Floor forces a call here? WTF?

[jedi]

In a multi-table tournament at Sycuan (San Diego). This is 3rd hadn info, but I'll try to explain it as best as I can remember. There are about 16 players left. My friend (Hero) iS UTG with 2 random cards and 20K in chips (BB is 16K) and makes a desperation all-in raise. Everyone folds to the BB who is a medium stack at the table with 63o and decides to muck. The floor is called and the BB is forced to call off an extra 4K in chips because he is "colluding" with my friend.

I thought that was pretty ridiculous and probably won't go there again. Has anyone heard of this? For the record, my friend had Queen high which held up, but I just thought a forced call was just wrong.

[PoBoy321]

Well, it was certainly wrong for the BB to muck 63o, but that doesn't mean that he has to call.

Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[stinkypete]

last time i checked, being a terrible poker player wasn't against the rules

[Dynasty]

Softplaying is against the rules in tournaments. So, refusing to call getting 9:1 with 5 cards to come could be veiwed as softplaying.

This ruling isn't as outrageous as it may at first seem to some of you. But, it is stretching the definitions of softplaying and collusion.

This is definitely not a reason to not go to this casino again.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor is called and the BB is forced to call off an extra 4K in chips because he is "colluding" with my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was the floor called? Why did a player and the floor beleive they were colluding? Dynasty says this is a stretch; it may or may not be a stretch. If the people there had some reason to believe they were colluding it isn't a stretch at all.

[youtalkfunny]

How deep was BB's stack after posting his blind? He just put 16k in there, and is due to put 8k more next hand.

If we're near the money, and he's running low, it would be ridiculous to presume he had an ulterior motive to muck that trash (unless the two players in question are nudging each other, or something else remarkable is happening).

Personally, I think rules that prohibit soft-playing are crazy. If player A is all-in, and player's B and C check it down, I see nothing wrong with that.

If you think that's dirty, then conventions are dirty bridge, an intentional walk is dirty baseball, and kneeling to kill the clock is dirty football.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think rules that prohibit soft-playing are crazy. If player A is all-in, and player's B and C check it down, I see nothing wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with that becasue B and C are acting int heir own interest. If B says to C "let's check it down" that is out of line, it is equivelant to saying "let's cheat A and divide his money."

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
How deep was BB's stack after posting his blind? He just put 16k in there, and is due to put 8k more next hand.

If we're near the money, and he's running low, it would be ridiculous to presume he had an ulterior motive to muck that trash (unless the two players in question are nudging each other, or something else remarkable is happening).


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I was told, BB didn't have much behind the post of his blind. Maybe he had another 30K behind. At any rate, it was the dealer who called the floorperson over. I actually think it might have been the dealer who told him that he had to call, then when BB picked up his cards from the muck and showed them, the dealer called the floorperson over to enforce the ruling. Either way, BB and Hero didn't know each other, but that probably doesn't matter.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Softplaying is against the rules in tournaments. So, refusing to call getting 9:1 with 5 cards to come could be veiwed as softplaying.

This ruling isn't as outrageous as it may at first seem to some of you. But, it is stretching the definitions of softplaying and collusion.

This is definitely not a reason to not go to this casino again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I TOTALLY disagree. There is absolutely no way in hell that you can claim collusion at all here. a player refusing to accept 9-1 when short stacked, holding 63o, with 16 players remaining? you can argue about the strategy question here but we don't know about his position, if he's close to the bubble and depending on other stack sizes this is possibly not even a bad play, and even if it is there are enough factors at play that you could never say it isn't a non-slowplaying strategy.

I wouldn't play here.

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]

From what I was told, BB didn't have much behind the post of his blind. Maybe he had another 30K behind. At any rate, it was the dealer who called the floorperson over.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he had that much, the call is mandatory IMHO. He has to put 8K in the next hand and can call this one at 9:1 money for only $4K more. He is still left with $18K after the two calls, even if he loses both.

Still should not have been force to call though since there was no evidence of collusion.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Still should not have been force to call though since there was no evidence of collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I am hesitant to ever speculate about what a ruling would be. Maybe there was eveidence of collusion, we weren't there; we don't know.

