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 01-10-2018, 05:24 PM   #51
EvilGreebo
Pooh-Bah
 
EvilGreebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,516
Re: questionable floor ruling

Yes, if you miss it, it's your error - but responsibility is first on the person acting OOT, second on the person who has the action, and finally on you.

But all that said - we need more dealers with your commitment.
EvilGreebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 05:41 PM   #52
answer20
Pooh-Bah
 
answer20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Corner of Walk/Don't Walk
Posts: 5,565
Re: questionable floor ruling

Can of worms fully opened ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGreebo View Post
You're also there to rep your employer, provide customer service, and collect fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGreebo View Post
That's all on the players to track whether you say anything or not - and plenty of dealers don't, btw - at least not consistenly.
I'm well over my blaming Dealer days .. ..

Your employer, not the player's, should determine what level of 'customer service' a Dealer provides and (unfortunately) also try to get 'many' Dealers to apply those guidelines consistently within the room. Each room 'should' have it's own set of Dealer rules when facilitating the Poker rules.

You are correct that Robert's nor TDA really indicate a Dealer's role, but I've heard about this WSOP Dealer's Procedure Manual being pretty thick.

Granted there will always be players who want a Dealer to go that extra mile and Dealers are easy targets when a player ends up in an uncomfortable spot (or gets 2-outed) as well.

As is the case when calling out bet sizes .. It's not your job (unless it is your job) until a player makes it your job .. unless 'you' make it your job in order to keep the game moving along or there's that one guy in Seat 7 who looks shocked that you didn't realize that he 'always' wants a count. GL
answer20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 05:45 PM   #53
CupOfSalt
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 183
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by answer20 View Post
Can of worms fully opened ...





I'm well over my blaming Dealer days .. ..

Your employer, not the player's, should determine what level of 'customer service' a Dealer provides and (unfortunately) also try to get 'many' Dealers to apply those guidelines consistently within the room. Each room 'should' have it's own set of Dealer rules when facilitating the Poker rules.

You are correct that Robert's nor TDA really indicate a Dealer's role, but I've heard about this WSOP Dealer's Procedure Manual being pretty thick.

Granted there will always be players who want a Dealer to go that extra mile and Dealers are easy targets when a player ends up in an uncomfortable spot (or gets 2-outed) as well.

As is the case when calling out bet sizes .. It's not your job (unless it is your job) until a player makes it your job .. unless 'you' make it your job in order to keep the game moving along or there's that one guy in Seat 7 who looks shocked that you didn't realize that he 'always' wants a count. GL
In no limit, you're not supposed to call out bet sizes, only "bet" or "raise" unless requested. Many dealers do it though because it keeps the game moving and prevents someone in every hand from asking "how much is that?"

And yes, the WSOP dealer's guidelines manual is HUGE.
CupOfSalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 06:14 PM   #54
MJ88
veteran
 
MJ88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by answer20 View Post
....IMO backing up action 'punishes' the players that did act. UTG now knows what those players 'may' do (or at least wanted to do). Granted we wouldn't be in this spot if they didn't act out of turn to begin with, so maybe I'm looking at the wrong seats here when it comes to whom I'm ruling about. We are sort of blaming UTG for letting (lots of) other players act out of turn. Somehow making right against two wrongs? .....
OP is supposed to protect his action.
Next three players are supposed to act in turn.
When both fail, the decision necessarily requires punishing or penalizing someone. Three or more actions is (I suppose) designed to represent the tipping point where the probable harm and/or angling opportunities have shifted enough to make killing the hand probably less harmful/unfair than rolling back the action. But somebody's sure to be unhappy, no matter what the decision.
Dead hand is the standard, default ruling, IME, even though floors usually hate to do this.
Backing up the action is at the floor's discretion, but usually only if OP really didn't have any chance to intervene in time. This is somewhat unusual, but can be correct (though not in this case).
MJ88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 06:18 PM   #55
Trumps hit
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 70
Re: questionable floor ruling

Floor always wins
Trumps hit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 09:25 PM   #56
psandman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
psandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 15,335
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGreebo View Post
That's grounds to prevent action not kill the hand.
calling is acting.

