|
|
|
|
#1
06-05-2007, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Strange ruling?
From pokernews:
"Mueller Steaming Greg "FBT" Mueller bets out 550 with pocket sevens and is raised by an all-in player. The dealer announces the all-in amount as 1650 and Mueller calls. The all-in player has pocket tens, the board does not improve either player and the tens hold up. At the end of the hand, the dealer cuts down the all-in player's chips and realises that the all-in bet was actually 2650. Mueller calls for the floor, claiming he never would have called for an extra 2000 with his hand. The floor comes over and Mueller pleads his case. The floor rules that, in the interest of fairness, the 1650 has to stay in the pot but Greg does not have to put in the extra 1000." Surely he should have been forced to put the extra 1000 in? 
|
|
#2
06-05-2007, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
Surely he should have been forced to put the extra 1000 in? [/ QUOTE ] No. I think this is the standard ruling because the dealer provided specific and inaccurate information.
|
|
#3
06-05-2007, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Surely he should have been forced to put the extra 1000 in? [/ QUOTE ] No. I think this is the standard ruling because the dealer provided specific and inaccurate information. [/ QUOTE ] I'm 99% sure in Europe the ruling for this situation is he would have to put the extra money in. Assuming the other guy said "allin" and Mueller said "call".
|
|
#4
06-05-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
I have heard this ruling before where the player who called was forced to put the extra money in. I xposted this in the B&M forum to hear their oppinion because they have experienced dealers and floormen who are regulars over there.
link to B&M thread
|
|
#5
06-05-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
Considering all of the problems with the dealers, I think the ruling seems pretty fair. Although, as someone in the other thread pointed out, if the player that called had spiked his set, he would have certainly argued the other way!
|
|
#6
06-05-2007, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the other guy said "allin" and Mueller said "call". [/ QUOTE ] The ruling is correct. He wasn't calling an all-in, he was calling an all-in of a further t1000. What if the extra chip was a t10,000 chip? Obviously he wouldn't call. Mueller acted in good faith on a dealer error. The player is not at fault and should not be penalised. Equally, he should have no claim to the extra t1000 if he won the pot.
|
|
#7
06-05-2007, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
you can't say if the ruling was right or wrong unless you were there. Did Mueller ask for a chip count? Did the dealer say "about 1650", or "i think 1650". Did he count it down? Was the player hiding chips purposefully? It is a visual game and the calling player's responsibility to have the chips counted down if there is any question. If I am calling an all-in based on what it will cost me, I want an exact chip count. If there was a countdown requested and the dealer miscounted, then it was a correct call. If not, then what Mueller called was "all-in" and he should have been responsible for the rest of the chips.
|
|
#9
06-06-2007, 10:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
you can't say if the ruling was right or wrong unless you were there. Did Mueller ask for a chip count? Did the dealer say "about 1650", or "i think 1650". Did he count it down? Was the player hiding chips purposefully? It is a visual game and the calling player's responsibility to have the chips counted down if there is any question. If I am calling an all-in based on what it will cost me, I want an exact chip count. If there was a countdown requested and the dealer miscounted, then it was a correct call. If not, then what Mueller called was "all-in" and he should have been responsible for the rest of the chips. [/ QUOTE ] How many times have you heard a dealer provide an estimate for a chip count? My assumption is that Mueller asked the dealer to count it down. When dealer said 1650 total, Mueller called. As such, Mueller acted in good faith and called the further 1000. If so, the ruling is correct.
|
|
#10
06-06-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange ruling?
I like the rulling and for me it has to do with the sequence of information.
All in - How much - 1650 - call. Now as far as I am concern the call was for 1650. To be absolutely fair here, it would have to be the dealer paying the 1000 difference... lol that would fun.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
