|
|
#21
11-09-2007, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
here's a what if situation.... What if the person turned their cards up, and was on an absolute steal and got busted. How do we disprove the collusion? If the hand is dead, then the chip dumping happens, and cannot be stopped(unless you arbitrarily decide that the player was on a "legitimate steal attempt" and was not chip dumping). [/ QUOTE ] I don't quite understand the situation. I don't think that you can ever "prove" collusion. You can only shine the light on it and make threats to deter it. Ok, there might be a few constructed situations where it could be proven (one ratting out the other). But usually collusion is undectable, often identical to sharp poker play, and it can always be explained away. 
|
|
#22
11-09-2007, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Matt, given the video evidence of what happened. I know it was a correct "ruling" given the current guidelines. However, can you honestly tell me you think this is the most REASONABLE action, given the circumstances? If so, please explain how this is the most viable option. [/ QUOTE ] Quite simply it is the rule, TDA Rule #9 states "All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action is complete." The dealer did his job by opening his hand. I totally agree this guy was trying to muck his hand and tried to say he was tying to turn it up. If JC would have one this hand it would have been mistake. Matt [/ QUOTE ] I have the feeling you would rather not answer the question, but just in case you missed it...Do you agree that the rule itself, which has been stated as fact to be enforced to deter collusion, is more valuable than allowing hands to be pulled from the muck that were intentionally folded allowing a player to awkwardly pull back their cards and push their chips forward, as he is obviously reversing a mistake he has made? [/ QUOTE ] So let me get it straight, on a called all-in bet with NO MORE ACTION you think it is OK for the worst hand to win? Matt [/ QUOTE ] No, the decision should be made before the result of opposing hands are complete. When the player making the decision to muck his cards, nevermind grab a handful of chips and hand them to Tran (in this case), he should be forfeiting his right to win the pot. It's like this.....The rule is in place to prevent collusion. Any reasonable argument will conclude that collusion is still very much possible, even this this rule in place. That being said, these people who eventually realize they've made a mistake by folding, whether it be by another player speaking up, or by realizing the've made the best hand after they've folded, need to be held accountable. There is nothing more awkward for a poker player than to watch someone foolishly trying to grab back their hand and simultaneously jam his chips into the pot and act like he was calling the whole time, imo. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed that there are other ways of colluding and chip dumping. However, what would you classify as worse, bringing an all in hand that was mucked back or letting people chip dump? I don't need an explanation, just which one you think is worse. This question is for JohnnyG, Matt Savage or RR preferably all 3 as I would like to know if this is feasible. What if there is a way to prevent collusion/chip dumping and kill the hand at the same time. Instead of having the hand still be live when the dealer turns it over, why not have the hand be dead but still flip the cards over. This would then prevent the colluding/chip dumping and punish the person for mucking, instead of rewarding them, when they intend to muck and then get lucky. Because I'm sure we all agree that the rule in the cash game is ideally the best ruling in regards to mucking, but the need is still there to prevent the collusion/chip dumping. [/ QUOTE ] How about this, the player paid enough to win the pot and he had the best hand. What is wrong with that? Matt
|
|
#23
11-09-2007, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] Agreed that there are other ways of colluding and chip dumping. However, what would you classify as worse, bringing an all in hand that was mucked back or letting people chip dump? I don't need an explanation, just which one you think is worse. This question is for JohnnyG, Matt Savage or RR preferably all 3 as I would like to know if this is feasible. What if there is a way to prevent collusion/chip dumping and kill the hand at the same time. Instead of having the hand still be live when the dealer turns it over, why not have the hand be dead but still flip the cards over. This would then prevent the colluding/chip dumping and punish the person for mucking, instead of rewarding them, when they intend to muck and then get lucky. Because I'm sure we all agree that the rule in the cash game is ideally the best ruling in regards to mucking, but the need is still there to prevent the collusion/chip dumping. [/ QUOTE ] How about this, the player paid enough to win the pot and he had the best hand. What is wrong with that? Matt [/ QUOTE ] I have no problem with the rule the way it is but it seems that other people do. My statement was purely a suggestion and was curious to see if that was at all feasible as it seems that half the people in the forum are convinced that the cash game rule should be in effect. I understand that the rule probably would not change in the TDA, but it does seem like it could theoretically cover both bases. Maybe I'm wrong in my theories.
|
|
#24
11-09-2007, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
here's a what if situation.... What if the person turned their cards up, and was on an absolute steal and got busted. How do we disprove the collusion? If the hand is dead, then the chip dumping happens, and cannot be stopped(unless you arbitrarily decide that the player was on a "legitimate steal attempt" and was not chip dumping). [/ QUOTE ] If the person turned their hand up then their hand is obviously live. Here's another what if...What if they are on an absolute steal and get called and then muck (like the Tran situation). What would be the negative effects of killing his hand and then have the dealer turn his hand over?
|
|
#25
11-09-2007, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
Matt has better knowledge of the foundations of TDA rules, and the situations that helped them come about. One of the ground rules for creating or amending TDA rule is that it's easy to implement and understand, and can be applied in a vast majority of situations. By making a rule with the constraints you list above, a whole Pandora's box is opened on how to shoot angles against the rule. For every rule created, there is a way to exploit that rule to benefit or harm a player.
The situation we saw in the video was very unique. We had video. In 99% of the situations, there is no video, and we have to rely on details from the players and the dealer. How often when we come to the table would we have to sort out "did he really intend to fold" "I didnt mean to fold" "yes you did" "i tried to turn my hand up, but the cards were blown over" etc. Becuase there is no easy way to make this a standard rule, it probably isn't feasible to make it a rule..... Just my opinion
|
|
#26
11-09-2007, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
The negative is that how could we determine if he was chip dumping or stealing? There is no way to know. By killing his hand you ensure that he can chip dump, because at that point he has no way to win the pot...
|
|
#27
11-09-2007, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
Matt, I still want WK on the money line vs KR
|
|
#28
11-09-2007, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
Matt has better knowledge of the foundations of TDA rules, and the situations that helped them come about. One of the ground rules for creating or amending TDA rule is that it's easy to implement and understand, and can be applied in a vast majority of situations. By making a rule with the constraints you list above, a whole Pandora's box is opened on how to shoot angles against the rule. For every rule created, there is a way to exploit that rule to benefit or harm a player. The situation we saw in the video was very unique. We had video. In 99% of the situations, there is no video, and we have to rely on details from the players and the dealer. How often when we come to the table would we have to sort out "did he really intend to fold" "I didnt mean to fold" "yes you did" "i tried to turn my hand up, but the cards were blown over" etc. Becuase there is no easy way to make this a standard rule, it probably isn't feasible to make it a rule..... Just my opinion [/ QUOTE ] Yea, that pretty much makes sense.
|
|
#29
11-10-2007, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
Any pair colluding by mucking an all-in hand isn't very bright. What about players who fold to a tiny raise? That is tiny relative to the size of the pot. That must be legal. Looks very suspicious. What if someone folded to a one chip raise in a very large pot?
|
|
#30
11-10-2007, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Very interesting...check it out: http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/29329 I can't believe what I just saw the dealer do. Is that procedure in most major circuit tournaments? I know that the all-in player most flip over his hand to protect against collusion but it should at least be ruled dead. [/ QUOTE ] It was the right decision, when heads up and all-in cards must be turned face up. I saw the clip and even though it WAS obvious the guy was stupidly trying to fold the ruling was correct. Matt Savage [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
