Ruling: Sneaky play or crafty move? You decide....

Flipper

Ok, this situation arose in Connie's club on Sunday. The villain is a local player whom a few of you will know but I'm not going to name him for now. We were down to 10 players, playing two tables of 5. I was short stacked with 7k and blinds at 300/600. I'm giving the villain a bit of "guff" saying that I'm laying down no hand to him etc etc.

Ok, here's what happened. He raised from the CO to 1,400 and it's folded to me in the BB. I look down and see an Ace. Without looking at the other card, I announce "I'm all in". Now here's where it gets dodgy. I look straight at him and he says "ok" and motions his chips forward with his left hard. At that point, I push my chips across the line and turn my cards over but only exposing the Ace. I stand up and at that point he throws his cards into the middle of the table. I said "what do you think you're doing?" to which he said "ah, I was only messing with ya". Our table was right beside the door and right then, my Ace moved an inch to the right (moved by the breeze) to expose the card underneath - a suited 3. He immediately reaches for his cards, pulls them back behind the line and says, "sure look, I'll call if you want" and throws over A7. Before I even had time to argue about it all, the dealer threw out the flop, turn and river. We ended up chopping the pot so I didn't kick up a fuss but thinking about how sneaky a move this was last night, I got annoyed.

What do you think of this? What would your ruling be AFTER the hand had been played out?

insafehands

He mucked. Hand over. You win?

Edit: And he is a sly fcuker.

RichieLawlor

Flipper wrote: »

Ok, this situation arose in Connie's club on Sunday. The villain is a local player whom a few of you will know but I'm not going to name him for now. We were down to 10 players, playing two tables of 5. I was short stacked with 7k and blinds at 300/600. I'm giving the villain a bit of "guff" saying that I'm laying down no hand to him etc etc.

Ok, here's what happened. He raised from the CO to 1,400 and it's folded to me in the BB. I look down and see an Ace. Without looking at the other card, I announce "I'm all in". Now here's where it gets dodgy. I look straight at him and he says "ok" and motions his chips forward with his left hard. At that point, I push my chips across the line and turn my cards over but only exposing the Ace. I stand up and at that point he throws his cards into the middle of the table. I said "what do you think you're doing?" to which he said "ah, I was only messing with ya". Our table was right beside the door and right then, my Ace moved an inch to the right (moved by the breeze) to expose the card underneath - a suited 3. He immediately reaches for his cards, pulls them back behind the line and says, "sure look, I'll call if you want" and throws over A7. Before I even had time to argue about it all, the dealer threw out the flop, turn and river. We ended up chopping the pot so I didn't kick up a fuss but thinking about how sneaky a move this was last night, I got annoyed.

What do you think of this? What would your ruling be AFTER the hand had been played out?

punch him and punch the dealer. this is ridiculous.

I love the "i was only messin with ya bit" and how can he retrieve his cards after throwin them in

BigCityBanker

name him ffs

People deserve to know the angle shooters amongst them. Im sure the good folk in Kerry would like to know what sort of a chap frequents their game.

mormank

Wow! interesting hand indeed!! well i guess if you had ace jack and he decided he wanted to fold, the ruling would be that the call had to stand..therefore the ruling would be that the call would still stand in this instance!!

Shocking hand tho imo!!! won't comment any further just now..

mdwexford

You shouldnt have turned your cards over till his chips were in the middle to start with, bad mistake imo.

When he throws his hand in it should be dead though, dealer defo should have called for a ruling before running the flop.

Also whoever did it deserves to be named, this is horrible etiquette/blatant cheating.

Flushdraw

I think you were a bit quick out of the traps pushing your chips forward and turning your cards ala Hellmuth..Every club has its own rules and a forward motion doesnt necessarily mean a call.

If he throws his cards towards the dealer in a "i'm mucking my hand" sort of the way, the dealer should have taken his cards into the muck. When your 2nd card is exposed, theres no way he should be able to retrieve his cards and make the call.

