The worst ruling made by a TD EVER??!!

[muzzington]

If only Jacky had said "all in" or "I put you all in" :/

intent was obvious though

Not Jacky's fault in the slightest, but he still allowed the situation to occur by creating the opening. If he says all-in, this situation can never happen.

I know which one is more forgivable though.

[bennymacca]

And if a player asks for a count and the player being asked doesn't give an accurate count, where is his penalty?

just on this, i dont think it's a requirement for the player to respond at all when asked how much he has - only the dealer can answer that correctly. but that is a moot point, clearly the intent was to put the other player all in, and the NPL rules clearly state that a penalty should not take place in the actual hand but after, so this is just all manners of wrong and it wouldn't surprise me if there was collusion.



in this case, i think it seems even worse that it looks like the other guy called with ace high - almost like this was going to be a deliberate ploy, not just a spur of the moment thing after he realised that he had a few more chips than he thought

things like this really put the industry as a whole back years - may as well be playing in dodgy underground clubs if these sorts of rulings are being dished out

[Brett Kay]

And if a player asks for a count and the player being asked doesn't give an accurate count, where is his penalty?

just on this, i dont think it's a requirement for the player to respond at all when asked how much he has - only the dealer can answer that correctly. but that is a moot point, clearly the intent was to put the other player all in, and the NPL rules clearly state that a penalty should not take place in the actual hand but after, so this is just all manners of wrong and it wouldn't surprise me if there was collusion.



in this case, i think it seems even worse that it looks like the other guy called with ace high - almost like this was going to be a deliberate ploy, not just a spur of the moment thing after he realised that he had a few more chips than he thought

things like this really put the industry as a whole back years - may as well be playing in dodgy underground clubs if these sorts of rulings are being dished out

Think i posted about this on Garth's wall v Matt in the hat. But the guy could have been reading Two plus Two about a Sam Grizzle story. Where he goes i will fold if you show one, and he wins the pot v the tourist, hand being declared dead. I was being the devil's advocate and trying to understand the reasoning behind the decision.

[Nathan Butler]

Does anyone know the name of the TD in questions so we can lynch him

Also, almost everyone in this conversation has seen in the past from 888PL events, there is a chain of command for these types of decision which seems to have been missed too...

back in the day when GK and I ran big gigs... we had X amount of TAs, then me as the floor manager and then GK as the TD... If a player had a issue at the table (no matter how big or small).. The TA calls me, then I call GK... from the stories I have heard (and I could be wrong) it seems the decision was made by a floor person (who happened to be an NPL franchisee?) and there was no real chain of command for the event... Crazy that such a big company lacks the basic common sense required for these types of events.

[Garth Kay]

The TD in this situation was actually red pro Simon Watt.

This story just gets weirder and weirder.

[bennymacca]

The TD in this situation was actually red pro Simon Watt.

This story just gets weirder and weirder.

He's the guy that beat durrr for a bracelet last year right?

[Glyn Parsons]

The TD in this situation was actually red pro Simon Watt.

This story just gets weirder and weirder.

He's the guy that beat durrr for a bracelet last year right?

Yes sir.

[Adam Hancock]

Does anyone know where did the player who benefited from this decision finish in the event?

[roodog]

If the opponent pushed his chips in but said "I call" he can only have been calling the stated $50k bet and there could be no further action anyway. The verbal declaration should have taken precedence, eliminating his option to use the remaining $2.5k. Hence, the shown hand of Jacky Wang could not have been deemed to have been "revealed with betting still to occur".
If the opponent had declared "all in" and Jacky had turned over his cards at that point, THEN there may be a slight issue (with $2.5k still to call).
Still, as everyone has said - whichever way you cut it, it was a stinker of a decision.

[Caleb]

If the opponent pushed his chips in but said "I call" he can only have been calling the stated $50k bet and there could be no further action anyway. The verbal declaration should have taken precedence, eliminating his option to use the remaining $2.5k. Hence, the shown hand of Jacky Wang could not have been deemed to have been "revealed with betting still to occur".
If the opponent had declared "all in" and Jacky had turned over his cards at that point, THEN there may be a slight issue (with $2.5k still to call).
Still, as everyone has said - whichever way you cut it, it was a stinker of a decision.

Because there is still a card to come, the action pending on the river is defined as "betting still to occur".

What the TD was saying was that the other player only called, with chips still behind, and that while they were waiting for the river to be shown Jacky opened his cards, which he then deemed as a muck.

There was no further action on that street, but the river was still to come.