July 29, 2008 by g3rt.

hell0!

 first i’d like to apologize for my bad english, my native language is swiss german, i hope, you can understand me.

following scene occured yesterday night in a single table sng:

it was self-dealining. the dealer threw one player’s holecard face up. Someone said ’Let’s make this the burn card and continue dealing’. No one objected. But after the deal was complete, the dealer didn’t put the face up card on the top of the deck - he left it face up on the table. During the the pre-flop betting round nobody requested to put it on top of the deck, so that it could take its function as a burn card.
At the end of the preflop round, the dealer burned the top card and started dealing the flop when several players yelled out:”stop, you must not burn a card”. they wanted to discard the third flop card and put the burn card face up. I said, that everything is alright the way it is, because the face card wasn’t on top of the deck, so it wasn’t a burn card. therefore the dealer is right to burn another card.
everybody besides the dealer disagreed with me.
later on, i found out, that they do it always like that. they just call the misdealed card a burn card, but they don’t use it as one, they keep them face up one the table. I think this is so, because almost nobody seems to actually understand why the top card of the deck has to be burned.

my question is: was it still right to claim that the top card should be burned? what do you think about this situation?

An answer would be very appreciated, as I’m still rather irritated.

Posted in Dealers Responsibilities, Errors, Partial Faults, Etc., Exposed Cards, Hand Discussion, Etc., Dealer Errors, Bad Flops, Etc., Uncategorized | Print | 6 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by mongoose.

I know a player in the local game who needed a ruling on the following scenerio.  I believe similar scenerios have been addressed before, but to be sure . . .

NLHE cash game - she’s UTG with pocket Aces, and limps with the intention of reraising (puts $5 into pot).  she’s Player A.  Player B raises to $40.  Player C goes all-in for $38.  action comes back around to her. 

I believe that Player B’s raise gives her the option to fold/call/reRaise, and that Player C’s lack of money should not affect her options.  The dealer saw it differently, and decided that she had the options to fold, or call for $35 more. 

Now, in this situation, she agrees with me.  She should have been giving the right to reraise based on Player B’s raise to $40.  But - she also believes that in a Tournament setting, she would not be allowed to reraise.  Why?  I have no clue.  But, it’s a firmly held belief, and I’d like to clear the air before this comes up in a tournament and we go through a weird, and heated conversation.

Opinions on the situation?

Posted in All-In Bets; Re-Opening Betting, Side-Pots, Split Pots | Print | 3 Comments »

July 24, 2008 by riv.

Hi,

Omaha hi-lo. After the river. Player A bets, Player B calls, Player C calls. Showdown: Player A wins high, Player B wins low, Player C folds but his hand isn’t mucked. Player A said that he wanted to see Player C hand but Player B said that he didn’t want to show that hand. How do you rule?

We have such Robert’s rules:

“Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent’s hand or the winning hand has been mucked.”

and:

“If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.”

What about two winners in hi-lo games?

If you ruled to show that hand, what if Player C hand is better than Player B hand, who actually didn’t agree to see that hand?

Waiting for your comments,

Best regards,

riv

Posted in Showdowns & Pot Awarding, High-Low Games | Print | 6 Comments »

July 24, 2008 by vilote.

Hi, this is what happened in a NL tournament with just one re-buy in the three first levels : a player is eliminated and stands up. As usually, the dealer  calls me to let me know that a player is out. I ask the player, who is standing by the table, if he wants to make the re-buy. The player hesitates, and then says “OK, why not” and gets back to his sit.  I have to say that no new hand had been dealt by then.
Two players claimed that that player could not sit back again, since he had already left the table.
I know the crupier should have asked the player before he left the table, but the she was not an experienced one.

Did I make the right decesion?

Thanks in advance.

Posted in Buy-Ins and Re-Buys, Registration, Buy-Ins, & Awards | Print | 3 Comments »

July 18, 2008 by JustinFromTulsa.

We all know that players that come from a broken table can assume any position at their new table but here’s a situation that comes up from time to time that I have never heard a concrete rule about. 

