game rule should be in effect. I understand that the rule probably would not change in the TDA, but it does seem like it could theoretically cover both bases. Maybe I'm wrong in my theories.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
here's a what if situation.... What if the person turned their cards up, and was on an absolute steal and got busted. How do we disprove the collusion? If the hand is dead, then the chip dumping happens, and cannot be stopped(unless you arbitrarily decide that the player was on a "legitimate steal attempt" and was not chip dumping).

[/ QUOTE ]

If the person turned their hand up then their hand is obviously live. Here's another what if...What if they are on an absolute steal and get called and then muck (like the Tran situation). What would be the negative effects of killing his hand and then have the dealer turn his hand over?

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Matt has better knowledge of the foundations of TDA rules, and the situations that helped them come about. One of the ground rules for creating or amending TDA rule is that it's easy to implement and understand, and can be applied in a vast majority of situations. By making a rule with the constraints you list above, a whole Pandora's box is opened on how to shoot angles against the rule. For every rule created, there is a way to exploit that rule to benefit or harm a player.

The situation we saw in the video was very unique. We had video. In 99% of the situations, there is no video, and we have to rely on details from the players and the dealer. How often when we come to the table would we have to sort out "did he really intend to fold" "I didnt mean to fold" "yes you did" "i tried to turn my hand up, but the cards were blown over" etc. Becuase there is no easy way to make this a standard rule, it probably isn't feasible to make it a rule.....

Just my opinion

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

The negative is that how could we determine if he was chip dumping or stealing? There is no way to know. By killing his hand you ensure that he can chip dump, because at that point he has no way to win the pot...

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Matt, I still want WK on the money line vs KR

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Matt has better knowledge of the foundations of TDA rules, and the situations that helped them come about. One of the ground rules for creating or amending TDA rule is that it's easy to implement and understand, and can be applied in a vast majority of situations. By making a rule with the constraints you list above, a whole Pandora's box is opened on how to shoot angles against the rule. For every rule created, there is a way to exploit that rule to benefit or harm a player.

The situation we saw in the video was very unique. We had video. In 99% of the situations, there is no video, and we have to rely on details from the players and the dealer. How often when we come to the table would we have to sort out "did he really intend to fold" "I didnt mean to fold" "yes you did" "i tried to turn my hand up, but the cards were blown over" etc. Becuase there is no easy way to make this a standard rule, it probably isn't feasible to make it a rule.....

Just my opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, that pretty much makes sense.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Any pair colluding by mucking an all-in hand isn't very bright. What about players who fold to a tiny raise? That is tiny relative to the size of the pot. That must be legal. Looks very suspicious. What if someone folded to a one chip raise in a very large pot?

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting...check it out:

http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329

I can't believe what I just saw the dealer do. Is that procedure in most major circuit tournaments? I know that the all-in player most flip over his hand to protect against collusion but it should at least be ruled dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the right decision, when heads up and all-in cards must be turned face up. I saw the clip and even though it WAS obvious the guy was stupidly trying to fold the ruling was correct.

Matt Savage




[/ QUOTE ]

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

rules are rules & rules rule.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

The intent of the rule is to prevent chip dumping in which a player would muck a BETTER hand to someone during an all-in. Otherwise someone could hold their cards unseen, wait for the dealer to deal the entire board, and then muck a winner in order to dump chips.

also the player was a total douche for trying to claim he tabled his cards.

One cannot determine what is a chip dump and what is a badly timed steal; and that is not the point of the rule

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

lol
The hand doesnt have to be a better hand to chip dump....
In the spot we saw, what he's holding is immaterial if he is trying to dump chips.... He couls muck any hand and be sure to give the chips away

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

Matt,

I recently was at a final table of a tournament where a simialr situation occurred, but with a twist. The seat 10 player moved all in, and after some deliberation, seat 1 called the all in. The rest of the table slowly folded their hands, and when it got back to seat 10, he slid both of his cards face down halfway into the muck (the cards were halfway sticking out and could be retrieved). Seat 10 did not see that seat 1 had put the chips out to call the all in, and the dealer did say seat 1 had called, but seat 10 claimed he did not hear this (perhaps the dealer's head was turned toward seat 1?), or see the chips in front of seat 10 (blind situation because the dealer is in the way), or on and on with the different reasons. For this tournament, the hand was declared dead and seat 1 won the pot (seat 1 had A/K, and seat 10 claimed to have jacks, so seat 1 would have won the pot).

So, let me get this scenario straight: When all action is complete and two players are heads up in an all in situation, even if the cards are in the muck but can be retrieved (as they were in the above scenario), they must be retrived and turned face up and the cards run out so the winner can be awarded the pot?

Thanks

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this scenario straight: When all action is complete and two players are heads up in an all in situation, even if the cards are in the muck but can be retrieved (as they were in the above scenario), they must be retrived and turned face up and the cards run out so the winner can be awarded the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The rule is turn over the cards, not turn over the cards if you want to.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's OK, provided that the person with the winning hand WANTED to muck...it's a free country, c'mon, if you're too timid or too stupid to turn the winning (or losing) hand over, you should be allowed to forfeit your right to "cards speak."

I don't think the rule is good for the game...and I think the rule for any called bet (allin or otherwise) should outline your privilege 1) to either expose your hand and be eligible to win the pot or 2) muck it and forego your right to the pot.

Also, I don't think that dealers at any other venue enforce the rule the way it was in this hand...I'm sure you'll correct me if it's different at Bay 101 than the norm, but the way they did it at Foxwoods is often not SOP.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

he gets elimiated on day one later and wishes to remain anonoymous lol

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made?

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win?

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's OK, provided that the person with the winning hand WANTED to muck...it's a free country, c'mon, if you're too timid or too stupid to turn the winning (or losing) hand over, you should be allowed to forfeit your right to "cards speak."

I don't think the rule is good for the game...and I think the rule for any called bet (allin or otherwise) should outline your privilege 1) to either expose your hand and be eligible to win the pot or 2) muck it and forego your right to the pot.

Also, I don't think that dealers at any other venue enforce the rule the way it was in this hand...I'm sure you'll correct me if it's different at Bay 101 than the norm, but the way they did it at Foxwoods is often not SOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the rule but if the dealer was to muck the hand not protected by the player than hand is over and awarded to the player with cards. I have seen dealers muck the hand in this situation many times.

Matt Savage

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

I definitely see your point. I also didn't think about how it affects other players in the tournament.

Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
 

the only reason, the dealers action or the floor decision were questioned, is because jc lost the hand. jc said nothing when the dealer turned the cards up. he said nothing, in fact he watched like it was business as usual as the dealer burned and turned the turn card and said nothing as he burned and turned the river card. he only got upset and blamed his loss on dealer error when he was ran down. the hand didn't touch the muck, the muck was on the other side of the dealer. the hand was retrievable and properly exposed, per tda rules. and how could any floor person rule otherwise? he got the story, the player was all in, he threw his cards across the table, the dealer exposed them as the rules state, the turn and river were dealt, his hand was the best hand. how do you gather those facts and tell him he's out of the tournament?