You should have stopped the flop being dealt and called for a ruling. I'm sure you had time but theres the gamblor inside Flipper that thought things would balance and the A3 would hold up and serve the other player right.

After the hand was played out, the result stands and this should be the only rule.

Flipper

My "play" in the hand is not up for discussion and nor is the turning over of the cards. This has already taken place and can't be changed.

I may name the person purely because he seemed to think this was fine and refused to admit that it was an angle shoot. I'd rather people gave an impartial view first.

DeVore

What ruling would have been given if the 3 hadn't been exposed and he insisted he wasnt calling and "was only messin"?

Personally I think this is angle shooting of the highest order (but having only heard one side of the story). Also I wouldnt be concerned about naming this player if you are confident in your recollection of the incident.

DeV.

Flipper

Pat Storan was also at the table and may be able to recollect the event. Don't know the other two players.

Flushdraw

I always knew that Nicky Power was up to no good...

DeVore

I'd put good money this wasnt Nicky.

DeV.

Macspower

DeVore wrote: »

I'd put good money this wasnt Nicky.

DeV.

why? memories of A8?

DeVore

Totally different situation. Nicky might be bonkers but he's not an angle shooter...

DeV.

Macspower

DeVore wrote: »

Totally different situation. Nicky might be bonkers but he's not an angle shooter...

DeV.

you of course are right... nicky would have shipped the chips over the line with the A7 while fist pumping and dancing an indian war dance....

Flipper

no, he's a kerry man. Local to the club

Lazare

So he moves his chips over the line into the pot, sees he may be dominated so decides to throw his cards into the centre of the table (ie, the muck), presumably wishing to retrieve said chips from pot (which aren't his anymore), then, realises that he isn't dominated after all, takes his cards back from the muck, feigns altruism, and the dealer deals the flop.

That sounds like great fun alltogether.

Mellor

In my opinion there should be two correct rulings, depending on what point in the mess they were made

When he mucked after seeing the ace he should of been made to call. He annouced his intentions and went back on this.


After the three was exposed and he decided to call after mucking he should be made to muck, he was changing based on the situation.

The player in question changed his actions based on information available after he acted, this is grade A angle shooting and he should be made take the course of action he tried to avoid.

ZZR1100

I was at the table and after u went all in he said ok and pushed his chips towards the line. u flipped over your A and he said hang on / i didnt call at which point u or the wind uncoverd the 3 and said ''forward motion u said ok thats a call''.
When he saw your hand he said fine ill call if thats what u want.
His cards might have been over the line (not sure) but were not in or touching the muck.
So its down to really if OK is deemed to be a call. Forward motion means nothing (ask dave masters as he likes to do this for info), where there is a line on the table at least.
Personally i think in the spirit of the game it should be a call in this instance and didnt like what he did.
He is not a member of boards as far as i know but maybe he will join now
Also he is a corkman

Russh

I wouldn't be impressed by the dealer....terrible play by him....I'd be calling for his head...very messy hand...player in question is simply cheating..imo

Once the hand is played out I'm not sure if a ruling can change anything...

Flushdraw

DeVore wrote: »

I'd put good money this wasnt Nicky.

DeV.

DeVore wrote: »

Totally different situation. Nicky might be bonkers but he's not an angle shooter...

DeV.

I didnt think for a second this was Nicky!! should i have added this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

themadchef

insafehands wrote: »

He mucked. Hand over. You win?

Edit: And he is a sly fcuker.

totally agree, mucked his cards, hand over

Mellor

themadchef wrote: »

totally agree, mucked his cards, hand over

To be fair this is totally results based.
If the 3 was never exposed and he folded, we would all call for his hand to be a call.

