PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: K-Lo on July 25, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
-
Hi all:
Has this been discussed in the forum yet?
(See hand starting at about 6:55) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3OnceNx3NI
I can appreciate how Thomas intervened here and would very much have liked to see a penalty assessed for repeatedly angle shooting, but what actions can the TD reasonably justify based on the current TDA rules? It doesn't seem to fit neatly under the "etiquette violation" rule.
Ken
-
Ken:
There are several remedies available under current (and soon-to-be-released) TDA rules.
Rule 1: Floorpersons are to consider fairness and the best interest of the game as a top priorities.
It absolutely isn't in the best interest of the game to have players deliberately mis-represent their action. Just the opposite.
(New) Rule 3: Official Terminology. Here we have a player mis-using official terminology deliberately. Per the rules, he deserves any ruling he gets, it's players responsibility.
Rule 44: String bets. This player's action is sort of a "reverse string bet" with deliberation and malice aforethought to deceive both the house and the table. Deceiving other players up to a point is fair game, but again, deliberately deceiving the house with a specifically prohibited maneuver is a major violation of the best interest of the game.
(New) Rule 45: Non-Standard Betting. While the player uses "standard" betting terminology, he uses it in a very non-standard way, deceiving the house as to his intent, so all-told this is very non-standard action and is "at the player's risk", see also (new) rules 3 and 37.
So, there's plenty of current remedy for deliberate, deceitful, non-standard action, but I wouldn't be surprised to find some additional language arising in the future as a result of this incident. Thanks alot for posting the video link.
-
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=453.0
I think its a disgusting play by a very experienced player!
-
I think that Thomas handled it well by announcing that this player had a history of taking this shot when he had a huge hand.... that said, what if it's a reverse bluff/tell situation this time? He alerted the player which was excellent. Where I think the ruling falls short is that since he clearly has done this repeatedly (and been rewarded each time) that a penalty should have been assessed with subsequent times if it (gasp) happened again be more severe. Until it actually costs him money he has no reason to stop doing it. It clearly is an etiquette violation and yet within the rules he must make a min raise....
-
6 times in 2 comps (with the same TD) and no penalty? Also has previous for exactly the same offence in Copenhagen. When does it become a farce, I know my regulars will be trying this on with me because I have voiced my concerns over this hand. They will be rudely mistaken in thinking they wont be penalised.
-
By announcing raise and putting in the amount to call, shouldn't he be able to raise whatever he likes?
Georg
-
Hi Georg,
By announcing raise and putting in just the call amount, yes, a player would ordinarily be allowed to put in the raise of his choosing. By protesting his desire to raise (which was the shot) it was inferred that he didn't want to raise. When that is the case, the minimum raise is what occurs. To have further allowed him to raise any amount would, IMO, given him an even better shot opportunity. Having thought about this decision a lot today, I may have taken it a step further and after seeing the hand (the 5s full) would have refunded the raise amount to the other player (since this wasn't the first time this had happened) and also given a min of a one round penalty. I hate when bad/cheating/unethical behavior is rewarded...
Jan Fisher
TDA BOD
cardplayercruises.com
-
Jan,
I like your response the best. If the player has a reputation for etiquette violations he should be punished, financially.
George, as a floorperson, allowing more than a min raise, armed with the history of the player, is only compounding the negative publicity for your tournament, and poker in general.
I would consider; offerring the opposing player the option to declare "all-in" (not allowing the raise) and not be exposed to further loss.
These are the players that need to be on a list, that could exclude them from any tournament. Who needs them? Or, they could play in a ring game and see what happens. I guarantee they won't be trying that any time soon.
-
I support what TK did during the hand, but would of issued a penalty (at least) that would penalise him for MORE than he won during the hand, for example he won more than 500k, therefore my penalty would be for 125% of what he had won, that ought to convey a strong message that such behaviour is unacceptable.
Regards
Stuart
-
A co-worker of mine believed it to be out of line for the floor person to tell the other player "he's done this before when he had the nuts". However, I feel that when you identify a cheater cheating, it is in the best interest of the tournament for the floor person to protect the player who is being cheated.
