|
|
#11
08-15-2007, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't allowing the SB to fold an open door to angleshooting, particulary when the raiser immediately flips his cards? I think he has to be stuck with the call. This might be a situation where tournament rules are different than cash games. [/ QUOTE ] 1. OP doesn't mention if the all-in actually put his chips into the pot, or just verbally committed. No mention if Dealer announced the raise. 2. SB's action of completing to the BB indicated he thought there was no raise. 3. No indication of BB acting or the all-in flipping his cards. 
|
|
#12
08-15-2007, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
I am pretty sure that number 1 here must have happened for someone to miss the raise. That is why I think someone just saying "all in" should not be allowed. You should need to push your chips forward to put them in play, then this kind of mistake would not happen. If the other player said call but only pushed in chips equal to the BB, then obviously he thought people had only limped or folded ahead of him.
|
|
#13
08-15-2007, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
This is a pretty standard ruling in my opinion, as far as making the call of the all-in stand. If his cards were easily identifiable however I think his hand MUST be declared live however, due to the factor that it is against the rules in NL HE tournaments to muck after calling an all in otherwise the door would be open for collusion/chip dumping through this maneuver easily.
So while the call must stand, his hand also must be live and the hand must be played out otherwise this would be the easiest chip dump in the world.
|
|
#14
08-15-2007, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
This is a pretty standard ruling in my opinion, as far as making the call of the all-in stand. If his cards were easily identifiable however I think his hand MUST be declared live however, due to the factor that it is against the rules in NL HE tournaments to muck after calling an all in otherwise the door would be open for collusion/chip dumping through this maneuver easily. So while the call must stand, his hand also must be live and the hand must be played out otherwise this would be the easiest chip dump in the world. [/ QUOTE ] Since there appears to be many on the board (and quite a few that work in poker rooms) that are unfamiliar with NL rules, here is the one that applies. [ QUOTE ] 12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#15
08-15-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
Since there appears to be many on the board (and quite a few that work in poker rooms) that are unfamiliar with NL rules, here is the one that applies. [ QUOTE ] 12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range,..... A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] So, a mere verbal "I call" is not binding (unless the size of the bet has been clearly stated to the caller)?
|
|
#16
08-15-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Since there appears to be many on the board (and quite a few that work in poker rooms) that are unfamiliar with NL rules, here is the one that applies. [ QUOTE ] 12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range,..... A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] So, a mere verbal "I call" is not binding (unless the size of the bet has been clearly stated to the caller)? [/ QUOTE ] It is up to the bettor to protect himself and make sure the amount in question is clear. "I call" is binding if the amount is clear, but if someone goes all in for $1k and someone says "I call" and throws out $100 it is clear they didn't understand the amount of the wager they were facing.
|
|
#17
08-15-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Since there appears to be many on the board (and quite a few that work in poker rooms) that are unfamiliar with NL rules, here is the one that applies. [ QUOTE ] 12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range,..... A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] So, a mere verbal "I call" is not binding (unless the size of the bet has been clearly stated to the caller)? [/ QUOTE ] Its not that a verbal "I call" is not binding. In fact if the player had merely stated "I call" and then not put out any chips whatsoever this should definately be binding, since there was no indication that the bet was misunderstood. If the player didn't move any chips out it would seem much more likely that he thought he called all-in than that he called the Big Blind.
|
|
#18
08-15-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
Apparently "I call" is binding unless the floor/TD decides that a "gross misunderstanding" has taken place. That doesn't mean it's not binding; it means it's binding unless certain unusual circumstances, which are clearly applicable to the OP, have occurred.
|
|
#19
08-15-2007, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
So, a mere verbal "I call" is not binding (unless the size of the bet has been clearly stated to the caller)? [/ QUOTE ] PlayerX says "I call", and before he has a chance to put any chips in the pot, BettorY flips his hand. We won't even start on "Bet some amount", "I call, but don't put in chips to show I understand the size of the bet", Dealer burns and turns.
|
|
#20
08-15-2007, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting foxwoods ruling (yet again)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, a mere verbal "I call" is not binding (unless the size of the bet has been clearly stated to the caller)? [/ QUOTE ] PlayerX says "I call", and before he has a chance to put any chips in the pot, BettorY flips his hand. We won't even start on "Bet some amount", "I call, but don't put in chips to show I understand the size of the bet", Dealer burns and turns. [/ QUOTE ] You have hit on why NL should be played with deliberate speed. When playing NL everyone has to slow down.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
