Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: WarBwastardo on January 10, 2008, 10:39:34 AM
-
What happens if you fail to hear a verbal all-in declaration because you"re wearing headphones and when the action is on you you announce call thinking you"re just flat calling the big blind? If the rules state verbal declarations are permitted are you then obliged to match the all-in bet as it"s your own fault you didn"t hear it cause you had Rocket by Def Leppard drowning everything else out.
I assume you have to call. This didn"t happen to me incidentally, but I do still quite like Def Leppard. I"ve had an iPod with me a couple of times in games, but am always concerned this is going to happen so don"t bother with them anymore.
-
What happens if you fail to hear a verbal all-in declaration because you"re wearing headphones and when the action is on you you announce call thinking you"re just flat calling the big blind? If the rules state verbal declarations are permitted are you then obliged to match the all-in bet as it"s your own fault you didn"t hear it cause you had Rocket by Def Leppard drowning everything else out.
I assume you have to call. This didn"t happen to me incidentally, but I do still quite like Def Leppard. I"ve had an iPod with me a couple of times in games, but am always concerned this is going to happen so don"t bother with them anymore.
I would say that you have to call the bet, its your choice to wear the ipod, and also you should be asking what the bet is if your not sure.. On another note, i have tried with an ipod once, and god i dont understand why, i was all over the show, missing out on the table talk and tells... Never again... ;)
-
Verbal declarations are binding. If you call an all in, thinking you"re only calling the big blind, then you only have yourself to blame. 8)
-
I really cant understand why people wear headphones when playing live. you"re missing so much of the extra info that is available to you that you wouldn"t receive playing online.
-
Verbal declarations are binding. If you call an all in, thinking you"re only calling the big blind, then you only have yourself to blame. 8)
Exactly.
I never used to wear an i-pod, couldnt see the benefit, but I won one so thought I"d give it a try. Once I got over the initial inclination to sing along, I have found it to be very useful. I don"t use it to block out the sound of the table, I set it at a volume that I can hear what is going on, but it blocks out any distractions from OUTSIDE of my table, thereby allowing me to concentrate fully on what is happening at my table. So it actually helps me to pick up more tells than I ever did before.
-
Verbal declarations are binding. If you call an all in, thinking you"re only calling the big blind, then you only have yourself to blame. 8)
Exactly.
I never used to wear an i-pod, couldnt see the benefit, but I won one so thought I"d give it a try. Once I got over the initial inclination to sing along, I have found it to be very useful. I don"t use it to block out the sound of the table, I set it at a volume that I can hear what is going on, but it blocks out any distractions from OUTSIDE of my table, thereby allowing me to concentrate fully on what is happening at my table. So it actually helps me to pick up more tells than I ever did before.
Really?......I think that is interesting.
IMHO...Personally I think that head phones & mobiles should be banned from the poker table, the number of times that people wearing/using them need to be prompted to act is a real pain....and to be honest I think people using them are just rude!
-
Verbal declarations should be binding. It is up to the player to ensure they know what is happening on the table which is why I don"t like iPods or MP3 players while I"m playing.
Also in the last ladies tournament I played (which they try to be friendly and patient with new players) there was an incident where player UTG made a raise, SB pushed chips in to make up the BB..... she was wearing headphones.
According to my understanding of the rules and what happened to me at The Festival event at Binions in Las Vegas her options were
- she didn"t have to call the raise if she didn"t want to as she hadn"t made a "verbal" call but she should have the option to "fold" and leave the extra chips in the pot; or
- "call" the raise as it was up to "the player" to ensure they know what is happening.
I made this point and the "dealer" and every player disagreed with me. TD was brought over and he said that it was a "friendly" tournament and the chips she put in were not binding and therefore the returned to her leaving only her SB.....
Even though a "friendly" tournament I think these sort of rules should be applied, it was a £100 tournament and quite a lot of money at stake. Also the tournaments were a way of getting on-line ladies used to playing live. Surely this sort of thing should be instilled into them so they don"t make the same mistakes over and over.
Anybody agree with me?
-
I dont think its rude to wear them but it is rude if you dont pay attention at the table and have to be prompted to act.
I have an ipod but rarely use it. I normally use it to block out annoying people at the table, so this is very rare at APAT events. I sometimes play a few tunes to help me stop going on tilt after a bad beat or bad play from me. Just for a tune or 2 to help me get over it.
