do you see it's inherently controversial because of the ruling, not as much the action? Would there be a 300+ post thread if they ruled his hand dead?

I am not ignorant to the fact that there is another side to this argument and other opinions, moreso saying that jchak has made the most logical/rational points (imo) in the thread. I acknowledge my wording was a bit to the contrary, but at no point did I call anyone a retard or suggest that. Out of the points that I made, what do you disagree with?

Well let's see:

- The fact that it opens up for future angle shooting
- The fact that it sets an ugly precedent
- The fact that it sets a precedent
- The fact that we can't be conclusive that it's a mistake
- The fact that it punishes the player who didn't make a mistake

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?PLAYERS HAVE TO PROTECT THEIR CARDS.HOW DOES A GUY WHO GETS RAISED THEN GOES ALL IN NOT KNOW THE WOMAN WHO RAISED FIRST STILL HAS CARDS?HORRIBLE RULING JUST LIKE ALWAYS FROM THE FLOOR PEOPLE.HOW MANY TIMES HAVE PLAYERS DONE THINGS BY MISTAKE AND CAN'T GET THEIR CHIPS OR CARDS BACK.THIS RULING IS TERRIBLE.THAT WOMAN SHOULD OF HAD ALL HIS CHIPS INSTEAD SHE BUBBLES THE FINAL TABLE.

Osefiwin.Perfectly said.

From now on at the WSOP just raise all in and get others out,if you see anyone ready to call you can muck your cards and not get knocked out.

Just from being on the opposite side to acehater, it already feels like I've won :-)

That just shows that golf handles the situation as badly as some are suggesting this poker situation be handled. The golf tournament is a test of skill at hitting a ball in a hole.. but you can be DQ'd because your caddy wrote the wrong number with a pencil?? Ridiculous.

In long chess games, for example, if the player accidentally puts a piece on the wrong square (and the move is illegal) he's allowed to put it on the right square and carry on the game. The TD may hand out a time penalty if he think the opponent suffered by this.

Osefiwin.Thought we agreed on the ruling.

We've had this situation happen a few times, but I've yet to hear of a situation at the WSOP in which Player A goes allin, Player B tanks and says something along the lines of "I don't think I can call" and Player A opens his hand.

This. Lots of blather ITT but the only one who effed up here was Koroknai. But he's the one who gets let off...?


borrowing aggie's quote:


Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since when is a verbal allin not binding?
Since w.hen is a verbal allin not binding?
.
.
.
.
..For the integrity of the game of course....

All of those are bad examples because they are about doing stuff that is against the rules. Going all in in poker is not against the rules. If a chess player makes a wrong (but legal) move because he didn't notice the other guy's bishop could make it check mate on the next move, then I doubt they allow him to take it back and make another move instead.

In my opinion, there are not enough penalties handed out in poker. This was clearly an example of a player who should have sat out an orbit and been reminded to pay closer attention to the game. With that in mind, his second error which did lead to a penalty may have been prevented.

My point is that it's a slippery slope, at what point does the TD stop with his flexibility? They have to be impartial and if they are subjective the waters become extremely muddy, especially when the situations become more and more ambiguous. That's what my point was.

To think every situation is clear cut between an accident and an angle is naive imo, that's the whole point, no one can tell someone's intention except the person themselves; if the ruling is subjective then an angler would just have to act better whereas an honest mistake by a passive person who has an antisocial vibe may get penalized. If TD's try to ask other players about the incident and what their thoughts on the players motives were (angle or accidental) they may end up with biased answers based on the popularity of the player amongst the table and/or ulterior motives other players have against/for the player in question (They want the better player out/worse player in, they have a % of the player in question, they crossbooked with the player in question, they don't like how the player dresses, they are racist etc...)

How is the TD suppose to infer intention in every case? He is not at the table during the situation in question and the dealer was looking at Gaelle waiting on her action. On what evidence then is the TD basing his interpretation of Kornkai's intention?:

Kornokai's statement?
Statements from the other players at the table?
The dealer who was looking away?
Gaelle's statement?

None of these sources are good enough to determine if he was angling and the conflicts of interests/reasons why are stated above.

How is the dealer, who is supposed to looking at Gaelle as it's her turn to act, suppose to police what Kornakai is doing? Presumably the dealer holding the deck with his left hand which is approximately above the muck, has his right hand towards Gaelle and is looking directly at her determine her actions as it is her turn to act. If K snipes his hand into the muck, its not the dealers fault imo. Maybe if there were two dealers per table, or one per person in the hand, or at least one per each half of the table, the dealers could be held accountable. Or even if it was K's turn to act the dealer could have and should have protected the muck, but it wasn't his turn to act so you can't blame the dealer.

Kornakai did this a couple hours after bluff mucking, it was his second mistake of the day.

The exact same thing occurs every time the floor is called to the table. You are questioning the floor's ability to make any decision, not this particular ruling. While you have the right to bring this up, why is it especially relevant to this particular ruling? Do you have some information on this TD that makes you think he's biased? I doubt so.

EDIT: seriously, it's 8 letters. I know I'm the only one who cares but please, get it right.

Because in most situations to which you are referring, the TD is gathering facts about actions from the dealer who is following the action as it occurs, such as: "UTG bet 250 and MP3 bet 5,150" The players then confirm this and the player who bet 5,150 instead of 650 may make a statement like: "I meant to bet 650 but grabbed a 5,000 instead of a 500, can I take it back?" Having gathered the evidence, and the facts not being in question, the TD would then make the following ruling: "The 5,150 raise stands, please continue action. Sorry sir but a multiple chip raise has to stay in the pot regardless of if its a mistake."

The TD does NOT ask the dealer and each player at the table "Do you think it was a mistake? Did he accidentally put a 5,000 chip in instead of a 500?" and then rule based on subjective input. Also specific to this case is that the player acted out of turn so no one from the tournament staff was watching him during his action: how then are they suppose to accurately determine said player's intention???: not possible.

I'm leveling your face off by misspelling Kornokopia's name... gotta have my fun