|
|
|
|
#1
12-19-2005, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Commerce floor ruling
I think the floor made a terrible ruling.
As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw. Because from your point of view, they could all be partners. I feel very strongly that the winning hand has to be readily available for all (most importantly the losing hands) to see. If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over. Now if his hand had been accidentally turned over and everyone (including you) agrees which cards they are. And even if it accidentally touches the muck, the pot should then be rewarded to him. But if there is no way for YOU to acertain for certain which cards are this, then his hand should be dead. Poker is not a game which can rely on trusting people's words as to what they have. You have to be able to see his hand. 
|
|
#2
12-19-2005, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw. [/ QUOTE ] By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot. Edit to add: [ QUOTE ] If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over. [/ QUOTE ] The previous hand is over when the cards are riffled for the next hand.
|
|
#3
12-19-2005, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot. [/ QUOTE ] That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks. SpaceAce
|
|
#4
12-19-2005, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot. [/ QUOTE ] That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks. SpaceAce [/ QUOTE ] You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room. It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot. The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong. b
|
|
#5
12-19-2005, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot. [/ QUOTE ] That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks. SpaceAce [/ QUOTE ] You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room. It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot. The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong. b [/ QUOTE ] great post
|
|
#6
12-19-2005, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot. [/ QUOTE ] That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks. SpaceAce [/ QUOTE ] You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room. It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot. The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong. b [/ QUOTE ] I agree that it generally works well enough in practice. But I think that rules should be set up such that there are no loop holes to be exploited. Imagine a scenario where you're playing a big no limit game and you lose a pot because 3 players you don't know say they saw something. Now these guys could all be friends and are just waiting for the one chance to steal that 20K pot they otherwise wouldn't have got. Once is enough is this case. And even if they were honest, the person whose pot was taken away will still have doubts and it will haunt and bug him for a long time. I think the loser being able to see the winner's hand is such a fundamental principle in poker (and rightly so) that these rules of '3 people' or whatever deciding who has the winner is just plain bad and dangerous.
|
|
#7
12-19-2005, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a scenario where you're playing a big no limit game and you lose a pot because 3 players you don't know say they saw something. Now these guys could all be friends and are just waiting for the one chance to steal that 20K pot they otherwise wouldn't have got. Once is enough is this case. And even if they were honest, the person whose pot was taken away will still have doubts and it will haunt and bug him for a long time. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously in this scenario where you don't know anyone or see any signs that they are str8 up players, or contrary, on top of the fact that it's $20k you'd call the floor and go into it a little more extensively. If any doubt, you have every right to call the floor and ask for the cameras to verify it. In fact, I'd recommend that and any player playing that high of a limit would/should fully understand it. Btw...When you play live for awhile, it's not hard to peg angleshooters and buds who are acting in each others interest. b
|
|
#8
12-19-2005, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
Good points. The players, as well as the dealer, should be responsible for "policing" the game. I've seen several players point out the winning hand when the dealer had made a mistake. A dealer, especially one who is not a hold 'em player, might have trouble reading the winning hand. I see nothing wrong with players pointing out which tabled hand had won the pot.
|
|
#9
12-19-2005, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
Good points. The players, as well as the dealer, should be responsible for "policing" the game. I've seen several players point out the winning hand when the dealer had made a mistake. A dealer, especially one who is not a hold 'em player, might have trouble reading the winning hand. I see nothing wrong with players pointing out which tabled hand had won the pot. [/ QUOTE ] NL game Saturday at Hollywood Park. On the river the board is T-9-8-6-8 rainbow. Seat five had been leading all the way and paid off a medium-size river raise from seat eight, obviously in frustration. Seat eight shows J9. Seat five momentarily tables QQ face up and quickly tosses it toward the muck in disgust. The dealer intercepts the queens and calmly announces "two pair, queens and eights". I'm watching seat five, it was clear from the expression on his face he thought he lost to trip eights or worse. He pulls in the pot and obsequiously slides the dealer several blue chips. Many dealers do a great job. ~ Rick
|
|
#10
12-19-2005, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Commerce floor ruling
As far back as I remember, Commerce always awards pots in this manner. If there is confusion, they ask the dealer what happened, and then they ask the players.
Unfortunately while most Commerce dealers are very responsible and professional, there are a few true idiots who have no business being card dealers. One of these was driven to tears a few years ago dealing omaha. Imagine a novice, incompetent dealer having to deal with the low limit Commerce omaha nits. So monumental mistakes are pretty common. [ QUOTE ] I think the floor made a terrible ruling. As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw. Because from your point of view, they could all be partners. I feel very strongly that the winning hand has to be readily available for all (most importantly the losing hands) to see. If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over. Now if his hand had been accidentally turned over and everyone (including you) agrees which cards they are. And even if it accidentally touches the muck, the pot should then be rewarded to him. But if there is no way for YOU to acertain for certain which cards are this, then his hand should be dead. Poker is not a game which can rely on trusting people's words as to what they have. You have to be able to see his hand. [/ QUOTE ]
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
