|
|
#11
04-08-2006, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
[ QUOTE ]
dealer did NOT announce all-in. and sheets was in the 7 seat and could not see the UTG player, or his cards. [/ QUOTE ] Sometimes the tournament directors seem to feel like you can't use common sense. There needs to be a rule that allows for flexibility in cases like this where the blame can be placed either on the dealer or on the player who moved allin. I can't imagine anyone in the tournament is going to get incensed in a situation like this if sheets was allowed to fold his hand after realziing that the action was not made very clear by either the raiser or the dealer. At least make it mandatory to stop play and put the players chips in the center of the table before the future action. On a somewhat related note...I've seen too many situations where someone goes allin, and has their cards reasonably well protected, and somehow a dealer manages to sweep them away from the player thus eliminating them from the tournament. I'm tired of dealers mistakes costing a player their tournament. In every case like this the player was at some degree of fault, but really is it the greater evil to allow a player to take back their allin bet when their hand has been swept away by the dealer, presuming there is no action after them? Anyway this is just another example, but whenever a dealer makes even the most minor of infractions or mistakes, the player should be given as much leeway as deemed reasonable by the TD. I think that in this case, based on the facts as they've been presented, it would be beyond reasonable to allow sheets to retract his allin bet. 
|
|
#12
04-08-2006, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
That is a fine line you want to cross curtains.
I agree this situation should not happen (both dealer and player need to be more aware of the action) but having a rule that once the chips go in, they are in should remain. If they are leniant on that then it opens up a door that should never be opened. when I was playing in the $1000 event at Reno last month, a situation came up where a guy bet a $2000 and the other guy apparently went all in but had his "big" chips still behind his hand and out of view. The original bettor said call and then realized his call was way more expensive than he anticipated. He stated he was getting odds on calling the all in for $5000 amount but with those extra chips involved he would have never called. He demanded his money back so he could fold. The TD ruled that the chips in the middle will absoluetly not be returned to him and compromised that he only needed to call what was pushed in (the guy honestly forgot to push his "big chips" in and it was not a move as he was ok with the ruling). Here is an example of the both the dealer and players involved of not "doing their jobs" and it costs someone. Actually though, I thought that ruling was just as the TD didn't make him call the full allin but rather the perceived allin.
|
|
#13
04-08-2006, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
There was an article about this in CardPlayer within the last 2 issues...
|
|
#14
04-08-2006, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
A simular thing happened to me last year at Foxwoods when I was sitting in the 1 seat in a tourny for the Word Poker Finals. I was on the button, 10 seat pushed, did not see he had cards around dealer, no chips in the middle, so I tried a steal, Then I was informed I had to put the rest of my chips in to call, or give up what I put in the pot. The floor was called and I gave it up. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
|
#17
04-08-2006, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
Honestly though, I think its absurd that a bet can count with the chips still sitting in the players stack. I mean cmon its totally ridiculous. There are just so many ways that can go wrong. Also a player can claim that everyone at the table misheard them. They could say four hundred thousand, and then after smoeone goes allin they could claim that they only said one hundred thousand. The dealer and player's ears should not be the determining factor as to what a raise size was, there should be physical proof in the center of the table so that no dispute can be possible. Why this isn't a rule mystifies me.
|
|
#19
04-08-2006, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
And I don't think so Jurollo...dealer must "square the pot" before burning and turning the next action.
[ QUOTE ] Honestly though, I think its absurd that a bet can count with the chips still sitting in the players stack. I mean cmon its totally ridiculous. There are just so many ways that can go wrong. Also a player can claim that everyone at the table misheard them. They could say four hundred thousand, and then after smoeone goes allin they could claim that they only said one hundred thousand. The dealer and player's ears should not be the determining factor as to what a raise size was, there should be physical proof in the center of the table so that no dispute can be possible. Why this isn't a rule mystifies me. [/ QUOTE ] Verbal's binding, at least everywhere I've played. But that was the gist of the Cardplayer article, there's no visible indicator. But I feel it's more of a duty to the dealer and as much so the player to verify the action up to him before acting, buyer beware.
|
|
#20
04-08-2006, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Controversy with Sheets?!?!
Ibelieve the rule only applies to all in. like I said, I thnk it is their for "time consuming" issues. Pushing lots of chips just to take them back. I don't know. I certainly don't agree but it is what it is. Obviously we should go through the motions if it will avoid this situation. Plus It's not like you have to move them into the middle of the table./ Just 5 inches will do. Enough to let anyone at the table be able to see it without hearing it. I'm a dealer and one of my lines that I must say atleast 5 times a dayis, "its a visual game people". Well not according to this situation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