I loved the way the floor person handled the situation except for not giving a penalty. I feel like the floor person wanted to give a penalty but wasn't quite sure how to go about it. I think the floor person, after seeing the player's hand should have said "I believe that you are attempting to use unethical means to gain an advantage and I am issuing you a one round penalty for this violation." Then, if it happens again, auto disqualify him, just really made an example of him.
-
IMO, a lot of people, TDs and floor people included, forget about rule #1 (best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities) and are looking for a specific rule which they can identify in order to deal with a situation.
There is no doubt that this was an attempt at an angle shot (and a successful one unfortunately), and one which had been done previously, and a penalty is warranted.
-
I completely agree that the behavior is unacceptable and should be penalized. I note the various rules that were cited in support of a penalty (e.g. the "catchall" of Rule 1). I'm just wondering whether in the next round of rules, it makes sense to have something more explicitly set out in the rules, say any action which in the opinion of the TD is an attempt to take advantage of a rule to engage in unethical behavior will be penalized...?
On a related note (and I'm not advocating this, just thinking aloud)... would it be realistic or desirable in situations like these to allow the opponent (if heads-up) to have the option of selecting between two courses of action? i.e. in this case, would it be meaningful having a rule to allow the opponent to accept the call or the min-raise at his option? Or would that just be opening up another can of worms and inviting more angle-shooting?
K
-
K-lo:
If I understand you correctly, giving the calling player the option to accept the call or the min-raise? I'm not sure that isn't what I was suggesting when I mentioned allowing the calling player to declare himself all-in for the amount that is already in the pot. In other words, not allow the raise even though his verbal raise should be binding. This would be "the exception to the rule."
How about something like this:
Any player, who acts in a deceptive manner, shall reap NO financial gain from their actions. This rule will be enforced by the floor. Additional penalties, based on prior history of the offending player, will be considered.
-
Hi Nick:
Thanks for your reply. Sorry I hadn't seen your "all-in" option; that sounds very similar. Would that take away a further option from the non-offending player though to e.g. see the turn/river, if the fake call/raise was done on the flop?
As for a new rule regarding acting in a "deceptive manner"... hmmm... I may have to think about that one. It may be hard to distinguish between acts that are deceptive yet still within the spirit of the game and the rules, and those that aren't.
K
-
K-lo,
Those antics on a betting round, prior to the river bet is interesting. I would say it definetly should pertain to only the betting round in question. To answer the next question about a new rule regarding acting in a deceptive manner........I don't think that would be too tough, when the same player has tried the same "trickery" on numerous occasions. I don't know when I'll be asked to work another tournament but, I'll tell you this. I would love to have a player try a move like that if I were on the floor. I would use Rule #1 in a way that "the weasel" would not forget. The initial bet would be returned to the bettor and, the offending player would get only what was in the pot on the prior betting round. I would then issue the most severe penalty that I could. I would also asign a floorperson to that table and watch his every move.
I have often been questioned about being too soft, or always considering the intentions of the players. I do this because I have been around many players that were new to poker. They would make mistakes, sometimes bad ones. The difference was, they were unintentional. When a player uses deceptive tactics with intent...there is a difference.
A short answer: When a player continues to use " deceptive tactics" they shall reap no financial gain.
-
A co-worker of mine believed it to be out of line for the floor person to tell the other player "he's done this before when he had the nuts". However, I feel that when you identify a cheater cheating, it is in the best interest of the tournament for the floor person to protect the player who is being cheated.
While I don't believe it's "out of line" for TK to say what he said, I do think it's unnecessary to inform the table how another player plays under certain circumstances of any kind. When you make a statement like that, as the active TD, you're influencing the action. You don't know for a fact that Freitez has the nuts (pocket 5's). You don't know if Yanalt has a strong hand as well.
I'm in complete agreement that it is the TD's responsibility to protect other players from angle shoots like this and make an alternate ruling using rule #1. The best possible ruling here is to allow Yanalt the opportunity to declare himself all-in for the hand (no further betting action) or allow him the option to continue betting. I believe Nick suggested that as well. That's how you protect a player from further undue loss, rather than forcing them to make a decision to call an additional bet. If Yanalt then wants to raise, the responsibility then falls on him.
Lastly, 100% there should've been a penalty issued. Probably one strong enough to which Freitez lost most if not all of the chips he just won. JMO.