two examples of Kathleen Toliver's total incompetence
William Coleman
to a floor decision which was 100% incorrect made by Doug Dalton's number
one assistant, Kathleen Toliver. I didn't give the details then, because
the post had already grown to unwieldy length. Here are the details --
The dealer inadvertently dealt a third card to the small blind. This card
would have been the preflop burn card. By the time the small blind realized
he had three cards, two players had already called or raised the big blind.
When Kathleen was called over for a decision, she wouldn't let me speak, and
she ruled the hand a misdeal, because it was impossible to determine which
of the small blind's three cards was the preflop burn card.
Wrong answer, Kathleen. Thanks for confirming that you do not understand
the rules of poker. The hand cannot be a misdeal, because there was
substantial action on the hand before the discrepancy was discovered.
It doesn't matter which of the small blind's cards was the burn card. One
of them certainly was.
The correct decision is to declare the small blind's hand dead and refund
him his small blind. The hand then proceeds normally with no burn card
before putting out the flop.
The original flop is preserved, and all the other players play the hands
they were dealt with the correct flop.
See how simple this is when you understand the rules? Kathleen Toliver does
not understand the rules of poker.
Another example of Kathleen's cluelessness was provided me by Anita Gupta.
Those of you involved in the Las Vegas poker scene in the early 90s know
Anita to be a ravishingly beautiful Asian Indian woman with large round
soulful eyes. Anita was my student right up until the time of my barring.
Here is the hand Anita related to me --
Anita was playing a $3/$6 game. She was in the big blind when several
limpers were raised by the button. The small blind folded, and Anita
called, noting that the button only had $2 left. All the limpers called.
Anita flopped a strong hand and checked, intending to checkraise the button
and get heads up with the button, who would be all in. Everyone checked to
the button who bet $2 all in. Anita tried to checkraise, but the
incompetent dealer told her she couldn't. Naturally, Anita demanded a floor
decision.
Unfortunately for Anita, Kathleen was called to make the decision. Kathleen
ruled that Anita could not checkraise, because she had previously checked
that round, and you cannot checkraise an all in player in that situation.
Wrong again, Kathleen. How someone as incompetent as you ever got your job
is beyond me. Doug must really like your blowjobs.
The correct ruling, of course, is that Anita can indeed checkraise. In this
situation, you can checkraise if the all in bet is at least half a bet. You
cannot checkraise if the all in bet is less than half a bet.
You can thank me any time for the free lesson on poker rules, Kathleen.
Your arrogance in not allowing me to correct you on your incorrect ruling
previously discussed is typical of the idiots who ran the Mirage Poker Room
at the time I played there. There was no one, and I mean no one, on the
Mirage managerial staff who knew the poker room rules nearly as well as I
did. That is simple fact, not bragging.
I want to remind you again that Kathleen Toliver was in charge of training
new dealers at the Mirage for a long time. It is no mystery why the Mirage
Poker Room had so many incompetent dealers.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________
Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --
http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com
Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
right, and the Google ads.
Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
-- Jesus Christ
God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.
-- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq
Randy Hudson
William Coleman <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> When Kathleen was called over for a decision, she wouldn't let me speak, and
> she ruled the hand a misdeal, because it was impossible to determine which
> of the small blind's three cards was the preflop burn card.
A reasonable ruling.
> Wrong answer, Kathleen. Thanks for confirming that you do not understand
> the rules of poker. The hand cannot be a misdeal, because there was
> substantial action on the hand before the discrepancy was discovered.
You haven't given us enough information to determine whether there was
substantial action. When did UTG and UTG+1 act? After the SB had gotten
the third card, or before? If they act before the deal is complete, they
don't get the benefit of the "substantial action" rule, because the misdeal
had not yet happened when they acted.
> It doesn't matter which of the small blind's cards was the burn card. One
> of them certainly was.
If we knew which one it was, the misdeal is correctable, and should be
corrected. Since we don't know which card, the misdeal is not correctable
and the cards have to come back, unless we are certain that SB had all three
cards before substantial action took place, and didn't meet his duty to
disclose that to the dealer until after the action occurred.
> The correct decision is to declare the small blind's hand dead and refund
> him his small blind. The hand then proceeds normally with no burn card
> before putting out the flop.
No, that's never a correct ruling.
If it is ruled that substantial action took place, then the SB hand
is dead and he is not entitled to any refund. After all, the substantial
action occurred based on the pot size as it existed. You can't withdraw
money from the pot after substantial action has taken place on the basis of
the pot size. Further, the SB can't get the button without paying both
blinds; if you give him back his SB who gets the button next hand? Are you
going to give it to him for free?
