Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Casino & Cardroom Poker Discussions of the activities, rules and etiquette of Live Casino and Cardroom Poker Venues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-04-2018, 02:01 AM   #26
the pleasure
veteran
 
the pleasure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,183
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipers35 View Post
I would send a PM to Frankie518 on this to get any clarity. He should be able to tell you if his floor was right/wrong and be able to train if there is an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albedoa View Post
We don't need Frankie518 to tell us it was wrong.
LOL agreed,
the pleasure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 02:02 AM   #27
the pleasure
veteran
 
the pleasure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,183
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

also i only played at turning stone once, was like a 10 hr session.

dealers were either really good or meh. the players that play there tho. are either super chill and friendly or just the nut ****ing low. i remember getting **** becuase I looked like I was 15 there when I was 18, which I don tmind but I remember a dealer telling me "I couldn't leave the table" because then it would "break the table" ( i was only up 12$)

what the ****?????


anyways thats my vent
the pleasure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 04:14 AM   #28
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 11,530
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by callipygian View Post
Killing the hand is lol as is bringing the river or the turn back.
Don't know why you think this; standard rule is to kill a hand if a player doesn't protect his action and two or three players have acted after him.

I don't hate treating it as though he checked each time though. Actual ruling is, of course, lol.
chillrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 05:35 AM   #29
psandman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
psandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 15,519
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
Don't know why you think this; standard rule is to kill a hand if a player doesn't protect his action and two or three players have acted after him.

I don't hate treating it as though he checked each time though. Actual ruling is, of course, lol.
There is no reason to kill in this situation where the player though they didn't act has called all bets.
psandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 09:28 AM   #30
Jkpoker10
adept
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 924
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman View Post
Five players in the hand. 4 players plus the dealer dont realize seat 2 is still in the hand. Seat two completely missed 4 players acting and the dealer burning and turning (TWICE)..... And you think the only one who has made a mistake is the dealer?
it goes on the player and the dealer. The dealer is paid to control the game though and make sure players act in turn and follow rules, etc. No way should the river be burned and a new card thrown in.

If i was player that lost, I would probably leave table wasn't insanely juicy and never give that casino business again. A player shouldn't be punished due to a bad dealer in this case. Just my thoughts.
Jkpoker10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 10:12 AM   #31
Suit
Pooh-Bah
 
Suit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,851
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

I must have missed the part in the OP that said seat 2 was hiding her cards?? I agree that it is a ridiculous problem with an easy fix if all these people weren't self-centered idiots, but I have no reason to believe this was the case in this particular instance.
Suit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 08:46 PM   #32
AKQJ10
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I've been all over. Now Seattle.
Posts: 12,518
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
Don't know why you think this; standard rule is to kill a hand if a player doesn't protect his action and two or three players have acted after him.
What's your source? It's certainly not RRoP, which lists 8 circumstances when a hand can be declared dead but not this one. It also discusses how to handle a situation like this, but makes no mention of killing hands:

Quote:
11. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.

(Section 3 under Betting and Raising. Emphasis added. http://www.pokercoach.us/robspkrrules4.htm)



Killing someone's hand for failure to act when there's no bet to them is really really bad. If someone facing a bet managed to zone out for one and a half betting rounds, killing the hand might be reasonable, although everyone should be ashamed for not noticing.
AKQJ10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 08:59 PM   #33
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 11,530
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

That's the rule I was thinking of. My interpretation of "losing the right to act" included calling; that is an action. I wouldn't have killed the hand on the flop or turn, but now on the river there is a bet so I figured the player would not be allowed to act by calling or raising when the action got back around to her.
chillrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2018, 09:25 PM   #34
AKQJ10
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I've been all over. Now Seattle.
Posts: 12,518
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

It seems the button was somewhere around the 3 seat so the 2 seat hadn't even had her river turn yet. Indeed, nothing irregular happened OTR. But she was upset she didn't get to act on a previous round:

Quote:
Interestingly, the loudest complaint was from the 2seat who felt her rights had been infringed upon by not being able to act on the flop, turn, and river.

which is a preposterous thing for her to complain about, but poker players make preposterous complaints all the time. The floorperson should apologize even now to everyone else involved in the hand for a terrible ruling.

If the flop or turn had been bet and we ended up here OTR, I think you'd have to kill her hand. She had the opportunity to "act," i.e. call the bet, and failed to do so.
AKQJ10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2018, 08:55 AM   #35
MJ88
veteran
 
MJ88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,858
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob View Post
That's the rule I was thinking of. My interpretation of "losing the right to act" included calling; that is an action. I wouldn't have killed the hand on the flop or turn, but now on the river there is a bet so I figured the player would not be allowed to act by calling or raising when the action got back around to her.
I can see how you might interpret it this way, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of the rule was that the offender would "lose the right to act" in her original turn, i.e., by rolling the action back to her.
But generally speaking, if there has been no subsequent betting (only checking), even on multiple rounds as here, there is no need to kill her hand.
MJ88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 03:52 PM   #36
wrapdraw
centurion
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 181
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Dealers sometimes make mistakes. They are not robots and this seemed to me like it was more on the player. Player couldn't stop talking for a couple minutes to play the hand? Not to mention miss two streets of action. I personally think the river should stay, player learns a lesson to pay attention. Dealer get a reminder away from the table to try and remember who has cards. things happen, not like this was a $500 pot on the river.
wrapdraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2018, 06:20 PM   #37
AKQJ10
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I've been all over. Now Seattle.
Posts: 12,518
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

"player learns a lesson" is always the wrong motivation for a floor ruling. In this case the river card should not change but it has nothing to do with teaching lessons.

If you make a ruling to "teach 'em a lesson" but they prove to be dense/stubborn/incapable of learning a lesson then does that make it a bad ruling?

Last edited by AKQJ10; 07-09-2018 at 06:26 PM.
AKQJ10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 02:01 AM   #38
deuce24off
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Re: Interesting ruling at Turningstone

Substantial action has occurred. The river should stay, and action will follow as need be. When substantial action has occurred, things like premature cards cannot be reversed. This is completely the incorrect ruling. It is seat 2's responsibility to speak up and say something if the dealer is bypassing their action.
deuce24off is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online