Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Bizarre hand, questionable ruling at Rio (+bonus questions) NVG edition Bizarre hand, questionable ruling at Rio (+bonus questions) NVG edition

07-09-2012 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rzitup
As a side note, my take on this is based on the information given, and assuming there was nothing that led up to this decision involving this player. Had he been doing this repeatedly, been warned about, then this ruling could be the right one.
Your assumption's correct; he had done nothing out-of-line and there was no reason to believe this was an abuse of the rules.
07-09-2012 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professionalpoker
Various house/tournament rules.
Granted... I find it very odd that there seems to be a high percentage of players who believe in these "magical dead hand lands". There needs to be a standardization of rules across the industry... but that won't happen.
07-09-2012 , 03:22 PM
I don't say this very often, but 4 2 would be fully justified in starting a knife fight there.
07-09-2012 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty Oh
Based on OP's info... this has to be the worst ruling I've ever heard. Just points to the top level staff at the WSOP. Intent is clear, the joke is clear. Just ridiculous.

And no... the muck pile is not a magical land of instant dead hands. And no... hands are not dead if exposed (even in tournies). Where do these ideas come from?
i was told this at the TROP about 2 years ago when I threw my cards in the muck (obv they went face up) and there was 3 ppl behind me... i asked the dealer would i still be able to go all in if i wanted (i was just curious) he said no the hand is dead once i expose the hand and others are behind me to act...
07-09-2012 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty Oh
Based on OP's info... this has to be the worst ruling I've ever heard. Just points to the top level staff at the WSOP. Intent is clear, the joke is clear. Just ridiculous.

And no... the muck pile is not a magical land of instant dead hands. And no... hands are not dead if exposed (even in tournies). Where do these ideas come from?
Maybe not where you play, but at the rooms I play in Fl, they specifically tell you before a tourney starts if you expose your hand out of turn it will be dead.

Not so for cash games, but you will get warned.
07-09-2012 , 03:27 PM
Ive played at the borg recently and it was heads up, and i told the other player he could look at one of my cards to get him to fold.... the dealer said that cannot happen and if it does my hand will be dead... i am so confused
07-09-2012 , 03:31 PM
Ruling is spot on.

Should stop players for being complete dicks. LOL asian guy got exactly what he deserved.
07-09-2012 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty Oh
Granted... I find it very odd that there seems to be a high percentage of players who believe in these "magical dead hand lands". There needs to be a standardization of rules across the industry... but that won't happen.
Don't you think the marginal ruling aspect of poker gives our game a bit of a "fun/exciting" edge? No, I'm not levelling.
07-09-2012 , 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie boyle
Don't you think the marginal ruling aspect of poker gives our game a bit of a "fun/exciting" edge? No, I'm not levelling.
No.

There is no "marginal ruling" in a river flush beating a flopped straight or in some guy calling with two outs, hitting it on the Turn, only to be beaten by a one outer on the River.

There is no "marginal ruling" in check-raise bluffing on the river and getting a good opponent to lay it down.

That is what give the game its "fun/exciting" edge. Not some ruling that seems to come from consulting a Magic 8 Ball.
07-09-2012 , 03:42 PM
It makes almost ZERO sense for a face-up hand to essentially be 'unmuckable'.

Wtf happened to peoples ethics seriously. But i guess that's what happens in the US with the 'Win At All Costs' mentality. Compassion goes straight out the **** window.

lol at the douchebaggery ITT. Anyone who'd get the Asian to commit just so we can snap with J9 is a fool. You've now lost the fish forever, and tarnished your own rep as a complete EV-crazed Ahole.

Hope the Asian guy went to the blackjack tables and binked like a mofo. Poor guy.
07-09-2012 , 03:44 PM
How could player 2 accept the asian's money? I would feel like a complete piece of **** taking the money. This guy deserve's a beating imo. There is no chance he is getting my 7k without a fight.
07-09-2012 , 03:50 PM
I would feel embarrassed taking that poor guys money, everyone at the table should of berated him for being a prick and the floor not having any common sense.
07-09-2012 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Smitalos
It makes almost ZERO sense for a face-up hand to essentially be 'unmuckable'.

