Author Topic: WSOP ruling needed  (Read 8155 times)

W0lfster

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
WSOP ruling needed
« on: May 09, 2011, 09:55:23 AM »
Both of these videos in my mind contradict themselves. I agree with video 1 on the ruling as harsh as it is but video 2 I dont understand why the player cannot take his bet back if he hasnt released as shown here:

video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXXKQNk2KyI

Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQqQnrb1p6M&feature=related

I agree with the whole angle shooting concept in the 2nd video but I would go as far as a warning or a possible penalty but not force the chips to go into the pot.

Both videos have forward motion bets but why is one not a bet but the other is?

Thanks :)

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2011, 02:11:41 PM »
Andy:  You are asking for an opinion on two situations where:

1.  We MAY not have all the facts, and
2.  As I see the videos, one is from the 2008 WSOP and two is from the 2010 WSOP, and
3.  While similar, the situations are different.  In the 1st, the offending player appears to betting after a check and changes the amount.  In the 2nd, the offending player appears to call a prior bet and changes his mind.  In both cases chips are moved forward, but NOT released.

I am not going to claim that one ruling is correct and the other is wrong as I don't have the rules used at the 2008 WSOP.  That said, I can find NOTHING in RRoP or the WSOP rules that talks about forward motion in NO-LIMIT poker, except as it pertains to a raise.

I don't think it is good for this group to try and second guess rulings made by some of the best poker floorpersons in the game.  I can see why you are asking the question, but I don't think we have enough information to judge whether one is right and one is wrong.  

Not very helpful, but that is how I see it.

W0lfster

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2011, 02:29:05 PM »
Fair enough Chet, I apologise for the vagueness of the question. All Im really asking is what would everyone in this forum rule the 2 videos, the Only thing I care about is the forward motion part. In both videos there is a forward motion but no release, my question is why on the first video the player is allowed to take their bet back but on the 2nd another player has to commit the chips even though the chips are not released?

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Again try to forget the dates of the WSOP just focus on how you would all rule it and if the TD was correct.

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2011, 04:48:37 PM »
I don't think it is good for this group to try and second guess rulings made by some of the best poker floorpersons in the game.

There's nothing wrong this group analyzing rulings made at the WSOP. Not all of the floor people at the WSOP are "the best in the game." And all of them are human.

When Prahlad Friedman had the clock called on him, he said "call" at the count of "one," and his hand was ruled dead. When Jack Effel, who did not make the ruling, was asked about the decision, Jack said that a countdown ends at one, and not zero, because there are ten seconds between "ten" and "one" :

This hand runs from 30 seconds to 4 minutes at:

http://www.bestpokermoments.com/2011/04/a-controversial-hand-from-the-2010-wsop/

If Jack Effel doesn't understand the concept of the countdown of a clock, neither he nor anyone under him at the WSOP should have credibility.

Although Jack did say:
Thx for the feedback. We're pleased the Friedman vs Bort hand was captured on video, & will use it to analyze procedures/rules in 2011.
As is our SOP, we will continue to tweak rules, staff and processes to ensure the WSOP remains the gold standard for live poker tournaments

But he never admitted to misunderstanding what is one of the simplest rules.

Plus, to my knowledge, Phil Hellmuth has never been penalized the WSOP for his offensive behavior. Well, he was penalized once. But when Jeffrey Pollack heard about it, he stepped in and overturned the ruling.

The bottom line is that inconsistencies do occur. And, as was shown in both of the videos, two different people will make two different rulings, and show complete confidence in their understandings of the rules, even though one of them may be completely wrong.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 04:51:04 PM by DCJ001 »

W0lfster

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2011, 05:22:03 PM »
DCJ, that hand with Friedman was absolutely the right decision and I have evidence to back this up.

According to the International poker rules as found here: http://www.fidpa.com/international-poker-rules/

rule 57.2 states:

"Once a reasonable amount of time has passed and a 'clock' is called for, a Floor Person or the Tournament Director will be called to the table. A player will be given a maximum of 1 minute to complete their action and will be given a verbal 10-second countdown. If a player has not acted when the “1” second mark is announced, the player’s hand will be declared a 'dead hand."

