Interesting tournament Situation (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

I've never seen a penalty applied in this situation, however.

What type of penalty would be issued? Sitting out for xx hands? Disqualifaction if repeated?

 

[ekricket]

Correct, she was first to act on the river, with an option to check or bet. She chose to fold.

The fold is binding, and may invoke a penalty (because collusion/chip-dumping is a possible motive).

Ok like what I said.

So you are trolling today hmm? Kinda bored or just woke up pissed off? I was going to do some other things today, but it’s cloudy and raining so if you want to rumble for a bit I can take a few minutes.

Be interesting to argue the same viewpoint in agreement to see who is “more right”.

 

[louBdub]

You’re both wrong.

 

[BGinGA]

lol, "more right"

Nah, not bored or pissed, it's a good day (although raining here too).

Just didn't understand the rationale of your initial question. Maybe it just wasn't clearly worded.

Carry on.

 

[ekricket]

Just didn't understand the rationale of your initial question. Maybe it just wasn't clearly worded.

Maybe you didn’t want to understand? You play a lot of semantic games and a lot of “selective understanding” to support your arguments.

 

[ekricket]

I’m just trying to help the OP have more info when this occurs again. So he knows when to call the floor and some of the right words to say. If that’s trolling then I can’t help it.

All the collusion talk is fucking trolling, just trying to work the OP up into a scenario that’s not even worth considering.

 

[BGinGA]

"Is there a rule against folding with no action on you?"

I suppose that could be taken either of two ways:

'Is there a rule against folding when the action is not on you?'
or
'Is there a rule against folding on your action when not facing a bet?'

I read it as the former. Apologies if you meant the latter.

But either way, you already knew the answer, plus the rule had already been posted in the thread. So why ask the question? Seemed like trolling.

 

[ekricket]

"Is there a rule against folding with no action on you?"

I suppose that could be taken either of two ways:

'Is there a rule against folding when the action is not on you?'
or
'Is there a rule against folding on your action when not facing a bet?'

I read it as the former. Apologies if you meant the latter.

But either way, you already knew the answer, plus the rule had already been posted in the thread. So why ask the question? Seemed like trolling.

I meant the latter, and it seemed obvious given the conversation.

Your response was in fact trolling. Instead of seeking clarification for YOUR misunderstanding, you chose a smartass response with an accusation at the end, and then you blame it on the other party.

Classic trolling behavior

 

[louBdub]

 

[BGinGA]

Again, could have been worded more clearly.

'no action on you' is /= 'not facing a bet'

'action' means 'your turn to make a decision' wherever I play, maybe you use it differently.

And I already apologized, wtf do you want?

 

[ekricket]

Again, could have been worded more clearly.

'no action on you' is /= 'not facing a bet'

'action' means 'your turn to make a decision' wherever I play, maybe you use it differently.

And I already apologized, wtf do you want?

I want an apology that doesn’t say “sorry, but it was your fault”.

I was just trying to help the OP. You brought this horse out of the barn.


If that’s unclear I can restate it several ways.

Edit: it’s not the misunderstanding, that happens. It was your jackass uncalled for response that’s the issue. You don’t have to apologize for misunderstanding, that happens, it’s your troll attitude in the response you need to apologize for.
Totally uncalled for.

 

[BGinGA]

I rest my case. You can fuck right off.

 

[Frogzilla]

I've never seen a penalty applied in this situation, however.

What type of penalty would be issued? Sitting out for xx hands? Disqualifaction if repeated?

TD discretion and will vary but I would expect just a warning at first and then maybe an orbit sit-out penalty if it kept happening. After all, the player does forfeit their hand in this scenario where the rules are being correctly applied.

 

[JustinInMN]

The dealer pushes the cards and her hand back telling her you can check. I wanted the hand dead but if I start arguing the hand should be dead it gives away the fact that I don’t have anything. The dealer tells her just check and she does. I throw out another 5k and she immediately calls. Now it’s a little awkward because I say she folded her hand and it should be dead and 3 of the guys at the table jump to her defense that I got caught trying to steal now I’m shooting an angle. I have to ask the dealer for a floor decision 3 times before the floor is called. Floor rules it is a live hand and I don’t argue the ruling at all. Of course I’m the angle shooting villain at table now but I can’t help wonder if the angle shooter was her.

Yeah, the player needs to be corrected, open folding is a form of "soft play" and newbies need to learn not to do this.

But I think both dealer and floor missed that the fold should still be accepted. They were probably both in a headspace where it's *impossible* to fold out of turn, but TDA says otherwise. Is it also possible this particular room has a specific rule on this situation that is contrary to TDA? Or at least the dealer and floor believe this?

Unfortunately bad rulings are as much a part of poker as Angel Hernandez is part of baseball.

I disagree with any characterization that @Terrys394 was shooting an angle, all of his actions were in turn and accepted the risk of making the river bet means accepting the opposition checked and has a live hand. As for the cute villain, maybe it was an angle, maybe it wasn't. Maybe she didn't even read she had two pair and thought she was open-folding one pair.

I think she faces a penalty though. Her fold should have been accepted and she should have been warned.

I think this is 100% what should have been the outcome.

I've never seen a penalty applied in this situation, however.

What type of penalty would be issued? Sitting out for xx hands? Disqualifaction if repeated?

To me, this is probably the sort of situation that only escalates to a penalty if it's repeated behavior. I imagine an one orbit penalty for an offense following a warning would be a logical start, then escalating for repeated violations. I would like to think one penalty would do the trick, but if not I suppose it could escalate to a DQ.

 

[Chiphuntr]

The rule is - you mucked your f()ked. No exceptions.

Yes, and is subject to warning or penalty.