2 Tournament Directors at Crown stuffed UP. with a basic rule.

[CT]

some of those TD's are so up themselves and dont have a clue what the are doing!

On that:

Heard a crown TD discussing what she was gonna do with her upcoming holidays. She begins a five minute rant about her planned trip to vegas and ends with "either that, or Bonnie Doon"

All class those Crown TDs.

CT

[dalek]

Do players not pay attention to who has folded and who still has cards? If someone sees a player to their right with cards, why do they not wait until they put chips out? If the player doesn't, then ask the dealer "How much is it?" It's not very difficult. Players need to be punished for their inattentiveness.

From OP's example, what does seat 2 think is going on when seat 9 has cards but has not pushed chips out, and seats 10 and 1 have folded, be it quickly or otherwise? Does he think that seat 9 is just slow to call the BB? Maybe he's slow to fold? Or maybe, and more likely, he has announced all-in.

[Michael Josem]

a whole lot of dribble that conflicts with the rules

more dribble that makes no sense, including this gem: "Players need to be punished for their inattentiveness."

If you tards are going to bump this old thread with your inane comments, presumably with the expectation that we will read what you write, can you please at least pay the rest of us the courtesy of reading through the thread and addressing the points made?

The TDs described in the original post are pretty obviously making the right decision if you read Robert's Rules of Poker.

If you're going to dismiss this, then at least point to some other rule book that might apply. It's conceptually possible that Crown has alternative rules, but if so, at least read them and tell us how the TDs were wrong.

[dalek]

the guy is obviously not running an angleshoot, so let him have his chips back, imo.

Oh that's ok then. As long as a player is not running an angleshoot, and we'd know this every time by simply asking the player "Excuse me sir, are you trying to angle shoot?" "Who me? No! Of course not!", then they can make whatever mistakes they like when they play. No need to pay attention to the game, just plead ignorance every time. Yes players should be penalised for their inattentiveness. You make a mistake, you cop your penalty, you learn from it, you move on.

Please provide me with a link that shows that Crown Casino, by law, must follow Robert's Rules of Poker. Rules 6.17 and 6.18 of the VCGR's Poker Rules version 7, state that:

"If a player makes a bet of less than the amount required to call, he/she will be required to make up the difference or fold and surrender the bet to the pot."

and

"Verbal declarations in turn are binding."

Not paying attention, especially when the action is abundantly clear, should not be an excuse.

[Michael Josem]

Please provide me with a link that shows that Crown Casino, by law, must follow Robert's Rules of Poker. Rules 6.17 and 6.18 of the VCGR's Poker Rules version 7, state that:

Of course Crown doesn't have to follow the internationally accepted rules of poker.

Can you please share a link to the VCGR's Poker Rules?

[Michael Josem]

I found the rules at http://www.crownltd.com.au/Assets/Fi...t%20twice).pdf

It'd seem to me that rule 15.9 applies here:

"In any dispute arising from these rules or not covered by the provisions of these rules, the decision of the Casino Supervisor will be final"

Given that this situation (of a player being unaware of the bet and making a mistaken bet) doesn't seem to otherwise be covered by the rules, it seems reasonable for the TD to make a ruling in the interest of fairness to all, especially when the ruling is in accordance with the internationally accepted rules of poker.

[vaincross]

Yeah good stuff Michael Josem, very articulate. Especially considering you have a quote attributed to me which isn't even mine, not even sure how u managed to hit the quote button and get that wrong but your level of sophistication and "robert's rules of poker" are obviously over my head

[vaincross]

"In any dispute arising from these rules or not covered by the provisions of these rules, the decision of the Casino Supervisor will be final"

this is your quote, how was the previous action not covered by existing rules?

Please explain this to me.

[Michael Josem]

this is your quote, how was the previous action not covered by existing rules?

The Crown Rules don't appear to envisage a scenario where a player is unaware of the action on them.

The player in Seat 2 was attempting to make a raise of 12k after an all-in bet of 50k. Clearly, that's not a legitimate option for Seat 2.