Speaking trio

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

What about this one :

NHL Tourney – Far from the bubble

3 players in a hand at the turn: SB + BB + Cut Off
Board is: Ks Td 7s 5c

SB (medium stack): check
BB (big stack): check
CO (short stack) goes all-in
SB says: “I donno if I call or not!”
BB says: “If you call I fold!”
SB call
BB fold
CO shows As 6s (flush draw) but call for the floor for collusion between both opponents!
SB shows Ah Tc (pair of T)
…
The floor judged that SB and BB didn't know each other and that the first sentence of SB was really for himself and not a "question" intented to BB! With the help of the witness of the dealer: All the table together with the SB had been very surprised by the sudden sentence of BB! So he explained he can't penalize the SB but only the BB!

So he ruled the hand still alive but gave a 3 rounds penalty to BB ...

For info the river was a 3d and CO eliminated!
…
Your opinion?

[Nick C]

I see nothing wrong with the ruling made by the floor. It sends a clear message that collusion, or suspicion of collusion, will not be tolerated. A warning might have been enough but, I like the call.

[MikeB]

G:

It just doesn't seem right to warn or penalize the SB here. As you say, the BB was the sole bad actor in this scenario, and a penalty to the BB seems warranted.

More interesting questions would be:

1: Was the penalty excessive? Personally I wouldn't give 3 rounds for this on first offense.

2: Must the BB be held to the conditional statement?    TDA Rule 51 allows you to bind the statement, but doesn't require it at this point.

Thanks for another of many great case studies you've brought to the forum. Please keep them coming!

[Tristan]

My turn at devil's advocate! 

The SB really had no reason to be talking like that in a 3 way pot with action to go.  It is very possible that they were doing it to get a read off of the BB...which they did get!

I would have warned the SB for talking about the hand during a hand in progress and would have penalized BB.  I could also see penalizing both, but the BB more severely.  I would not rule the hand dead.

[MikeB]

My turn at devil's advocate!  

The SB really had no reason to be talking like that in a 3 way pot with action to go.  It is very possible that they were doing it to get a read off of the BB...which they did get!

I would have warned the SB for talking about the hand during a hand in progress and would have penalized BB.  I could also see penalizing both, but the BB more severely.  I would not rule the hand dead.

Nice!

Now devils re-advocate

The only speech "prohibited" by TDA is regarding the specific contents of a hand. I'd let the SB slide here since it appears he's only "thinking out loud" as to whether he can call or not... rather than about the specific hand he holds. If he's fishing for information from his opponents, I think it's fair poker again as long as specific hand contents aren't disclosed in the process.

In contrast to the BB who clearly risks a penalty with his conditional statement.

So how did you rule on this one Guillaume?

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY for helping ...

Yes I would just rule it the way the Floor did: We let the hand roll, we don't penalize the SB but the BB! I'm even more on the side of this floor who gave 3 rounds! I understand your opinion about the progressing penalties but for me here the fault of the BB is very serious. Not only he broke the traditional etiquette of "one hand one player" and influenced the SB in his decision but the result may be the elimination of a player! So I would give him a minimum of 1 round penalty!

In my tournament I apply the rules normally BUT when the consequences may be the elimination of a player I allways do the maximum to keep the player in the tourney, using if necessary the rule #1! OK it was not possible here but I use to say "I DON'T WANT A PLAYER TO BUST FROM MY TOURNAMENTS ON OBVIOUS ERRORS OR MISUNDERSTANDINGS!" ... and my players appreciate this ... even if the decision is against them: They know some day I may save them too!

Read me correctly: I try ... But can't allways save them ... Like in this case ...

Another point: I didn't liked here the fact the BB spoke OOT and influenced the SB but I respect the fact that SB spoke! Many casinos think that the TDA don't want anybody to speak if 3 or more in the hand !? Here I'm a traditionalist (on the side of Daniel Negreanu for once lol) and like to let the players speak because this is an interesting part of poker! ... IF ... IF they stay in the limit of NO COLLUSION and NO DISCLOSURE OF THEIR HAND and if only the player in turn to play and the last raiser speak!

May God help you understand my poor English!

 

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

 I understand you perfectly...and I also agree with you. I think table talk is a necessary part of the game, as long as there is no suspicion of collusion, as you stated. I also agree with many of Daniel's
arguments. Why doesn't he attend one of our Summits and become a participant. It's not a competition; floor/management VS players. Attend the next Summit and stick around for more than five minutes.

 The only way to achieve a mutual agreement between players and "the house" is to listen to both sides. The key word is "mutual" because the success of any casino poker room can only be measured by the return of it's patrons.

[Tristan]

The only speech "prohibited" by TDA is regarding the specific contents of a hand. I'd let the SB slide here since it appears he's only "thinking out loud" as to whether he can call or not... rather than about the specific hand he holds. If he's fishing for information from his opponents, I think it's fair poker again as long as specific hand contents aren't disclosed in the process.

I think table talk is a necessary part of the game, as long as there is no suspicion of collusion, as you stated.

I respect the fact that SB spoke! Many casinos think that the TDA don't want anybody to speak if 3 or more in the hand !? Here I'm a traditionalist (on the side of Daniel Negreanu for once lol) and like to let the players speak because this is an interesting part of poker! ... IF ... IF they stay in the limit of NO COLLUSION and NO DISCLOSURE OF THEIR HAND and if only the player in turn to play and the last raiser speak!

Ok, ok...I concede!   

[Nicolas Bouis]

Hi all,

If this case happens in a small casino where players know each other (it would be a 60 players tournament with only people used to play this casino tournament), can a TD have a conviction that there is collusion and in this case what could be the decision ?

BB would be disqualify for answering (am i wright ?) but SB ?
I mean SB made no fault by talking BEFORE the answer of BB. If suspicion of collusion then SB was really asking BB what he is going to do than it would be a fault.

[MikeB]

Hi all,

If this case happens in a small casino where players know each other (it would be a 60 players tournament with only people used to play this casino tournament), can a TD have a conviction that there is collusion and in this case what could be the decision ?

BB would be disqualify for answering (am i wright ?) but SB ?
I mean SB made no fault by talking BEFORE the answer of BB. If suspicion of collusion then SB was really asking BB what he is going to do than it would be a fault.

Like any judge, Nicolas, the TD has to make the best decision he or she can in order to protect the integrity of the game. Players create situations that have the appearance of collusion at their own risk.

[Nicolas Bouis]

Thanks Mike.

[WSOPMcGee]

All I got to say here is, "I can't believe what I'm reading!"

(Shaking my head in disbelief) on the decision. SMH

[Nick C]

Hello Thomas,

 Okay, I give up...What's SMH...and what don't you believe? What call would you have made?

[WSOPMcGee]

SMH = Slap My Head

[Nick C]

Well KMA, I never would have figured that one out! While were at it, I just took a look back at the original post and realized that our good friend (Guillaume) typed NHL instead of NLH...so that's another reason why I hate abbreviations! Still trying to figure who the cut-off is in the National Hockey League Tournament?