Wtf happened to peoples ethics seriously. But i guess that's what happens in the US with the 'Win At All Costs' mentality. Compassion goes straight out the **** window.

lol at the douchebaggery ITT. Anyone who'd get the Asian to commit just so we can snap with J9 is a fool. You've now lost the fish forever, and tarnished your own rep as a complete EV-crazed Ahole.

Hope the Asian guy went to the blackjack tables and binked like a mofo. Poor guy.
I dont really understand such a statement even though its completely wrong and all to take his money here, its not like you are likely going to get this much money off of him in the future with zero risk. And its not clear thats hes a fish anyways, just made a stupid joke that cost him.

the part im referring to is the whole "losing the fish forever"
07-09-2012 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakingIt
I dont really understand such a statement even though its completely wrong and all to take his money here, its not like you are likely going to get this much money off of him in the future with zero risk. And its not clear thats hes a fish anyways, just made a stupid joke that cost him.

the part im referring to is the whole "losing the fish forever"
Whilst it's unlikely he's going to get any action from this guy specifically ever again, i doubt it's going to do anything positive for his action. Imagine how put off people would be if they heard that story and they were thinking about giving poker a shot?
It's selfish moves like the one is the story that give poker a bad image and make lesser experienced players hesitate to play when they're made out to be greedy, unfriendly and uncompassionate d-bags like the guys in the story.
Poker is a long term game, and taking cheap shots like this one do all of us no favours. J9 guy (+others) should be named and shamed imho.

[I meant the fish term as a collective noun referring to all less experienced players, but someone who's in there with four-deuce isnt exactly screaming PRO, but ya never know. Sorry for the confusion.]
07-09-2012 , 04:07 PM
This talk about whether a hand is retrievable typically applies to a hand that has been "mucked" at showdown. At showdown, you can muck your hand, but you can't fold.

The Asian guy here folded. That was his action. You can only take one action, and he clearly folded. If he had made a checking motion, and then said "all-in", clearly the check would be a binding action since that was what he did first. Here, the action he took first was to fold, so that is binding.

What if he folded face down, then said "all-in" like he was joking, and he turned out to have the nuts? No one at the table would be claiming he didn't fold then.
07-09-2012 , 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuaDxAceZ
if im the asian man... i stand up, grab my chips, not leave a single dollar on the table and accept the 86 and any ass beating that comes my way from the guy who shoved 5k
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyIllini
+1. First time I've ever thought that this was the correct action. And if anything, I'm seeking to beat his ass if we ever meet up elsewhere for trying to swindle me (not the other way around).
Definitely this. I mean, seriously, WTF at this ruling?! This story is upsetting, and envisioning myself in the Asian man's shoes is actually making me kinda mad right now, haha.
07-09-2012 , 04:20 PM
Awful ruling. This appears to be legalised theft. Isn't one of the main purposes of poker rules to ensure a fair and equitable experience? I wonder what the floor would have ruled if the 4-2 guy had been an articulate, Caucasian reg?
07-09-2012 , 04:26 PM
All involved, at those stakes, should know better and the floor should never have had to get involved. Since that wasn't the case, I'll second the best 1 word summary. YUCK.

Also agree that I wouldn't blame the guy for racking up his $7k and leaving, never to play a CET property again.
07-09-2012 , 04:38 PM
thats a pretty bad misclick :/
07-09-2012 , 05:35 PM
07-09-2012 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professionalpoker
Is he referring to RIO staff there?
07-09-2012 , 05:49 PM
My first question is: Why did the asian guy expose his hand when there was still action pending? Obviously he was playing the board, so in this case it doesn't affect the outcome of the hand...but to my knowledge in most places in a multiway pot you can't expose your hand when there is still action pending.

I think the ruling was bad, but if you just say fold and muck your hand face down, this can't happen to you.

Expensive lesson for this guy trying to be funny...he might want to tone down his stand up routine.
07-09-2012 , 05:49 PM
It's amazing that the one time the floor at the rio make the right ruling by the letter of the rules they get it completely wrong
07-09-2012 , 05:55 PM
Worst ruling ever. Floor should be fired for incompetence, and the other players in the hand are scum.
07-09-2012 , 05:56 PM
I love how it's 2012 and we still have to point out that the player was nutty/crazy asian. I'll have to admit, the most epic stories involve this character!

      
m