JC Tran Controversy at Foxwoods

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

FWIW, I agree with Matt nd Randy...
Foxwoods has been a successful event for a long time, and the abilities and leadership of Mike have a lot to do with that. In this instance it is a clear cut situation.
We have all heard about the classic example of this involving Daniel N. and his bluff at a player holding a stright flush on the flop. Daniel mucked, but his cards never touched and were ruled live.... Runner runner straight flush...Chopped pot.

Had JC won the pot it would be a moot point.

[0524432]

[ 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.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

The problem with this is that it forces the floorperson or TD to decide whteher or not it was a legitimate "play" at the pot, or if it was collusion. For example:

A player moves all in and is called by another player. He has no pair no draw. The other guy has a big hand....

As a tournament director, at that point if you are called, you must decide (without being at the table for play of the hand) whether or not this guy was making a play at the pot or chip dumping. How do we decide?

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

The decision will revrert to whether or not we "know" the players, or how we feel about it. Nothing is worse than having a person make a decision and not be able to back it up with logic...

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Also, I found it interesting that the guy slid chips to JC and JC started shuffling them before the turn and river had been put out... he had admitted he had lost the pot when he did this. That tells me that he meant to fold....BUT HE STILL HAD A LIVE HAND

[Diana Ross Fan]

I think that's the point. JohhnyG. It was not legal for the other player to muck his cards in that situation, therefore the hands must be tabled and shown down.

[budblown]

[ 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.

[TheDarkDefender]

The rule is simple and clear: you CANNOT fold the hand in this situation. It does not matter that the dumbass "intentionally" tried to muck his hand. He didn't have that option. And he didn't pull his hand back from the muck. The dealer, appropriately, did. I'm not sure what the griping is about. This was a bad beat. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bill Bruce]

Seems like a very easy ruling. The player is all-in both hands must be turned face up, regardless of whether they would like to muck or not. Good dealer. Good floor ruling (Mike Ward). I agree with Matt Savage and Johnny Grooms.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

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).