Decision at WPT Gulf Coast Championship FT

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

I really dont care for the "shady" feeling people are getting. More shady would be to explain to bill that he raises to x, then BB must reraise to Y, If I set a minimum raise that must be reraised, then i definitely control the outcome of the hand. As there is no previous rule that dictates exactly what would happen in his situation, I felt the lesser of 2 evils would be to have bill act on his hand, then make the ruling.

Is Bill entitled to know EXACTLY waht action will happen if the guy never says reraise? No
When making a decision, I want to get a close as possible to the natural outcome of the hand. By giving Bill the information on what I was going to do, I would be giving him strategic advice on how to play his hand.

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.

Had I told Bill this before I made my decision, then I basically tell Bill "here's the way to get maximum value out of your hand", or "heres how to get away with the smallest loss" or "This is exactly the limit you can raise and commit his chips to the pot".

As a player playing out of position in the pot, it is my feeling that he is not entitled to that information until he acts on his hand.

By the way Greg, in hindsight, the written choices on paper was an excellent suggestion.

[NickMPK]

This seems like a straightforward rules question that should have a definitive answer.

That's not to say there is only one correct answer. Different cardrooms could handle out-of-turn verbal bets differently and all could be reasonable.

However, what is most important is that the rule for such out-of-turn bets (a) be determined beforehand, (b) be applied consistently, and (c) be available to ascertain by any player who asks about it.

Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a player doesn't have the right to ask what the rules of the game are at any point?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not telling the players what the rule is seem like a much worse decision than any of the possible choices as to the actual substance of the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep seeing everyone say that. I am just going to add the Johnny was completely right on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a player doesn't have the right to ask what the rules of the game are at any point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule at this point is that the floorman will make a decision in the interest of fairness. The floorman is permited to change the rules if enforcing the rules as written would be grossly unjust. This generally occurs when a player is looking to use a rule as a weapon, so in cases like this the floor is very correct to withhold the ruling. What the floor is looking to do when something like this occurrs is put the game back as close as possible to the situation that would have existed with no breach.

edit to add: I jsut read that and my explanation isn't very good. I hate to say something is true just because I say so, but you should probably consider the chances of me and Johnny agreeing on something and us both being wrong. I mgiht take a better crack at this when I am not at work.

[TomCowley]

I don't mind you not telling the player what your ruling will be, since your future ruling is not necessary for him to take his action. And the player is entitled to know the RULE at any time (a gross misunderstanding can be undone), not whether or not you considered it a gross misunderstanding.

However, I do have two problems with the way you handled this (and I've judged another card game that has even more ambiguous situations come up frequently), and they're related.

[ 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 ]

The BB either understood there was a pending raise or he didn't. The amount of the raise *CANNOT* change this answer, so it shouldn't change your ruling. If he didn't realize there was a pending raise, he has a clear misunderstanding of the bet coming to him (minimum 50% on a minraise- robert's rules say 80%, so 20% misunderstanding, so we're minimum 2.5x that threshold). Saying "oh, it's only 8% more of stacks" is completely arbitrary and can't be applied consistently (unless you actually create an exact threshold in a rule, which just lets the missed-raiser exploit it, which is pointless).

So when you are called over, you should have decided if you're going to compel a raise or not. To avoid the appearance of arbtrariness or impropriety, writing down the ruling before the raise amount is announced is a great idea. That provides the minimum external influence on the hand while making it clear that your ruling doesn't depend on anything but your judgment of whether or not the player knew that he was facing that raise.

[Alex Jacob]

[ QUOTE ]
The rule at this point is that the floorman will make a decision in the interest of fairness... What the floor is looking to do when something like this occurrs is put the game back as close as possible to the situation that would have existed with no breach.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't making it non-binding do this also? and it's a lot simpler to explain?


i don't see how the guy acting out of turn gains an advantage, most likely he didn't see that bill was reraising but he still has given a little info about his hand which bill can use however he wants. i doubt the guy was trying to get a read on bill in this situation, however you are the floorman and if you think that is going on then you can give the guy a penalty.

[DonkeyChip]

RR,
The rule that a player can retract action if there was a gross misunderstanding of the amount is for cases where the player was told an incorrect amount. It is not for cases where the player didn't know and didn't bother to ask.

The BB [censored] up...the BB is the one that gets the short end of the deal. As it turned out...the BB got saved by the floor and Edler got screwed out of chips.

Edler must raise...BB must raise after. Normal raising guidelines apply. Duck soup.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The rule that a player can retract action if there was a gross misunderstanding of the amount is for cases where the player was told an incorrect amount. It is not for cases where the player didn't know and didn't bother to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

What on Earth gave you that idea? It is for anytime that based on their actions it is clear they didn't understand the action they were facing. This is a rule that is missed by a lot of people in the industry because they have never bothered to bring someone to their room to teach them about poker.

[DonkeyChip]

[ QUOTE ]
What on Earth gave you that idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
Common sense.

Think of the implications otherwise...I could say anything as long as it was out of turn and just claim I didn't know what was going on in the game and not be bound by my verbal declarations.