THe ruling or opinions on the hand shouldn't be based on the fact that he muck, or might have mucked, but based on the fact that he changed his action twice based on info that he didn't have at original decision time,

DeVore

We really dont have a clear explanation of the details:

1. Did flipper expose the card or "the wind"?

2. Did the chips cross the line or not?

3. Beyond saying "ok" was it clear he intended to call or was there abiguity?


I'm not sure why anyone is faulting the dealer here, he hasnt caused this mess. Admitedly he should have closed down shop and controlled the situation until floor arrived but lets face it, a lot of dealers simply dont know what to do in a situation like this, because its exceptional and rare.

It sounds like the player intended to call and should be held to his first action (hence I asked the rhetorical question of what the ruling would have been had the 3 not been exposed.... my feeling without having been there and only hearing one version of the events (not that I doubt flipper), is that he meant to call, he should be held to that call regardless of what happens next and certainly regardless of what the players say or do.

If the 3 hadnt been exposed, we would have forced him to call, right? Once we have decided that, the player in question can do a tribal war dance while pushing his chips in out in out and at his own option, shaking them all about. It doesnt matter, he's called and we are going to the river regardless. The fact that he has flip-flopped twice since then is immaterial. It was always going to be immaterial and its still immaterial.

Once the hand is over, I would take the player away from the table and warn him that any repeat of that sort of thing will lead to two week suspension from my club, a second repeat would be the last time he ever played there.

That would be my ruling and my reasoning for it. It all hinges on what we would have ruled had the 3 not been exposed... and do that regardless.

DeV.

DeVore

Mellor types faster then I do.

Or maybe he's just more concise!

DeV.

Russh

DeVore wrote: »

We really dont have a clear explanation of the details:

1. Did flipper expose the card or "the wind"?

2. Did the chips cross the line or not?

3. Beyond saying "ok" was it clear he intended to call or was there abiguity?


I'm not sure why anyone is faulting the dealer here, he hasnt caused this mess. Admitedly he should have closed down shop and controlled the situation until floor arrived but lets face it, a lot of dealers simply dont know what to do in a situation like this, because its exceptional and rare.

It sounds like the player intended to call and should be held to his first action (hence I asked the rhetorical question of what the ruling would have been had the 3 not been exposed.... my feeling without having been there and only hearing one version of the events (not that I doubt flipper), is that he meant to call, he should be held to that call regardless of what happens next and certainly regardless of what the players say or do.

If the 3 hadnt been exposed, we would have forced him to call, right? Once we have decided that, the player in question can do a tribal war dance while pushing his chips in out in out and at his own option, shaking them all about. It doesnt matter, he's called and we are going to the river regardless. The fact that he has flip-flopped twice since then is immaterial. It was always going to be immaterial and its still immaterial.

Once the hand is over, I would take the player away from the table and warn him that any repeat of that sort of thing will lead to two week suspension from my club, a second repeat would be the last time he ever played there.

That would be my ruling and my reasoning for it. It all hinges on what we would have ruled had the 3 not been exposed... and do that regardless.

DeV.

Obv I'm not saying it's the dealers fault...I think he should have at the very least called for the TD and clarified the situation and only then move on with the rest of the hand...

If it was the intention this player to call..why is he attempting to muck his hand..jaysus, that sh1te would wreck your head...

IMO One of the very few positive's i've taken from american poker is that there is a line on the table and your not involved in any action until your chips cross that line...

NickyOD

I might decide to rule that he called AND mucked his cards.

I'd definitely rule that his hand is dead, of that there is no question and how on earth you didn't kick up a fuss is beyond me.

The only difficult ruling to make here is whether or not he called. If the guy pushes chips forward and says "ok" I dare say that's a call, over the line or not. He only mucked because he was thought he probably outkicked.

NickyOD

Russh wrote: »

IMO One of the very few positive's i've taken from american poker is that there is a line on the table and your not involved in any action until your chips cross that line...

huh? All american tables have lines on them do they? And of course you can be involved in the action verbally without putting chips forward or over a line.