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2011, 05:53:57 PM »
But, Andy, it doesn't matter what FIDPA, the Russian Poker Federation, or the Australian Regulations of Poker say.

Rule # 71 of the 2010 WSOP, found at:

http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/2010/2010-WSOP-Rules.pdf

say:

Calling-for-clock procedures: Once a reasonable amount of time, which is no less than two minutes, has passed and a clock is called, a
player will be given one (1) minute to act. If action has not been taken by the time the minute has expired, there will be a ten (10) second
countdown. If a player has not acted on his hand by the time the countdown is over, the hand will be dead. Tournament Supervisors reserve
the right to speed up the amount of time allotted for a clock if it appears that a player is deliberately stalling. Any player intentionally stalling
the progress of the game will incur a penalty in accordance with Rule No. 92.

Reasonably thinking individuals understand that a countdown is not "over" until it reaches the count of zero.

Although Jack said:

"Thx for the feedback. We're pleased the Friedman vs Bort hand was captured on video, & will use it to analyze procedures/rules in 2011... As is our SOP, we will continue to tweak rules, staff and processes to ensure the WSOP remains the gold standard for live poker tournaments."

The 2011 WSOP rules, with regard to clock countdowns, has not been clarified to specific as to when a countdown ends.

http://www.wsop.com/2011/2011-WSOP-Rules.pdf


Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2011, 10:37:53 AM »
hi folks i'll chime in also, I believe these matters are another "at the mercy of the TD" situations, we see so many situations at the WSOP simply because it is so heavily televised.  Are they decisions correct, well most of the time they are, do mistakes get made, of course they do, everyone is infallible, everyone makes mistakes, and it's only by forums such as this we can learn from those mistakes or correct decisions in order to improve our own decisions in future.

Some decisions are always clear cut, they require little information to formulate a decision, other decisions require lots of information, "who what when where and why" and sometimes that information is conflicting or inaccurate, which is why we exist, there is always going to be decisions that are controversial, draconian or just sheer incorrect.

Interesting second scenario with the countdown DCJ001, Until I refreshed my reading on calling a clock rules I would of said that yeh, he had called in time, but now I have read my own, the WSOP, and FIDPA rules I believe the floor was correct, it states in the WSOP rule "If a player has not acted on his hand by the time the countdown is over, the hand will be dead,"by the book the countdown is, indeed over when the floor verbally announces "one" at which point and not after the countdown is indeed over, so the hand is indeed dead, by the book, but that's just my opinion (which was only formed today!)

Best Regards
Stuart

DCJ001

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2011, 04:21:55 PM »
Stu:

To which "book" are you referring?

Since there is no universally applied set of rules, the WSOP rules are in play. Since the WSOP rules do not state when a countdown ends, floor people may make excuses to attempt to justify any count just like referring to a different set of rules would be doing.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2011, 01:00:07 AM »
 I think that the definition of a "reasonable amount of time" is too long (two minutes), but I was always under the impression that after the "one minute" has passed the floor would begin the countdown starting with ten, which would then go to nine (one second) and so on until zero. I don't know where in the hell they came up with stopping at one! IMO, you can add this to the list of rules that should be removed from the rule books.
 Consider this; if each player took the alloted time to act on their hand, in a 10 handed game the dealer would not have enough time to complete ONE single hand in his 30 minutes (down) at the table. In fact, the players might not even see the turn card in 30 minutes!

Oddvark

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2011, 03:45:26 AM »
... everyone is infallible ...

I just got a kick out of Stuart's typo.  Though I suppose for TDs, whose rulings are always "right" (even when they are not), it's kind of accurate.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: WSOP ruling needed
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2011, 07:16:16 AM »
We could go back and forth, but really, I think the bottom line is that ending a countdown at 0 is going to save a lot of time and headaches trying to explain where that last second went.