There was an amusing incident reported at the GUKPT final where some guy was persistently and aggressively asking another guy if he"d show if he folded his hand. The other guy ignored him, not wanting to give anything away. The other guy kept on asking so second guy just popped his headphones in, much to everyone else"s amusement.
There is a time and a place......
-
Anybody agree with me?
Very much so.
-
I dont think its rude to wear them but it is rude if you dont pay attention at the table and have to be prompted to act.
I have an ipod but rarely use it. I normally use it to block out annoying people at the table, so this is very rare at APAT events. I sometimes play a few tunes to help me stop going on tilt after a bad beat or bad play from me. Just for a tune or 2 to help me get over it.
There was an amusing incident reported at the GUKPT final where some guy was persistently and aggressively asking another guy if he"d show if he folded his hand. The other guy ignored him, not wanting to give anything away. The other guy kept on asking so second guy just popped his headphones in, much to everyone else"s amusement.
There is a time and a place......
;D.........now that was funny!.......I shall take my Ipod to my next live game....just in case!
Your opening comment is fair.......if only that was the norm?
-
I had a similar thing happen to me in Edinburgh at the £150 freezeout the other week. I check/re-raised a guy after the river and went into silent mode. he was a talker and a very good player and started yapping away trying to get a read on me. I went into "the zone" and wasnt giving anything away. He asked the same question 4 times to me, i heard every word he said, but eventually I lifted my earphones and said "sorry were you asking something?" the whole table erupted in laughter and the guy, now quite obviously embarrassed mucked his cards. Which was kind of good since I was on a stone cold bluff, lol. ::)
-
Verbal declarations should be binding. It is up to the player to ensure they know what is happening on the table which is why I don"t like iPods or MP3 players while I"m playing.
Also in the last ladies tournament I played (which they try to be friendly and patient with new players) there was an incident where player UTG made a raise, SB pushed chips in to make up the BB..... she was wearing headphones.
According to my understanding of the rules and what happened to me at The Festival event at Binions in Las Vegas her options were
- she didn"t have to call the raise if she didn"t want to as she hadn"t made a "verbal" call but she should have the option to "fold" and leave the extra chips in the pot; or
- "call" the raise as it was up to "the player" to ensure they know what is happening.
I made this point and the "dealer" and every player disagreed with me. TD was brought over and he said that it was a "friendly" tournament and the chips she put in were not binding and therefore the returned to her leaving only her SB.....
Even though a "friendly" tournament I think these sort of rules should be applied, it was a £100 tournament and quite a lot of money at stake. Also the tournaments were a way of getting on-line ladies used to playing live. Surely this sort of thing should be instilled into them so they don"t make the same mistakes over and over.
Anybody agree with me?
Hmm, my understanding of the rules (and a rule I enforce) is that if a player pushes chips to call a bet, not realising that a raise has been made, then that player must call the full raise, regardless of whether he or she has said anything.
Letting the player off making the full call could lead to an advantageous situation for that player. He/she could push the smaller amount, looking for a reaction from the original raiser, then claim that he/she made a mistake if the reaction wasn"t favourable. I"m not saying that people would do that, but it"s a possibility.
Each and every player at the table is responsible for keeping track of what is going on as far as bets, raises and folds are concerned. Failure to do so is at your own risk. And, to be honest, if you can"t do this then should you really be playing ? You"re hardily in a position to be able to spot tells, patterns etc.
Just my humble opinion......
-
Verbal declarations are binding. If you call an all in, thinking you"re only calling the big blind, then you only have yourself to blame. 8)
Exactly.
I never used to wear an i-pod, couldnt see the benefit, but I won one so thought I"d give it a try. Once I got over the initial inclination to sing along, I have found it to be very useful. I don"t use it to block out the sound of the table, I set it at a volume that I can hear what is going on, but it blocks out any distractions from OUTSIDE of my table, thereby allowing me to concentrate fully on what is happening at my table. So it actually helps me to pick up more tells than I ever did before.
Really?......I think that is interesting.
IMHO...Personally I think that head phones & mobiles should be banned from the poker table, the number of times that people wearing/using them need to be prompted to act is a real pain....and to be honest I think people using them are just rude!
Rude? Hmmm, not so sure on that one. It depends on whether you are looking at poker as a social or purely competitive thing.
What is rude is people not paying attention to what is happening at the table, and you don"t need to be wearing an i-pod for that to happen. Those that are wearing i-pods and aren"t paying attention, should consider whether wearing the i-pod is actually helping them do what it is supposed to, i.e. aid their focus.
