Hawaiian Gardens - Floorman Screwup

[Sparks]

The key here, which I think you guys are missing is action behind me. There was none. Therefore, according to RRP (which HG uses) under General Rules, Betting and Raising, Rule #12, I had the right to muck my hand becasue I never released chips into the pot. They were in my hand. The whole motion(s) happened in maybe 2 seconds. It was obvious that I was thinking, not looking around to see what was about to happen behind me, as in taking a shot. I've never taken a shot in 15 years, and I didn't start last night.

Several at the table, including a couple of props were on my side, and the dealer was on my side, because they know me. I play at HG every day. The floorman on the other hand, was a graveyard guy who I've never spoken to much, and I think he was in the top section relieving the main floor who was on lunch break.

I'll find out for sure this afternoon though. Thanks for the responses.

Sparks

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
but if there's a betting line, any forward motion with chips past that line will be a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

In California (and I believe all other locations) the oval line on the table isn't a "betting line." It's a line which players should push their chips, and their folded cards past, so the dealers can easily reach them. I believe it was put in for liability reasons because several years ago some dealers filed a lawsuit saying the repetitive motion of gathering chips and cards with arms too far stretched out, caused them injury.

Sparks

[Michael O'Malley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if there's a betting line, any forward motion with chips past that line will be a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

In California (and I believe all other locations) the oval line on the table isn't a "betting line." It's a line which players should push their chips, and their folded cards past, so the dealers can easily reach them. I believe it was put in for liability reasons because several years ago some dealers filed a lawsuit saying the repetitive motion of gathering chips and cards with arms too far stretched out, caused them injury.

Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

You are overlooking what many have already stated. Whether there was action behind you or not is irrelevent in what you are asking. Some poker rooms actually use a rule that forbids you from making any kind of a forward motion with chips in your hand. If you do, you will be forced to put those chips into the pot.
This is one rule that has MANY variations. I would love to see this rule made consistent. In fact, I am going to write a column about it right now!

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
In California (and I believe all other locations) the oval line on the table isn't a "betting line." It's a line which players should push their chips, and their folded cards past, so the dealers can easily reach them. I believe it was put in for liability reasons because several years ago some dealers filed a lawsuit saying the repetitive motion of gathering chips and cards with arms too far stretched out, caused them injury.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't split hares here, whatever the original purpose of the rule was, it's what it is commonly used for these days that should be considered. I have never heard your interpretation ever, and I have played in many rooms with a betting line (that doesn't mean you are wrong about the origin of the rule, you are just missing the point).

Don't screw with the betting line. Make sure your ettiquette is BEYOND REPROACH. Whether robert's rules agrees with you is irrelevant, it's whether the floorman on duty does. Although you seem to have a legitimate bitch, it doesn't matter, it's people's PERCEPTIONS that are most important when it comes to the betting line. I guarantee you the floor who made the decision against you knows nothing about your "origins" of the rule.

al

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never taken a shot in 15 years, and I didn't start last night.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're telling us that you simply have this bizarre habit of dangling chips over the pot before you fold? Whatever your intentions, that behavior can easily be interpreted as shooting an angle.

SpaceAce

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't split hares here, whatever the original purpose of the rule was, it's what it is commonly used for these days that should be considered. I have never heard your interpretation ever, and I have played in many rooms with a betting line (that doesn't mean you are wrong about the origin of the rule, you are just missing the point).

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the line as an ergonomics line. As a betting line it is a horrible thing. Most places that use it as an ergonomics line have a stricter rule: if you make a forward motion (doesn't matter if you cross the line) you have bet.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never taken a shot in 15 years, and I didn't start last night.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're telling us that you simply have this bizarre habit of dangling chips over the pot before you fold? Whatever your intentions, that behavior can easily be interpreted as shooting an angle.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a habit at all. Where'd you get that? I think it was the first time I've ever done it. But it was so innocuous, not a person there thought I was taking a shot. And of course, I wasn't. Would I post about it if I was?

Sparks

[Sparks]

I thought sure I'd get some support on this, which is why I posted in the first place. I'm truly surprised so many here are not only unfamiliar with the rules, but are further unable to recognize the mistake the floorman made after I CITE the specific rule. Very strange indeed.

I was back at HG this afternoon, and spoke with two house players, three floormen, and two shift managers. Every single one of them agreed the floorman made a mistake in his interpretation of the rule. It's simple actually: there was no action behind me, I never released my chips, it was not an angle shot based on my eyes and speed of my movements, and therefore, replacing the chips on my stack and folding was acceptable.

Thanks for all the support.

Sparks

[Michael O'Malley]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought sure I'd get some support on this, which is why I posted in the first place. I'm truly surprised so many here are not only unfamiliar with the rules, but are further unable to recognize the mistake the floorman made after I CITE the specific rule. Very strange indeed.

Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it. Where did you post the rule from the HG rulebook?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought sure I'd get some support on this, which is why I posted in the first place. I'm truly surprised so many here are not only unfamiliar with the rules, but are further unable to recognize the mistake the floorman made after I CITE the specific rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're lacking on support. I think you're lacking on a full understanding of the context of not only the rule (as stated in Robert's rules, a text which I fully subscribe to as being the "best"), but the context of which the "rule" is commonly accepted as and interpreted as by the majority of persons in the poker world today (esp. floorpersons). As I already said, the "rule" may be one thing, and the "reason for the rule" may be yet another, but the common interpretation of the rule in today's poker world is yet another thing altogether. Each must be distinguished and dealt with separately. The truly saavy player (or floorman) must understand all aspects of what's at stake here, and what exactly happened, and how exactly to interpret it.

Overall, it's been a good thread for thinking about this type of situation tho, thanks for all who responded and all your thoughts.

al