And the purpose of the burn card is to make it harder for a cheating player
to learn the identity of the next card off the deck. You can't simply
ignore the burn card in a situation where the players will all be acting
and then that top card will be put into play. The situations where no burn
card is dealt are those where the action is complete, and then the dealer
shuffles, cuts, and deals, such as when a replacement river card is needed
because of a prematurely dealt turn or river.
In my opinion, the "SB hand is dead" ruling should be made only where the SB
was careless or malicious in not bringing the misdeal to the dealer's
attention promptly. Your rant didn't include any evidence that that was the
case.
As to her "not letting you speak": were you trying to bring facts to her
attention that she was unaware of, or were you disagreeing with her
interpretation of the rules? If it was a factual problem, then yes, she
should let you speak briefly to complete the factual record, especially if
the dealer's account misstated or omitted pertinent facts (such as, the
timing of the action relative to the last card being dealt and the SB
mentioning the misdeal.) But players don't get to brief the law; she may
listen but isn't bound to.
--
Randy Hudson
foldem
>If we knew which one it was, the misdeal is correctable, and should be
>corrected. Since we don't know which card, the misdeal is not correctable
>and the cards have to come back, unless we are certain that SB had all three
>cards before substantial action took place, and didn't meet his duty to
>disclose that to the dealer until after the action occurred.
>
>> The correct decision is to declare the small blind's hand dead and refund
>> him his small blind. The hand then proceeds normally with no burn card
>> before putting out the flop.
>
>No, that's never a correct ruling.
The normal way to handle this common situation is for the floor to
scramble the 3 cards of the small blind, then expose one card which
becomes the burn. Play continues...
Best,
Peter
--
http://zbigniew.pyrzqxgl.com/bargegeek.html
A+++ G++ PKR+ PEG- B-- TB ADB++ M+
www.barge.org
"There are no strangers at BARGE, just friends we haven't met yet"
da pickle
> The normal way to handle this common situation is for the floor to
> scramble the 3 cards of the small blind, then expose one card which
> becomes the burn. Play continues...
Peter, why would you expose a card? I think that Randy pretty much covered
the situation pretty well. Even if the small blind hand is going to be dead
... which it might be ... there is no need to "expose" the putative burn
card. (Of course, the whole "order of the deck must be protected"
justification for many of the "rules" is just silly. The rule for requiring
a burn is not silly.)
Jake_St...@yahoo.com
.......Anita was my student right up until the time of my barring......
And we miss you a lot. Well no, not a lot. Not at all, actually.
You're gone and forgotten dude.....but stay bitter!
Randy Hudson
da pickle <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The normal way to handle this common situation is for the floor to
>> scramble the 3 cards of the small blind, then expose one card which
>> becomes the burn. Play continues...
>
> Peter, why would you expose a card?
Because the SB may have seen it, and would have the advantage of that
knowledge; by exposing it, we ensure that all players have the same
knowledge.
--
Randy Hudson
da pickle
>> Peter, why would you expose a card?
>
> Because the SB may have seen it, and would have the advantage of that
> knowledge; by exposing it, we ensure that all players have the same
> knowledge.
Surely you kill the SB hand, if there has been proper significant action?
If there has not been significant action, it is a misdeal. Dealing a third
card to the SB is not a extremely uncommon situation. Usually, the dealer
realizes immediately that the third card has been dealt and can identify it
and retrieve it. It is rare for there to be legitimate significant action
in the case where the card is mingled and unknown, but if that happens, I
would suspect that the SB would not get to play the hand at all. Robert's
Rules would show a hand with too few or too many cards is a dead hand. I
think that is the majority rule. But as always, whatever the floor rules is
the rule that matters.
Minor Glitch
> When Kathleen was called over for a decision, she wouldn't let me speak,
She apparently made one very good decision.
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
wadner
rules of golf as written by USGA and the R&A.
da pickle
> Is there a book somewhere with rules written down? Sort of like the
> rules of golf as written by USGA and the R&A.
Yes.
foldem
The hand is not dead. All players have the same information. The
exposure is just in case the SB saw the cards.
da pickle
> The hand is not dead. All players have the same information. The
> exposure is just in case the SB saw the cards.
Peter, the SB hand is dead if there has been substantial action. As Randy
said above:
"If it is ruled that substantial action took place, then the SB hand
is dead and he is not entitled to any refund. After all, the substantial
action occurred based on the pot size as it existed. You can't withdraw
money from the pot after substantial action has taken place on the basis of
the pot size. Further, the SB can't get the button without paying both
blinds; if you give him back his SB who gets the button next hand? Are you
going to give it to him for free?"
Nicely stated. Hands with too few or too many cards are dead if the
discovery occurs after substantial action.