WSOP 2009 Ruling

trigs · Jul 07,2009, 09:01 AM

apparently chorny is so good that he doesn't even need to play hands in order to win them :P

Exerpt from CardPlayer.com:

Along with the usual shenanigans that are on display when thousands of people crowd the floor at the Rio, the usual odd hands found there way into the mix as well, and in one case, Glen Chorny was able to win a pot without even making a call. Chorny limped in for 300 and action was folded around to a player in the cutoff who raised to 800. Both blinds folded and the dealer took the cutoff’s hand and mixed the cards together, leaving Chorny with his hand. Clearly not realizing Chorny had limped in, the dealer started moving the pot over to the cutoff. When everyone realized what she was doing, she stopped and a floor person was called over. About five minutes later, after much debating and recounting of the mistake, the floor staff ruled that Chorny won the pot since he was the only one left with a live hand after the dealer mixed the raiser’s hand in with the deck. Chorny offered to just take back his 300 and let the cutoff take his raise back and the rest of the pot, but he was awarded the pot which included the 800 raise from the cutoff.

pokerJAH · Jul 07,2009, 09:10 AM

a gentleman and a scholar! seems like a fair outcome. moral of the story, protect your cards.

Rockwood · Jul 07,2009, 01:02 PM

Glen Chorny Wins Pot by Limping In
Glen Chorny was the beneficiary of perhaps the worst possible dealer miscue.
"Chorny limped in for 300 and action was folded around to a player in the cutoff who raised the 800. Both blinds folded and the dealer took the cutoff’s hand and mixed the cards together, leaving Chorny with his hand. Clearly not realizing Chorny had limped in, the dealer started moving the pot over to the cutoff. When everyone realized what she was doing, she stopped and a floor person was called over. About five minutes later, after much debating and recounting of the mistake, the floor staff ruled that Chorny wins the pot since he was the only one left with a live hand after the dealer mixed the raiser’s hand in with the deck. Chorny offered to just take back his 300 and let the cutoff take his raise back and the rest of the pot, but Chorny was awarded the pot which included the 800 raise from the cutoff. The player who had 800 chips taken by the dealer looked visibly upset. The same type of ruling would happen regardless of the bet size."

Cerberus · Jul 07,2009, 01:06 PM

Ouch. If there wasn't a break soon, I'd be taking a quick walk for a minute or two to cool my head. And requesting a dealer change asap.

Graham · Jul 07,2009, 01:16 PM

Sucks for the player involved since the dealer pushed the chips to him and he had no other reason to believe the hand was still live if he hadn't seen Glen put the chips in, but I think in they should have ruled how the players in the hand wanted it to go. Glen was happy giving the guy his money back, so why not.

Rockwood · Jul 07,2009, 01:34 PM

Not saying this would happen....but...

After 13 days of grinding and 9 months waiting period. The Final Table is set to play for the $8.5 Million dollars first place at the Main Event.

10 hours of play goes by and we are now heads up.
another 5 hours of play goes by and the Tournament Director calls a 1 hour dinner break.

Player A finds the dealer dealing the next level @ the Rio (or knows the rotation) strikes a deal with the dealer to muck player B's hand during an All In situation.

Player A promises a % based on the "hollywood" performance the dealer puts on to award the pot to Player A

epic? or complete fail?

Graham · Jul 07,2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockwood

Not saying this would happen....but...

After 13 days of grinding and 9 months waiting period. The Final Table is set to play for the $8.5 Million dollars first place at the Main Event.

10 hours of play goes by and we are now heads up.
another 5 hours of play goes by and the Tournament Director calls a 1 hour dinner break.

Player A finds the dealer dealing the next level @ the Rio (or knows the rotation) strikes a deal with the dealer to muck player B's hand during an All In situation.

Player A promises a % based on the "hollywood" performance the dealer puts on to award the pot to Player A

epic? or complete fail?

This seems VERY unlikely.

Cerberus · Jul 07,2009, 02:05 PM

Very unlikely, yes. The next movie idea for Adam Sandler, pretty much a lock.

trigs · Jul 07,2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockwood

Glen Chorny Wins Pot by Limping In
Glen Chorny was the beneficiary of perhaps the worst possible dealer miscue.
"Chorny limped in for 300 and action was folded around to a player in the cutoff who raised the 800. Both blinds folded and the dealer took the cutoff’s hand and mixed the cards together, leaving Chorny with his hand. Clearly not realizing Chorny had limped in, the dealer started moving the pot over to the cutoff. When everyone realized what she was doing, she stopped and a floor person was called over. About five minutes later, after much debating and recounting of the mistake, the floor staff ruled that Chorny wins the pot since he was the only one left with a live hand after the dealer mixed the raiser’s hand in with the deck. Chorny offered to just take back his 300 and let the cutoff take his raise back and the rest of the pot, but Chorny was awarded the pot which included the 800 raise from the cutoff. The player who had 800 chips taken by the dealer looked visibly upset. The same type of ruling would happen regardless of the bet size."

yeah i also thought this was interesting when i posted it three hours prior to this post.

(http://www.pokerforum.ca/f10/chorny-ftw-19885/)

BiiLLY · Jul 07,2009, 02:31 PM

Ive never played at a casino yet but ive always heard rule #1 is to protect your hand. You cannot win without it.

T8urmoney · Jul 07,2009, 02:56 PM

There is often not enough 'situational' rulings that should be made....for which this one seems a good compromise was offered. Most floor staff go too much by the book (at least how they interpret it), instead of using logic.

Hard to comment when you don't know exactly how it transpired.

But, I will say, if his cards weren't capped and he didn't notice someone had limped in, he deserves to lose his raise IMHO.

DataMn · Jul 07,2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T8urmoney

There is often not enough 'situational' rulings that should be made....for which this one seems a good compromise was offered. Most floor staff go too much by the book (at least how they interpret it), instead of using logic.

The reason why most floor staff go by the book is that there needs to be as much consitency as possible. I would rather have floor staff going by what is written then a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants decision that could be based on any number of factors.

zunni74 · Jul 07,2009, 11:26 PM

Happens 'often' enough at live games. That's why they want you to put a chip on your cards.

The_Awesome · Jul 08,2009, 07:04 AM

And they say never to limp in.

T8urmoney · Jul 09,2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DataMn

The reason why most floor staff go by the book is that there needs to be as much consitency as possible. I would rather have floor staff going by what is written then a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants decision that could be based on any number of factors.

I agree, but some things just aren't in the book (at least one I've written...er. read).

IE: if the raising player had capped his cards...dealer thinks everyone else has folded, starts pushing the pot (ie. indacating to the raising player that he is the winner) raising player releases his hand (dealer then mucks), and then it is brought up about limping player.

This again, by the book, ships pot to he limping player..........but being flexible in a decision here is the best option IMHO.