-
I agree with HB. The line on the table is there for a reason. Once cards have crossed the line, they are mucked and are not retrievable.... and the same goes for chips. Once the chips cross the line, the player has comitted to play.... and he/she is obliged to make the full call, not just a partial one.
-
My understanding of the rule is that if the chips pass the line without a verbal declaration, they"re in the pot and cannot be brought back. It"s then up to the player to Call the rest of the raise or Fold.
Letting the player off making the full call could lead to an advantageous situation for that player. He/she could push the smaller amount, looking for a reaction from the original raiser, then claim that he/she made a mistake if the reaction wasn"t favourable. I"m not saying that people would do that, but it"s a possibility.
Good arguement against though ...
I"d be interested to hear if there is a written-in-stone rule.
-
I agree with HB. The line on the table is there for a reason. Once cards have crossed the line, they are mucked and are not retrievable....
Not necessarily true. Only if they touch a chip or the muck are they dead, in most cardrooms in UK, whether there is a line on the table or not.
-
I always force the player to call the rest of the raise for the reason I quoted earlier.
I NEVER let people off when they"ve made a mistake. I"ve found that folk tend to absorb the rules better when mistakes are costly. :D
-
I agree with HB. The line on the table is there for a reason. Once cards have crossed the line, they are mucked and are not retrievable....
Not necessarily true. Only if they touch a chip or the muck are they dead, in most cardrooms in UK, whether there is a line on the table or not.
And I"m not so sure that once the cards hit the muck are they declared dead, Gordon.
I"m sure I"ve seen an instance of winning cards being retrieved from the muck. Unfortunately I can"t remember who it involved or what the situation was. Perhaps somebody out there has a better memory than I....?
-
My understanding of the rule is that if the chips pass the line without a verbal declaration, they"re in the pot and cannot be brought back. It"s then up to the player to Call the rest of the raise or Fold.
I"d be interested to hear if there is a written-in-stone rule.
There isn"t a written rule, however clause 1 of the TDA Rules state: "1 Floor People. Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person's decision is final."
As this states the overriding rule in poker should be fairness and if it was quite obvious that the player"s intent was only to make up and not call a raise then, in the interests of fairness the chips should be returned and the player allowed to fold. However, if a verbal declaration is made it would still be binding. Oh don"t we just love the grey areas of poker, it"s what makes it great. ;D
-
... and what keep us talking to each other in between tournaments ... :)
-
... and what keep us talking to each other in between tournaments ... :)
Absolutely !!
I"d still like us to aim to colour in those grey areas though :D
-
I agree with HB. The line on the table is there for a reason. Once cards have crossed the line, they are mucked and are not retrievable....
Not necessarily true. Only if they touch a chip or the muck are they dead, in most cardrooms in UK, whether there is a line on the table or not.
And I"m not so sure that once the cards hit the muck are they declared dead, Gordon.
I"m sure I"ve seen an instance of winning cards being retrieved from the muck. Unfortunately I can"t remember who it involved or what the situation was. Perhaps somebody out there has a better memory than I....?
Retreiving cards from the muck is a big no, no in my book, after all the reason the rule is there is that once they have touched the muck, how can you be sure you are retrieving the correct cards? Although I can see a case for it if it was down to a showdown in a tournament to stop chip passing.
We had 2 cases in Newcastle recently, albeit in cash game, and the rulings were made on what the "intent " of the players were and not on the technical rules, where hands are declared dead on touching the muck or pot.
First one guy calls a big bet on river. Initial raiser shows a house and guy loses temper saying "Dam, I knew you had a house, I just got a flush" and threw his cards into the muck. As they hit the muck they flipped and exposed that he actually had a Royal Flush!!!!! The ruling was that his intention was to muck and since the cards had been mucked, albeit ending face up, he had conceded the pot.
Second one. Guy limps early position. Button raises. Limper pushes all in. Button (who was sitting next to dealer) Calls. Limper shows 77 and button throws over AQ. As cards hit table the Queen "bounced" and touched the muck. The dealer dealt flop turn and river. First card being an A which held up. Dealer then announced the AQ hand as dead because it had touched the muck. The ruling was that the obvious intent of the button wasnt to muck his cards, as the all in and call had happened pre-flop.
If common sense and fairness is applied to rulings, which I think we all would like applied to us if it happened to us, then nobody can complain really. Can they?
