|
|
|
|
#1
10-22-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
Post this without the "Preliminary situation" (hand #1) and the "frustration" or "angleshooting" commentary on hand #2. [Just the facts, ma'am]. See if you get different results. I'll bet you do.
Unfortunately, some posters seem to think that what happens in the past hand should affect the decision in the current hand and that's simply not the case. They are independent events and should be treated as such. If someone was trying to tell the floor about the misannounced Kings hand for this current $2000 bet situation, the floor needs to drown it out for what's happening in the now (just like the readers need to drown out hand #1). Yes, it seems like karma got him in hand #2 (but in general, karma seems to strike much later), but did he really deserve what he got? I don't know if I could bind him to $2000, and would probably bind him only what would be considered a "normal" bet, which is the size of the pot with the disclaimer that I'm not a dealer or floor or anyone in authority so I have no idea if this ruling would be correct. Garland 
|
|
#3
10-22-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
I don't see Player 1 as an angle shooter at all. He was cutting his chips, saying to himself (as we all have done), "How much will he call?" when Player 2 took the decision out of his hands. Player 2 would do better keeping quiet.
jmo
|
|
#4
10-23-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
According to OP, player 1 wasn't going to bet $2,000, he only decided to bet that much when player 2 prematurely said "call."
Yet another reason to not like no limit.
|
|
#5
10-23-2007, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
If I understand the situation correctly, Player 1 brings a stack of chips across the betting line. No more than that stack of chips can be bet. Otherwise it's a string bet. That much seems perfectly clear to me.
Player 2 acted out of turn. We have to assume his call is binding assuming a reasonable interpretation of Player 1's actions. A reasonable interpretation is that he was going to bet between $100 and $400. At that point Player 1 can declare (or cut) a total of $400. It could even be argued that the bet is $400 period. The act of cutting chips can also be string betting, depending on how it's done. I guess that's an argument for another day, but Player 1 certainly has the option to call out a bet of $400, or to stop cutting chips at, say, $200, if cutting chips in such a way is not considered string betting. I like the ruling in the sense that Player 2 got what he deserved (the call of "kings" against you is bad, bad, bad.) I'd say that I'd be concerned that the floor could screw me sometime too, but I'd never shoot an angle. Now, if I had said call because I saw max $400 chips in the player's hand, then I said call, I should only have to pay $400 (but I wouldn't have been angle shooting either.) Technically we can't be sure he was angling this hand, so the floor's ruling is wrong. He should pay $400.
|
|
#6
10-25-2007, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
I hate the ruling and the rule, tho I've asked around and just about everyone seems to think this is the way it should be. I had a similar situation a while back. Player bet, opponent said raise, player said call before the amount was stated. I hate it because it gives the bettor/raiser a free chance to shoot an angle. This aint football, and it's not the same as defensive offsides where the offense gets a free play. This is a tricky situation but offering free range betting when a player knows his opponent will be forced to call is a bad solution.
|
|
#7
10-25-2007, 08:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either:
1) Call the bet. 2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor. This would seem to protect the bettor to some degree (e.g. he gets some money from the caller risk-free), while punishing the bettor if he gets overly greedy (e.g. he gets no more than the minimum he has put out even if the caller might have called a reasonably sized bet rather than be faced with an exorbitant bet).
|
|
#8
10-25-2007, 08:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either: 1) Call the bet. 2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor. [/ QUOTE ] You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down? According to your reasoning, I should be able to which is wrong. The guy can can interrupt my betting, and get a cheap showdown because he only has to call what has been cut. Obviously I won't throw more money out there if I'm the only bluffing so it's win/win for the guy calling out of turn. This has happened to me, both ways. Once when I was bluffing, and once when I wasn't. When I was bluffing, I left the chips I cut out and folded. The SAME person did it to me again a couple weeks later, and I said all in and the floor ruled that he had to call. THAT is why this rule is in place. IMO, it's fine...dumbasses should learn to play in turn.
|
|
#9
10-25-2007, 08:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either: 1) Call the bet. 2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor. [/ QUOTE ] You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down? According to your reasoning, I should be able to. [/ QUOTE ] The bettor should always be forced to bet the higher of either the minimum amount or the amount that he has already placed ahead with a forward motion.
|
|
#10
10-25-2007, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] After reading nearly all of the replies so far, I think that the fairest solution is to allow the interrupted bettor to bet what he wants, and then give the premature caller the option to either: 1) Call the bet. 2) Fold his hand while calling the amount of money already placed forward by the bettor. [/ QUOTE ] You guys are overlooking the most important part. What if I'm bluffing, and the guy prematurely calls. Can I take my entire bet back, even the amount that has been cut down? According to your reasoning, I should be able to. [/ QUOTE ] The bettor should always be forced to bet the higher of either the minimum amount or the amount that he has already placed ahead with a forward motion. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, and that's why your reasoning sucks. He calls out of turn, and whatever I bet stays in the pot. Now he gets the option to fold if I add more? Meaning cheap showdown for him if I'm bluffing. That's stupid. I edited the post above this one, so please re-read it and give me your opinion.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