I don't like the idea of using a table line to a make a ruling. I can't think of any situation where it helps matters at all. If anything it should IMO be only used as a guide for players to keep there belongings behind it and let dealers take care of all matters beyond it. That is all. I prefer tables with no line.

There are plenty of examples why calling it a "betting" line is bad and it also makes dealers act lazily in interpreting the intent of players at the table.

nicnicnic

Flipper wrote: »

Ok, this situation arose in Connie's club on Sunday. The villain is a local player whom a few of you will know but I'm not going to name him for now. We were down to 10 players, playing two tables of 5. I was short stacked with 7k and blinds at 300/600. I'm giving the villain a bit of "guff" saying that I'm laying down no hand to him etc etc.

Ok, here's what happened. He raised from the CO to 1,400 and it's folded to me in the BB. I look down and see an Ace. Without looking at the other card, I announce "I'm all in". Now here's where it gets dodgy. I look straight at him and he says "ok" and motions his chips forward with his left hard. At that point, I push my chips across the line and turn my cards over but only exposing the Ace. I stand up and at that point he throws his cards into the middle of the table. I said "what do you think you're doing?" to which he said "ah, I was only messing with ya". Our table was right beside the door and right then, my Ace moved an inch to the right (moved by the breeze) to expose the card underneath - a suited 3. He immediately reaches for his cards, pulls them back behind the line and says, "sure look, I'll call if you want" and throws over A7. Before I even had time to argue about it all, the dealer threw out the flop, turn and river. We ended up chopping the pot so I didn't kick up a fuss but thinking about how sneaky a move this was last night, I got annoyed.

What do you think of this? What would your ruling be AFTER the hand had been played out?

interesting but what are your feelings about liberal use of the miss rule re snooker

White Knight

nicnicnic wrote: »

interesting but what are your feelings about liberal use of the miss rule re snooker

the rule which is applied by an independent impartial 3rd party?!!

connie147

Well I was TD for the tourney and amazingly,this is the first thing I've heard about it.There was no ruling called for nor any complaint received. Now I'll just have to go and do some of DeV's investigation thingys.

ZZR1100

1. Did flipper expose the card or "the wind"?

2. Did the chips cross the line or not?

3. Beyond saying "ok" was it clear he intended to call or was there abiguity?


1.It wasn't the wind

2.the chips didn't cross the line

3.OK followed by a slow shove towards the line

NickyOD

connie147 wrote: »

Well I was TD for the tourney and amazingly,this is the first thing I've heard about it.There was no ruling called for nor any complaint received. Now I'll just have to go and do some of DeV's investigation thingys.

lol!

You're in a tournament and lose a pot unfairly to an angle-shooter.

Do You...

A) Call for a ruling?

Wait until the next day to vent on boards about it?

Samba

I'll use my 50/50 now Nicky.

There is no question, Connie should not be reading about this incident it should have been brought to his attention on the night in question.

Besides that....we still want a name!

(pitchfork in hand)

DeVore

Russh wrote: »

Obv I'm not saying it's the dealers fault...I think he should have at the very least called for the TD and clarified the situation and only then move on with the rest of the hand...

Yes, he should have called floor and frozen the table. Its a rookie mistake but to be fair, many dealers make it especially in the less tightly controlled, non-casino environments.

If it was the intention this player to call..why is he attempting to muck his hand..jaysus, that sh1te would wreck your head...

My understanding of the sequence of events is that
1. He indicated that he want to call,
2. Flipper showed an ace.
3. He changed his mind and decided he was folding.
4. The 3 kicker in Flippers hand was exposed... somehow.
5. He changed his mind again and decided he was still calling.

Have I got that right everyone?

IMO One of the very few positive's i've taken from american poker is that there is a line on the table and your not involved in any action until your chips cross that line...

Ummm, I've found almost the exact opposite. More tables in the US don't have a line then do in my experience. Also (and I'm certain about this because I checked several times with several different TD's) if you make a deliverate forward movement with your chips (trying to elicit a tell or response) you are considered to have bet the chips in your hand or that you slide forwards.