-
If common sense and fairness is applied to rulings, which I think we all would like applied to us if it happened to us, then nobody can complain really. Can they?
But then we wouldn"t be acting like true Brits would we!!
-
Retreiving cards from the muck is a big no, no in my book, after all the reason the rule is there is that once they have touched the muck, how can you be sure you are retrieving the correct cards? Although I can see a case for it if it was down to a showdown in a tournament to stop chip passing.
I"d have to agree with you.
We had 2 cases in Newcastle recently, albeit in cash game, and the rulings were made on what the "intent " of the players were and not on the technical rules, where hands are declared dead on touching the muck or pot.
First one guy calls a big bet on river. Initial raiser shows a house and guy loses temper saying "Dam, I knew you had a house, I just got a flush" and threw his cards into the muck. As they hit the muck they flipped and exposed that he actually had a Royal Flush!!!!! The ruling was that his intention was to muck and since the cards had been mucked, albeit ending face up, he had conceded the pot.
Second one. Guy limps early position. Button raises. Limper pushes all in. Button (who was sitting next to dealer) Calls. Limper shows 77 and button throws over AQ. As cards hit table the Queen "bounced" and touched the muck. The dealer dealt flop turn and river. First card being an A which held up. Dealer then announced the AQ hand as dead because it had touched the muck. The ruling was that the obvious intent of the button wasnt to muck his cards, as the all in and call had happened pre-flop.
The second one is correct, you can"t muck a players cards when he"s called an all in, until the flop, turn and river are exposed and his hand is shown to be the losing hand.
Retrieved this from the APAT rules
64. Tournament venue dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was turned face up and was obviously the winning hand.
Although this doesn"t technically cover your first example......
-
64. Tournament venue dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was turned face up and was obviously the winning hand.
Although this doesn"t technically cover your first example......
[/quote]
No it doesn"t. This rule is used when player turns over cards to claim pot and dealer then accidently mucks hand. The players intent in the first example was clearly to muck his cards, hence the ruling which I think was correct.
imagine waiting the 40,000 odd hands to get teh ultimate hand and then mucking it, lol.
-
64. Tournament venue dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was turned face up and was obviously the winning hand.
Although this doesn"t technically cover your first example......
No it doesn"t. This rule is used when player turns over cards to claim pot and dealer then accidently mucks hand. The players intent in the first example was clearly to muck his cards, hence the ruling which I think was correct.
imagine waiting the 40,000 odd hands to get teh ultimate hand and then mucking it, lol.
[/quote]
;D ;D
The only drawback I can think of to the ruling given in example one, is where collusion is going on, and in particular, chip dumping. I think this is why a number of events (including APAT, I believe) state that once all betting has been completed, all hands still live should be turned face up, before the winning hand is determined.
-
Wasn"t this thread about ipods? ;)
-
Wasn"t this thread about ipods? ;)
Exactly!! So, what"s the ruling if your iPod crosses the line and touches the muck?
;D ;D
-
The only drawback I can think of to the ruling given in example one, is where collusion is going on, and in particular, chip dumping. I think this is why a number of events (including APAT, I believe) state that once all betting has been completed, all hands still live should be turned face up, before the winning hand is determined.
Definitely agree, although to be fair the ruling was made in a cash game, which is a little different.
-
Wasn"t this thread about ipods? ;)
Jeez, can"t even hijack a thread without the post police coming in and hassling you. ::) ;)
-
Wasn"t this thread about ipods? ;)
Exactly!! So, what"s the ruling if your iPod crosses the line and touches the muck?
;D ;D
THIS HAPPENS!!!
(http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000050227.JPG?0.09402848831072042)
-
;D ;D ;D
-
If someone is wearing an MP3 player (I don"t like iPods), and they can"t hear what"s going on, they deserve everything they get.
I often have an MP3 player when I"m playing in longer events, but only have one ear-piece in, and only have the music on quietly. It helps me focus, and like Gordon said, can reduce distractions away from the table. Although at the G casinos, it"s ear defenders that are required to block out the "singers" they have...
Another thing that Gordon mentioned was that you can "pretend" not to be able to hear someone. Same as shades, I think the biggest benefit from using shades is that people don"t know what you"re looking at. If you"ve got shades on and headphones in/on your ears, you can be intently studying a player without them being aware.
-
Never worn my iPod during a game, I"d hate to miss out on all the sounds that are going on around me. Perhaps I haven"t played live enough! I"m going to be bringing mine this weekend, but probably still won"t use it at the tables.