Table #1 has 9 of 10 players left. Button is in the 10 seat, seat 1 is the SB, seat 2 is empty and seat 3 is the BB. Seat 3 goes broke and we break some other table. New players, from our other broken table, fill in the 2 and 3 seats. With the button in the 1 seat we have the following options:

seat 2 is the SB, seat 3 is the BB, and seat 4 is UTG again, or

seat 2 sits out, seat 3 is the SB, and seat 4 is the BB like he was supposed to be.

One option is easy and the other is more true but will get some grumbles from some players. Which do you prefer?

Posted in Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Empty Seats, Penalties, Clocks, Ejected Players, Buttons & Blinds, Seating & Moving Players | Print | 5 Comments »

July 15, 2008 by riv.

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum and first of all I want to say is that I really appreaciate this forum and have my big respect for all users and authors (sorry for my poor english). And these are my very first (but surely not last) questions:

1. Tournament. Blinds are 200/400. BB posts his blind with single 500 chip. Everybody folds, button calls and BB raises by putting another two 1000 chips without any comment (dealer doesn’t announce anything but a “raise” as well). Button reraises and BB folds but claims that he wants 100 back from his Big Blind 500 chip. How do you rule?

2.  Player A bets on every round of betting and player B calls. After the river player A bets, player B calls, player A immediately folds his hand which is mucked but asks to see opponent hand which is still retrievable. I wouldn’t let him see this hand because there was no sign of collusion and player A who was obviously bluffing wanted to take advantage to see opponent hand. But during WSOP 2008 Main Event they ruled to show winning hand. What do you think?

3. What’s your opinion about desicion taken on Brandon Cantu vs Nikolai Losev stringbet on Day 6 of WSOP 2008? Is there “rule of the table line” exist in LV and especially during WSOP?

Best regards,

riv

Posted in Showdowns & Pot Awarding, Buttons & Blinds, Mucking, Dead Hands, Etc, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 3 Comments »

July 14, 2008 by lsoderman.

Had a question come up with one of our floor folks last weekend.

Blinds are 300-600, and bets come around to SB with no raises. SB has 3 x 100 chips on the table, and tosses out a single 1000 chip.

Rules say this should be a call. Player argues that since there are already more than one chip out, this should be considered a raise.

Interested to hear the consensus.

Posted in Overbets, Underbets, Single-Chip Bets Etc, Verbals, Gestures, & Actions: Bet Raise Fold, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 7 Comments »

July 11, 2008 by cpa-poker.

A player grabs a chips from their stack and makes a foward motion toward the pot.  The player never says anthing, nor does he actually release any chips into the pot.  The player notices they do not have the desired chips in their hand.  (Player thought they a had two $100 and one $1k chip, but actually they had two $100 and one $500 chip).  Since the chips were never released into the pot has the player exercised their foward motion and only limited to using the chips in their hand, or can they go back in to their stack?   We do not have a physical betting line on the table.  Many casinos let a player take a stack a chips and drop a partial part of the stack into the pot.  But this is different because it involoves two foward motions.  But if they never released any chips does it count?

Posted in Overbets, Underbets, Single-Chip Bets Etc, Verbals, Gestures, & Actions: Bet Raise Fold, Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn | Print | 1 Comment »

July 10, 2008 by msto.

Can a player be moved from a broken table into the single big blind position (or would they move into the small blind)?

Example: Seat 1:Button  Seat 2:SB  Seat 3: BB

Seat 3 busts out of the tournament.  Seat 2:Button  Seat 4:BB.  Player “x” is moved from a broken table into Seat 3’s seat.  Would Player X be the SB or the single BB?

We have had several agruments over this situation and TDA rules only state that players cannot play between the small blind and the button.

HELP!

Posted in Buttons & Blinds, Seating & Moving Players | Print | 4 Comments »

July 8, 2008 by hobbit56.

During a no limit cash game I was asked to see a folded hand. The request came from a 2 players not invoved in the hand. I ruled that since they were not in the hand they could not ask to see the other players cards. After my ruling the other player left in the hand asked to see the cards to which I agreed. Afterward one of the original requesters stated that the rules had changed recently and I should verify whether my ruling was correct. Since I have not heard and can not find anything anywhere else I would appreciate any input. Thank You.

Posted in Exposed Cards, Hand Discussion, Etc., Dealers Responsibilities, Errors, Partial Faults, Etc., Collusion, Cheating, Etc., Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Mucking, Dead Hands, Etc, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties | Print | 2 Comments »