Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Follow me here.

In most cases, out of turn action is not binding if the calling amount changes to the player who acted out of turn. In most cases, that amount is predetermined, as the raiser has either stated the raising amount, or has placed the chips in the pot.

That did not happen here. There was no pre set calling amount. RR's mention of the players' use of a certain rule as a "weapon" is exactly the probelm I have here. The rules don't exist for players to use them as a tool to exploit weaker players, or a tool to extract information or chips out of a weaker player. They exist to combat irregularities in procedure, or to prevent certain types of unetical or unsportsmanlike behavior. To use the rule as a means of manipulating another players' action is as "unsportsmanlike" as the original action out of turn.

[DonkeyChip]

I think the reason the amount changes should make a difference. If the player was told the wrong amount then that's one thing but if the player was not paying attention enough to know and didn't bother to ask...tough toenails IMO.

I understand how Edler could use the info to his advantage, that was made pretty clear in the op. But again, tough toenails for the one who screwed up...i.e. the BB. It just seems like a huge injustice for the BB to get bailed out by the floor at the expense of Edler. Edler got screwed.

[ QUOTE ]
The rules don't exist for players to use them as a tool to exploit weaker players, or a tool to extract information or chips out of a weaker player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether the player is weaker or not isn't relevant...just sub the word 'other' for 'weaker' in that statement and it is much more accurate. And that's exactly what the BB was allowed to do here...a rule allowed him to extract information out of a player (i.e. the info of how Edler would react to his reraise before he ever puts a chip in the pot).

BTW - I said in the other thread that I thought the GCPC was well run and I had a great time. And I still think that...one floor decision is just a drop in the bucket and I'm not trying to make a big deal of it. But you asked so I'm replying. There are constellations of different scenarios that a simple set of rules just can't fully cover. I just look for solutions that have as little injustice to them as possible and I think Edler suffered an injustice. Just my stinkin' opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BusterFlush]

While there may be disagreement on this decision, it seems obvious that Mr. Groom's intent was to do that right thing for all parties and the fact he is discussing it here deserves credit.
How many times has a TD made a decision that turned out wrong and through ego and arrogance defended that decision just so he would not admit a mistake?

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Warm fuzzy.....LOL

players' insight, as well as the insights of other knowledgeable TD's is a great tool here. Consensus seems to indicate that while my intentions were good, most would have rules that the reraise was rewuired by the BB. still open for debate, but at least this thread has been productive. I hope it sheds a little light into the thought processes a TD must go through in order to make a decision with gravity....

TY,
JG

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]



It is a common rule that if a player grossly misunderstands the amount of the bet, he is allowed to take back his action. This is only in obvious cases. Had Bill min raised, I probably make BB reriase at least the min. Had bill moved all-in (which he did) I allowed the BB to take back his action.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if Bill knew the common rule, and expected you to follow it, he could "manipulate" the pot, etc. Mainly because the BB had acted early.

If Bill did not know the common rule, and you clearly were determined to keep him in the dark, he would not know how to "manipulate" the pot, etc.

So, is it better that players do not know the "common rules"?

RR seems to feel that the only reason players want to learn the rules is to shoot angles. Do you feel the same way?

Should players be kept ignorant, or should the poker community try to educate everybody?

[grando]

Bill (second raiser) will obviously have to put in at least 110K (45K min raise over 65K open) as he is obligated to raise at least the minimum.

Also, the BB (third raiser) should now be obligated to put in at least 155K (45K min raise over minimum 110K reraise) regardless of the amount of Bill's chosen raise. If BB now chooses to fold, that 155K would be added to the pot.

I would guess that the BB's reraise effectively folds out Tom and Bill like 80% of the time regardless...

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Kinda loaded question there Angus. Obviously worded that way i can answer neither way. I would prefer everyone know the rules perfectly, but in an instance they don't, and my floor call may or may not influence a player's decision about a hand in progress, I would say yes, keep them in the dark until the hand is over. Gregs suggestion about writing down my call on a piece of paper, then showing it to them after the decision is made. It meets the qualifications of
A. Not aiding a plyer in a decision
B. Keeping the decision above board so as not to look arbitrary or biased.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

BTW,
IMO the "rules" for procedure and the "rules" for dealing with irregularities are 2 totally different things.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
RR seems to feel that the only reason players want to learn the rules is to shoot angles. Do you feel the same way?

Should players be kept ignorant, or should the poker community try to educate everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

I spend a lot of time here and in person educating people, but I have never have someone in a casino ask for rules that wasn't up to no good. The two circumstances I have had someone come up and ask me for a set of rules was someone looking to shoot an angle or someone wanting to argue about a floor decision that someone made. Normally the second type is looking for a rule they know is in there so they can argue while ignoring the relevant rule (ie verbal action in turn is binding vs if a player has a gross misunderstanding of the action he faces he may retract his action if no harm is done).

In the OP the decision wasn't about protecting the BB from Elder, it was about protecting Franklin (who has done nothing wrong).

[TobyG]

I'm not so sure that questioning for a ruling de facto equals angle shoot. In event 1, our table asked for a couple floor rulings, but they were both after the down was complete. Don't recall the particulars of one, but the other was a simple question about when a single exposed card while dealing turns into a misdeal and when it just becomes the initial burn. The dealer considered it a misdeal under any circumstances. A few of us were more used to it only being a misdeal if it were the first couple cards dealt, and otherwise the exposed card became the burn. The floor ruled the latter, and that was that. As a player, I'm of mixed feelings on the question at hand. On the one hand, there should be a general set of guidelines. On the other, the floor is there to make rulings when the exception tests the rule. That being said, I think Johnny did what a TD should: he tried to make as fair a decision as he could in the interest of the game.