|
|
#11
07-19-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
That is nuts. At least they made up for it in the end, but what a ridiculous initial ruling. ChewyMint [/ QUOTE ] the initial ruling was 100% correct. if YOU dont notic you have 1 card by the time UTG+1 folds his hand then you're stuck where you are. you pass your 1 card to the dealer, forfeit your blind and you're done with it. -Barron 
|
|
#12
07-19-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
I She did eventually correct the ruling and gave the raiser the $20 (which he had returned to me), and comped me some things. She also offered to bring me the rulebook if I still wanted it. [/ QUOTE ] What did she say the proper ruling should have been?
|
|
#13
07-19-2005, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That is nuts. At least they made up for it in the end, but what a ridiculous initial ruling. ChewyMint [/ QUOTE ] the initial ruling was 100% correct. if YOU dont notic you have 1 card by the time UTG+1 folds his hand then you're stuck where you are. you pass your 1 card to the dealer, forfeit your blind and you're done with it. -Barron [/ QUOTE ] Ahh... but that was not the initial ruling. The initial ruling allowed the player to continue with just one card. I don't have Robert's Rules on me, but I think (and I could be wrong) that the players hand is dead and he or she forfeits the blind. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#14
07-19-2005, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
sorry but the floor decision was correct. they know more than you. [/ QUOTE ] I think part of the OP was the way the incident was handled. Asking the raiser if a misdeal was ok? Two floormen to make one decision? Refusal to bring the rulebook? And the shiftmanager "did eventually correct the ruling"? And they know more than you is not always the case.
|
|
#15
07-19-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
Asking the raiser if a misdeal is okay shows they have no clue how a poker game needs to be run.
Saying he can play with one card is simply comical. Why do casinos insist of hiring floor people who don't play poker and have no clue how a poker game needs to work.
|
|
#16
07-19-2005, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That is nuts. At least they made up for it in the end, but what a ridiculous initial ruling. ChewyMint [/ QUOTE ] the initial ruling was 100% correct. if YOU dont notic you have 1 card by the time UTG+1 folds his hand then you're stuck where you are. you pass your 1 card to the dealer, forfeit your blind and you're done with it. -Barron [/ QUOTE ] Ahh... but that was not the initial ruling. The initial ruling allowed the player to continue with just one card. I don't have Robert's Rules on me, but I think (and I could be wrong) that the players hand is dead and he or she forfeits the blind. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] In this spot I would be ok with allowing the SB to play with only one card. He hasn't gained an advantage by only having one card. THe main time you would rule a hand dead for too few cards is if he threw one away to prevent other players from seeing what he was playing. Also in a cae liek this a new setup should be brought in; often when a player only has one card he was in fact dealt two and one went under the rail. There are some rooms that have a rule that if it is discovered taht a blind has the wrong number of cards before they act on their hand it is a misdeal regardless of the action.
|
|
#18
07-19-2005, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
I am in the SB and post 20 dollars. Fold to middle position, fold to me, I notice I have been dealt one card. The table starts arguing about whether it is a misdeal, or I should be given a card. The floorman is called. He first asks the raiser if a misdeal okay, the raiser says he prefers it not be. He then calls another floorman talks to her a bit, and then makes the following ruling: That I must play short. Meaning I do not get another card and my blind stays in the pot. [/ QUOTE ] That is a horrible ruling. Your hand is dead and you don’t get anything back from the pot. You cannot be given another card. You simply have a dead hand, forfeit the blind and the hand plays on. [ QUOTE ] At this point the table erupts. I demand to see the rulebook. He says that is his final ruling and walks away. After a while I realize no rulebook is coming. I go ask the second floorman present why I was not provided with the rulebook when I requested it. She says she will go get it. She later returns to the table and says the rulebook is in several large binders and she cannot bring it out for me! [/ QUOTE ] If you would have been shown the rulebook you would have found the rule that says your hand is dead, no money returned. The rulebook is in fact in a big binder, but I specifically wrote it (and placed it in the back of everyones binder) so that it could be taken out and shown to players. You should have been shown the rulebook right away. Of course this would have changed the decision that you could play with one card. [ QUOTE ] Talk about amateur hour over there. Finally the dealer who was at the table and saw all this went and got the shift manager himself. She did eventually correct the ruling and gave the raiser the $20 (which he had returned to me), and comped me some things. She also offered to bring me the rulebook if I still wanted it. [/ QUOTE ] I don’t get it. What $20 was returned to the raiser? And what $20 had the raiser given to you? I thought the decision was made to let you play the hand with one card? The “correct” ruling would not have involved giving anyone money back. [ QUOTE ] The Wynn poker room is nice but their floor crew seemed pretty clueless most of the time, and in this case totally ignorant of Nevada gaming laws. [/ QUOTE ] Which Nevada law would that be? There is no Nevada law that would pertain to this situation.
|
|
#19
07-19-2005, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
Which Nevada law would that be? There is no Nevada law that would pertain to this situation. [/ QUOTE ] The casino has to provide a player with rules for any game it hosts. They refused.
|
|
#20
07-19-2005, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 40-80 at the Wynn. Floor decision....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Which Nevada law would that be? There is no Nevada law that would pertain to this situation. [/ QUOTE ] The casino has to provide a player with rules for any game it hosts. They refused. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I thought you were talking about a rule that would have influenced the decision. You should have been shown the rulebook, and apparently at a later point they offered to. But just to clear something up, they do not HAVE to show you a rulebook, and they are not violating a Nevada law if they dont. They do have to have a rulebook, and that rulebook has to be shown to gaming if you file a complaint. But they dont have to show it to you at the time of the ruling.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