The reason to kill the hand is to prevent a player from getting the advantage of seeing how what all the players behind him are going to do before he acts.

Some people here are looking it as not letting him raise solves all the problems ..

but what if he never wanted to raise .... what if his decision is whether to call or fold ..... and he wants to call if he sees calls behind him but not raises......

how does not letting him raise fix the advantage he has gained?
psandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2018, 11:31 PM   #57
albedoa
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,499
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGreebo View Post
That's grounds to prevent action not kill the hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert's Rules
Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act.
While the rule as a whole might be written ambiguously, the meaning of "to act" is unambiguous. There is an earlier appearance of that verb in the same sentence ("three or more players have acted").

So you'd have to believe that either he's using a different definition for each instance or he thinks three or more raises is a reasonable point to start questioning whether one might have forfeited his right to act. That's an absurd amount of action to allow a player to watch, even for a fixed-limit game.

Also, I really hope you know the difference between the blinds responding in-turn to an earlier raise and UTG+2 responding to it out-of-turn.
albedoa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2018, 09:18 AM   #58
answer20
Pooh-Bah
 
answer20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Corner of Walk/Don't Walk
Posts: 5,565
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by psandman View Post
calling is acting.

how does not letting him raise fix the advantage he has gained?
I don't think there are different definitions of 'act' in the same sentence. The focus needs to be put on 'the right to'. When the Floor decides to kill a player's hand he is essentially taking away his 'right' to fold, call or raise in this hand.

My proposed solution may be a happy medium for the two wrongs that have occurred. OOT action (x3) and failure to stop said action. It wasn't UTG's fault (disputable) that there was OOT action, but it was his fault for not stopping it, by rule.

Granted the rule doesn't say 'your right to act may be limited' it states 'you may lose your right to act (at all)'. So I probably lose to the lawyers here.

I have already stated that I'm leaning more towards a killed hand here, but if I let UTG stay in the hand I want to 'limit' his advantage gained by taking away his 'right' to raise unless action reopens to him on the current street (by the SB or BB, not B). If we back action up UTG can still limp and he would still have the option of acting on the B raise (because OOT action stands, right?). I'm saying 'no', as a trade-off for me letting you stay in the hand you don't get to take advantage of the extra information you acquired until the next street unless action changes after we move past this issue.

Certainly you can say that this was his plan all along but if this one guy in this one spot can spin such a web then praise he shall get from me! GL
answer20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 02:49 AM   #59
Reducto
adept
 
Reducto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 940
Re: questionable floor ruling

One thing I have been wondering about - what if OP or the dealer had spoken up after 1 or 2 actions but other players kept acting anyway? I've had situations where I literally yelled at players to stop acting but they had long since tuned me out and kept moving.
Reducto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 03:20 AM   #60
chillrob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
chillrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: under a dark cloud
Posts: 10,981
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reducto View Post
One thing I have been wondering about - what if OP or the dealer had spoken up after 1 or 2 actions but other players kept acting anyway? I've had situations where I literally yelled at players to stop acting but they had long since tuned me out and kept moving.
Action should be wound back to him if he spoke up earlier, even if people acted after.
chillrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 06:39 AM   #61
DetroitJunkie
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: guess
Posts: 646
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reducto View Post
One thing I have been wondering about - what if OP or the dealer had spoken up after 1 or 2 actions but other players kept acting anyway? I've had situations where I literally yelled at players to stop acting but they had long since tuned me out and kept moving.
$5 button straddle. Stop, theres a button straddle, stop theres a button straddle, STOP THERES A BUTTON STRADDLE!

geesh
DetroitJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 10:48 AM   #62
SpewingIsMyMove
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 2,003
Re: questionable floor ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitJunkie View Post
$5 button straddle. Stop, theres a button straddle, stop theres a button straddle, STOP THERES A BUTTON STRADDLE!

geesh
"Is that a straddle?"
SpewingIsMyMove 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 12:38 AM.


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