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]


This is why I am hesitant to ever speculate about what a ruling would be. Maybe there was eveidence of collusion, we weren't there; we don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true. I was going off what the original poster said about both players not knowing each other.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have some serious leaks you need to fix - IMO.

losing 4k - doesn't change your standing at the table at all, but getting an extra 40K does.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have some serious leaks you need to fix - IMO.

losing 4k - doesn't change your standing at the table at all, but getting an extra 40K does.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that people are allowed to play poorly. If there was nothing other than the BB's fold that made people think there was collusion happening then the ruling is fairly stupid. If the BB doesn't think 63o is good enough to pay 4k more, then he doesn't think that. It really don't matter that way he's more than priced in with any two.

There's a huge difference between "i have to call", because i'm smart enough to know that i can't throw away my hand getting the odds i'm getting, and "no sir, you MUST call that raise".

[slamdunkpro]

I've been through the TDA rules several times and have yet to find any reference to a dealer or floor forcing a [ QUOTE ]
mandatory

[/ QUOTE ] call.

If I'm in the BB with JJ or QQ and one more orbit puts me in the money because other players are so short stacked that they can't survive another orbit (let alone with 63o) I might just fold my way down to the money. Softplay or solid chip management? Thhat 4k in chips might make a difference for me at the final table.

The dealer is there to run the game and enforce the rules of the game based on observed evidence. Not to try and guess what's in your head.

[Mike Gallo]

The floor is called and the BB is forced to call off an extra 4K in chips because he is "colluding" with my friend.

I think your leaving something out here, or someone forgot to give you some key details.

If the bb and utg are friends, I can see this as collusion. The bb has allowed the utg player to pick up the blinds and antes without resistance.

If it appears they are friends, I can see why others would suspect collusion.

[Michael O'Malley]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor is called and the BB is forced to call off an extra 4K in chips because he is "colluding" with my friend.

I think your leaving something out here, or someone forgot to give you some key details.

[/ QUOTE ]

To sum it up: The floorperson decided the two were cheating so he made them play the hand against each other so that one of them could have chips to continue on and win the tournament.

This goes down as one of the worst decisions I have ever heard of.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have some serious leaks you need to fix - IMO.

losing 4k - doesn't change your standing at the table at all, but getting an extra 40K does.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have some serious leaks in your reading comprehension - IMO.

[JKDStudent]

Did he say why he forced the call? "I think you two are cheating." And how's this for a scenario?

The dealer, seeing it only being an extra 4k, knows that this bet does not constitute an actual raise. He, from lack of experience, assumes that since it's not a raise, your friend has to call the bet. The floor gets called over and misinterprets what the dealer is telling him, leading to the collusion issue.

Just a thought.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
And how's this for a scenario?

The dealer, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer, having friends/regulars in the tournament, wants the ShortStack, a non-friend/regular called and eliminated.

Just a thought.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think rules that prohibit soft-playing are crazy. If player A is all-in, and player's B and C check it down, I see nothing wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with that becasue B and C are acting int heir own interest. If B says to C "let's check it down" that is out of line, it is equivelant to saying "let's cheat A and divide his money."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand the difference, and feel the same way. I should have been more clear.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have some serious leaks you need to fix - IMO.

losing 4k - doesn't change your standing at the table at all, but getting an extra 40K does.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have some serious leaks in your reading comprehension - IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got it now - you wouldn't play at this casino.

It take me a minute /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it was certainly wrong for the BB to muck 63o, but that doesn't mean that he has to call.

Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

It's an easy call with any two cards if you're competent... but I've had opponents make worse folds to me, in situations where they could not have been colluding (I was the raiser, and they didn't know me).

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
And how's this for a scenario?

The dealer, having friends/regulars in the tournament, wants the ShortStack, a non-friend/regular called and eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or,

I'm in UTG with Pocket Aces. I signal to my buddy the dealer that I've got a monster and go all in. He forces all the folders to call because of "collusion based on pot odds"