Author Topic: He said she said but we heard..  (Read 8141 times)

Dave_The_Maori

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 39
He said she said but we heard..
« on: January 24, 2011, 10:50:17 AM »
500k/1m NLHE 3 Players left.

Button reaches and says raise umm... SB folds while Button pushes in 4.75m. BB disputes the raise saying that the Button said "Raise one" (i.e. Raise amount of 1 million which makes a total of 2 million chips). Abit bemused, the Button says she can't remember exactly what she said but that she didn't want to make it 2m. BB says that she had been min-raising all afternoon to which the SB agrees. The SB didn't hear what the button had said but only heard raise which was enough for him to fold.

Me and the other floor staff dicussed it and I thought that she said "Raise umm... " meaning she didn't quite make up her mind. I wasn't sure what to think as it had been a three day event and could tell that all the staff including me were tired. I made the decision that the bet of 4.75m stands and that the Button should receive a warning (Which meant a one hand penalty) after the hand for making her intentions unclear.

The BB was angry about the ruling and pushes all-in for about 8m and is eliminated in the hand.

The next hand, SB (Who was also SB for the last hand) wins the hand as his opponent is forced to pay the penalty and goes on to win the event.

What would you have done?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2011, 03:53:45 PM »
Two thoughts from the land of the Frozen Tundra and one question:

Thoughts --
1.  I agree with your interpretation of 'what she said' and the decision to make the 4.75m bet stand.
2.  I disagree with the application of a one hand penalty as you said the player was to get a warning.  I have NEVER seen any penalty application in which a Warning results in a one hand penalty.  They are two totally different things.  I would strenuously object to any rule that says a "Warning = One Hand Penalty".

Questions--

You said, "The next hand, SB (Who was also SB for the last hand) wins the hand as his opponent is forced to pay the penalty and goes on to win the event.".  It is unclear to me which player went on to win the event, but it is also not material, I guess.

How can this player be the Small Blind for two consecutive hands?  That would mean in heads up play that the Button stayed with the same player and she also became the Big Blind.  This is totally incorrect, in my opinion.  If player 1 was the Button on the hand in dispute (she bet 4.75m), player 2 was the SB (folds) and player 3 was the BB (raises all in and busts).  The next hand player 1 would be the SB and the button (penalty or not) and player 2 would be the BB.

Or --

What am I missing?  Did you redraw for the button and player 2 ended up being the SB and the Button for the 1st heads up hand?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2011, 04:42:32 PM »
Yeah, that's feels a bit confused.  Because, since it went heads up with the SB and BB  the player (player 3) would have received the button because he was the big blind in the last hand...

I agree with letting the bet stand @ 4.75 mil and with a Verbal Warning.  I don't think a hand penalty is in order for that at all and I agree with chet that the two (warning/penalty) are exclusive.

Dave_The_Maori

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2011, 06:00:27 PM »
I knew that the issue of the subjective missed hand would come up as it did during the de-brief. House rules require the offender to be issued a missed hand and was never an issue until now. I am currently reviewing this ruling which I now feel should be changed to either a warning OR a penalty which may include but not limited to, a missed hand.

On a different note, I may have left something out in the OP. Lets say P1 has button, P2 has SB and P3 has BB. If P3 busts, then wouldn't P2 have button (which makes him SB) and P1 BB since both players were due for it anyway? Or have I missed somthing, again?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2011, 06:40:36 PM »
Dave,
 You are correct on the movement of the button. I also think that you made the right call on allowing that bet amount. Players have an obligation to the table to be sure that their bets are clear and understood by all. Perhaps, the dealer could have helped by stopping the unclear bet. I honestly don't know about that penalty.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2011, 08:23:49 PM »
Dave:  I guess I wasn't thinking clearly when I made my original post with the question about how the same player could be the SB two hands in a row.  I don't have a problem with what you did in regard to that part of the issue.  I think a review of your "House Rule" regarding a missed hand penalty is entirely appropriate. 

By the way, which player won the event?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2011, 12:37:56 AM »
Me and the other floor staff dicussed it and I thought that she said "Raise umm... " meaning she didn't quite make up her mind. What would you have done?
Dave, a specific rule was adopted at the 2009 Summit just to address this sort of thing. See TDA Rule #30: "... it is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear...".

 During the discussions in 2009 we referred to the sort of gaffe you describe (Raise ummm)  as a "unclear utterance" or "nebulous utterance"... something to that effect...

Anyway, the bottom line is that when these things occur, it's the player's fault they occured and it's up to the TD to make a determination as to what all available information points to as to what the player's action was. You take everything into account: the nebulous utterance, the gestures, chips pushed, etc., and make your best determination. If your decision isn't what the player says they intended, too bad, it's the player's fault, not yours, we're not mind readers.

Persuant to this rule, you did exactly the right thing....  I use this rule whenever there's a question as to action.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 12:40:09 AM by MikeB »

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2011, 05:05:28 AM »
hi dave,

Having read all these threads I don't see anything wrong with what you did I further see nothing wrong with you as a 'warning' giving a missed hand 'penalty', I am of that train of thought now and give less warnings and more missed hand penalties as it seems to get the message across, I also like that you have adopted in your rules, that even where a warning would suffice, a penalty shall be issued, nothing wrong with that and don't doubt yourself.

Making the 4.75 stand seems fine, Your explanation of button movement is correct also.  Everything you did seems fine, it is just a case of the wording on the original post which seems to have caused a little confusion between a penalty and a warning, so I wouldn't worry at all.

Best Regards
Stuart

Dave_The_Maori

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: He said she said but we heard..
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2011, 09:46:34 AM »
Thanks everyone for your input and after all things considered, the event was hailed as a complete success.

chet, in responce to your question...
By the way, which player won the event?

The answer is Shane Shalders (SB aka P2).