|
|
#1
11-04-2005, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
This was at the Wynn poker room during a 10 man satellite to the $540 tourney. Top 2 get seats. It was 3 handed and we offered to give 3rd his money back. The stacks were about equal size.
100/200 Villain in SB calls the BB Hero in BB raises to 600. Villain Calls Flop comes some rags and SB checks... Here is where the situation begins. I grab a stack of my 100's and start to cut them out. As I am cutting, the villain in SB declares all in. At this point I have cut into the second pile of 4 chips which would make 800 if I had stopped there. When he said all in, I was still in process of cutting chips. I cut down to the minimum bet and pulled my hand away and folded. Is this a legal play by me? 
|
|
#2
11-04-2005, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
I don't see why not - you didn't act out of turn - unless you pushed past a push line or something -
He may have done that on purpose - not wanting another person in there - but you did nothing wrong - RB
|
|
#4
11-04-2005, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
Well I had about 2K in my hands that could have been cut out. There is no line at Wynn and it is a very situational decision. Do you think I should be allowed to basicly reverse angle shoot?
|
|
#6
11-05-2005, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
This was at the Wynn poker room during a 10 man satellite to the $540 tourney. Top 2 get seats. It was 3 handed and we offered to give 3rd his money back. The stacks were about equal size. 100/200 Villain in SB calls the BB Hero in BB raises to 600. Villain Calls Flop comes some rags and SB checks... Here is where the situation begins. I grab a stack of my 100's and start to cut them out. As I am cutting, the villain in SB declares all in. At this point I have cut into the second pile of 4 chips which would make 800 if I had stopped there. When he said all in, I was still in process of cutting chips. I cut down to the minimum bet and pulled my hand away and folded. Is this a legal play by me? [/ QUOTE ] SB is obligated to wait for you to complete your bet. If by cutting off chips you mean you are cutting off behind your cards in preparation for pushing them forward then IMHO you don't have to bet anything. If you have already cut off $800 into the pot forcing you to leave any chips other than the minimum bet ($200) seems like it's giving the SB too many options given HIS ACTION may not even be binding since it was out of turn. Note the similarities to the Noli Francisco - Charlie Shooten debacle a few years ago at the WPT. It was head up at the final table. If memory serves Shooten bet, Noli declared raise and was starting to cut off a substantial amount of chips. Shooten then said "all-in" and Noli asked how much he was required to raise. The floor ruled the minimum, and since Noli was bluffing that's all he put in. Interesting question: Had Noli not been bluffing, could he continue to stack off and would Shooten's deceleration be binding? Anyway, I was involved in a related thread a while back and I don't want to wade through the latest 2+2 "search tool" to find a link to it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. ~ Rick
|
|
#7
11-05-2005, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
That is exactly the hand I was thinking of. I was cutting as if I was in betting motion so I believe I must at least bet the minimum amount. The dealer called the floor over and he told me that once I have stacked off chips, I have to bet "close" to my intentions. Basicly, on the dealers word of what it looked like. This seems like an unreasonable ruling and was curious of the correct ruling or if this was it.
|
|
#8
11-05-2005, 12:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
That is exactly the hand I was thinking of. I was cutting as if I was in betting motion so I believe I must at least bet the minimum amount. The dealer called the floor over and he told me that once I have stacked off chips, I have to bet "close" to my intentions. Basicly, on the dealers word of what it looked like. This seems like an unreasonable ruling and was curious of the correct ruling or if this was it. [/ QUOTE ] Quick correction: I believe Shooten said call. IMHO it seems forcing you to do anything but bet the minimum gives an awful lot of power or angles to the player who acted out of turn, especially if his action is potentially ruled non-binding. Anyway, I'm late for a movie with gf so I'll try to get back tomorrow. ~ Rick
|
|
#9
11-05-2005, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
In this case players out of turn action is binding. I would say the ruling was correct, if OP was cutting chips in to the pot, IOW he was clearly betting. So bet is 800 and next to act is all-in as he decleared.
How much did they make you to bet? If more than 800, that part of ruling was incorrect.
|
|
#10
11-05-2005, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting Situation at Wynn... Correct Ruling?
[ QUOTE ]
In this case players out of turn action is binding. I would say the ruling was correct, if OP was cutting chips in to the pot, IOW he was clearly betting. So bet is 800 and next to act is all-in as he decleared. How much did they make you to bet? If more than 800, that part of ruling was incorrect. [/ QUOTE ] The dealer, who is a friend of mine, said that I had 700 already cut out so that was my bet. Afterwards, he said he thought I was going to bet 1200.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