Aside: Weird ruling I heard and confirmed over there, if someone is hiding a stack of big chips behind small ones, and they say all in and you call, you are only required to pay what you can see!! I've never seen it happen here so I actually have no idea what the ruling here would be but I like that ruling

DeV.

ZZR1100

DeVore wrote: »

Aside: Weird ruling I heard and confirmed over there, if someone is hiding a stack of big chips behind small ones, and they say all in and you call, you are only required to pay what you can see!! I've never seen it happen here so I actually have no idea what the ruling here would be but I like that ruling

DeV.

i like it 2
Aside again ..If some1 is all in and u ask for a count and the wrong count is given to u (either above or below the actual) by the player or dealer and u call. what happens ?

My understanding of the sequence of events is that
1. He indicated that he want to call. Ah.. he said OK
2. Flipper showed an ace. Correct
3. He changed his mind and decided he was folding. Ah.. said he hadn't called
4. The 3 kicker in Flippers hand was exposed... somehow. Correct
5. He changed his mind again and decided he was still calling. Well if he hadn't seen the 3 im sure he would have stuck to the i didn't call line..

nicnicnic

Flushdraw wrote: »

I didnt think for a second this was Nicky!! should i have added this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

wasn't me I'd never angle shoot at poker. However in our annual €100 frame of snooker (were both ****e) I did put flipper back in 4 times on the miss rule. he accused me of angle shooting here but I blame sideshow as I'm no expert on snooker ethics and sideshow kept telling me to put him back in.

MrPillowTalk

NickyOD wrote: »

I might decide to rule that he called AND mucked his cards.

I'd definitely rule that his hand is dead, of that there is no question and how on earth you didn't kick up a fuss is beyond me.

The only difficult ruling to make here is whether or not he called. If the guy pushes chips forward and says "ok" I dare say that's a call, over the line or not. He only mucked because he was thought he probably outkicked.

.

Slash/ED

If his first action is taken as a call and his second as mucking his hand, as it looks like both are, does the OP not just double up? His opponent called his all in bet, then mucked his hand voluntarily afterwards, so the OP should win the pot (With his stack and the opponents called bet in it, plus blinds of course). If this happened to me as you described that's what I'd be demanding. In any other situation where a player calls a bet then mucks this is how it's dealt with, this is what the player did.

mormank

ace 7??? cant believe he called in the first place!!! wouldve saved alot of hurt and anguish if he jus folded...like he should have, dare i say!

mormank

Aside: Weird ruling I heard and confirmed over there, if someone is hiding a stack of big chips behind small ones, and they say all in and you call, you are only required to pay what you can see!! I've never seen it happen here so I actually have no idea what the ruling here would be but I like that ruling

DeV.[/QUOTE]

Funny. this happened me in the 500 in waterford the last time it was on. I could only see about 13k of a guys chips. I had ace king and 43k. He played his hand in such a way that i thought he had mid pocket pair with a 13k stack. I put him in eventualy pre flop. As soon as i did he pulled out 3 5k chips from the very back of his stack where they were not visible to me at all!! Turns out he had closer to 26k and aces!!

Two reasons for being annoyed by this. a)the way he played his hand, if he has 13k could easily be mid pair. 26k it is one hand and one hand only, aces!! I fold easily in this scenario.

b)obviously cos i had to put in the 26k with my massivley dominated hand!

Is that pretty much the same reason twice!!

Goodluck2me

nicnicnic wrote: »

(were both ****e) .

hustling ****er.

fixer

ZZR1100 wrote: »

So its down to really if OK is deemed to be a call. Forward motion means nothing (ask dave masters as he likes to do this for info), where there is a line on the table at least.

as always, make sure you know the local rules at the club you are playing in. In LA cardrooms, the presence of a line means nothing, and forward motion can be enough to determine a call.

Lot's of sloppy rules regarding betting here, based on Irish standards, but the local rules win when you play here.

fixer

Russh wrote: »

IMO One of the very few positive's i've taken from american poker is that there is a line on the table and your not involved in any action until your chips cross that line...

you've never played in LA, I guess.

RoundTower

Flipper wrote: »

Ok, here's what happened. He raised from the CO to 1,400 and it's folded to me in the BB. I look down and see an Ace. Without looking at the other card, I announce "I'm all in". Now here's where it gets dodgy. I look straight at him and he says "ok" and motions his chips forward with his left hard.

this is a call. whether he mucked his hand afterwards isn't so clear. In general if someone is all in like this and they throw their hand in I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they made a mistake and let the hand be live unless it has actually been mucked. In this case if he was being an angleshooting prick I might rule the hand was dead.

Flipper

ok, there seems to be some doubt about the way the 3 was exposed. All I can say for certain is that I did not physically move the ace on top. We all know how cards can move about easily when stacked on top of each other etc etc so maybe that caused it.

ZZR1100, I'm assuming you were in seat 2 ya? Oh and you're right, he is from cork but he lives down there afaik.

I think NickyOD's ruling is interesting - making him call AND muck. This is actually what I thought but I'd like to see a tourney director have the balls to do this. I think ZZR1100 will agree that my account of the incident is pretty accurate and that he did imply a call before throwing his cards in (across the line).

smurph

Flipper wrote: »

We ended up chopping the pot so I didn't kick up a fuss but thinking about how sneaky a move this was last night, I got annoyed.

What do you think of this? What would your ruling be AFTER the hand had been played out?

Here's the biggest problem I have Flipper, would you have kicked up a fuss if he won the pot??

I know Hinesight is wonderful, but you should wait til a players chips is in the pot before turning over your cards.. That's why I think a ruling should have been called before the flop, turn, and river was dealt.... Your decision to call the floor should not be results based

Hyzepher

Maybe this incident may prove to highlight the lack of publicised "local" rules available in most clubs. With such an amount of money in play these days I would expect clubs to have game rules in print available to everybody.

ZZR1100

Flipper wrote: »

ok, there seems to be some doubt about the way the 3 was exposed. All I can say for certain is that I did not physically move the ace on top. We all know how cards can move about easily when stacked on top of each other etc etc so maybe that caused it.

ZZR1100, I'm assuming you were in seat 2 ya? Oh and you're right, he is from cork but he lives down there afaik.

I think NickyOD's ruling is interesting - making him call AND muck. This is actually what I thought but I'd like to see a tourney director have the balls to do this. I think ZZR1100 will agree that my account of the incident is pretty accurate and that he did imply a call before throwing his cards in (across the line).

im in seat 6/7 beside u on the left.
Not sure how the 3 was exposed but i thought it was u / could also have been the dealer / slipping off
your account is pretty accurate.
Every1 thought his action ment a call but ive seen OK used before and not ruled as call.
eg. Player A goes all in / Player B says your allin? / B says OK and goes into the tank and folds. afaik actually saying the word Call or putting your chips into the pot are the only binding conditions for a Call (could be wrong but no 1 seems to know).Also maybe ill see you
He used this rule (confusion of the rule) to worm his way out when he saw your A and when you insisted it was a call AND he saw the 3 was exposed he said fine..
Yes he is living here now but whatever bad habits he has, he brought them with him from cork

expect a responce from said player shortly...........................

DeVore

You can't make him call AND muck his hand. Either he called and then he should be afforded the usual protections given to a player who is being a thick muppet (ie: protected from mucking his hand in error) or its a fold and you simply take the pot as it stands. You can't really have it both ways.
And changing the rulings based on whether we like or dislike this angleshooter and his attitude is below any TD and makes us as bad as we accuse him of being.


DeV.

Lplate

ZZR1100 wrote: »

Yes he is living here now but whatever bad habits he has, he brought them with him from cork

LOL