一句玩笑话，5000刀没了！发生在Rio赌场的事情。

帖子其实意味着两类问题：
1. 规则层面的。该亚洲人的牌面向上接触到了muck，是否有规定应算fold？该All in声音发生在dealer尚未收进他的牌，是否仍然live？在行为表示fold，语言却表明all in的情况下，以那个为主？

2. 判决层面的。如果确实有规则明确规定对此亚洲人不利，floor是否该当场推翻此规则？

其实还有第三类
3. 任何扑克室规则都有一条，floor decision is final，有最终解释权之类。那么如果一件事情规则明确规定，却违反扑克精神，是否应在floor解释权之列

这事儿个人各有看法的原因，是大家看问题的角度不同。

我个人的看法和霍师傅一样。

hahuhu 发表于 2012-7-13 00:31
苍蝇不叮无缝的蛋。如果宪法有漏洞，那我们应该做的是让宪法尽量完善，而不是去指责苍蝇为什么去叮这个有缝 ...

谁说宪法有漏洞了？

有漏洞的是具体的法规，当这些具体法规的漏洞会造成“违宪”的判决时，宪法的准则应该具有更高的权威。

苍蝇就是要叮有缝的蛋，指不指责都无所谓，有问题的是拿苍蝇拍的人不能不打苍蝇反打鸡蛋。

我上一帖的立论是基于我记忆中在一个比较公认的POKER裁判准则中有“以使判决结果最接近游戏精髓”的说法，具体文字我记不清了，但在《CARD　PLAYER》上屡次读过POKER裁判方面权威人士依据这个准则对案例做出与死扣具体条文不同的判定的例子。

youngtercel 发表于 2012-7-13 00:42
I also support the decision of floor.

Rule is rule. the Asian guy made a huge mistake.

Certainly affected other player's interests, even in the most slightest way.

if you want to talk about other player's interests, think what will happen if this happened in a tourney will clarify the situation a lot, there the decision will be obviously very different.

no doubt the asian guy had his own wrong-doing, even penalizable, but that does not mean the floor's decision is right. just like if a guy was stabbed 86 times and died while he was trying to steal from someone, obviously he shouldn't steal to begin with, but a judge can not then rule the one who stabbed the thief can walk away free.

Howard 发表于 2012-7-13 00:55
帖子其实意味着两类问题：
1. 规则层面的。该亚洲人的牌面向上接触到了muck，是否有规定应算fold？该All in ...

帖子其实意味着两类问题：
1. 规则层面的。该亚洲人的牌面向上接触到了muck，是否有规定应算fold？  Clearly not in this poker room.

该All in声音发生在dealer尚未收进他的牌，是否仍然live？  Live, most rooms allow you flip you card then make decision.

在行为表示fold，语言却表明all in的情况下，以那个为主？Verbal.

2. 判决层面的。如果确实有规则明确规定对此亚洲人不利，floor是否该当场推翻此规则？ I guess not unless the top management discuss.

其实还有第三类


3. 任何扑克室规则都有一条，floor decision is final，有最终解释权之类。那么如果一件事情规则明确规定，却违反扑克精神，是否应在floor解释权之列

yeah, poker room of course will explain everything to avoid trouble.

这事儿个人各有看法的原因，是大家看问题的角度不同。

pokerbean 发表于 2012-7-13 01:18
if you want to talk about other player's interests, think what will happen if this happened in a ...

Another player technically DID NOT do anything wrong by calling with 2nd nuts after the hand is ruled live.


Although,in my imagination, the world looks much beautiful IF, all the three players behind him fold EVEN his hand is ruled live.

想不到城里相对理性的人这么多啊。

我也认为Asian guy的玩笑是很不合时宜的，不过让他为此付出5K的代价，太荒唐了些。我们不能那么教条化，应该尊重扑克精神。我最气愤的，其实不是dealer和floorman，毕竟那是他们的工作。我是严重鄙视那个J9玩家，玩得起5/10NL，也不是没钱的主，就非要占这种便宜吗？技术上不能说他做错，但我们做人难道就没个底线吗？把锅里原本的300刀收下，5000刀还给Asian guy，这世界不就如youngtercel所说，looks much beautiful了吗？

luckypanda 发表于 2012-7-13 09:38
想不到城里相对理性的人这么多啊。

我也认为Asian guy的玩笑是很不合时宜的，不过让他为此付出5K的 ...

道德，是最不好评判的东西。

还好，在理性的社会中，我们很多时候可以不用讲道德，只要讲道理。

下面是我无聊瞎编的：

也许开玩笑的玩家之前有过很多比这种玩笑过分得多的玩笑和举动，也许后面的的玩家和他有积怨宿仇，又或许大家认识回到家私底下还是把钱退还了的。

上面这些都是猜想。

我想说的是，我们没办法justify 某个人为什么做一件事，但是我们可以justify他做的是否合乎规则，作为旁观者，也就仅此而已。

即便那个2nd nut 玩家的目的，只是为了钱，我们也不能因此就说他钻到钱眼里去了。至少，在我看来他比拦路抢劫还是强了n个档次的。

今天2+2论坛那里有一个非常棒的回贴，#451楼，Johnny Grooms，权威的专业人士，2005年的WSOP Tournament Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have trained a lot of floor supervisors, shift managers, etc. each time I train a new one, we talk about the rule book, the intent of the rules, and the purpose for which the rule was written. The rule book exists as a "contingency plan" for how to deal with procedure irregularities and non-standard situations.

When confronted with a decision like this one, the floor should default to the rule book position....... That's the safest thing a floor person can do for job security, etc. I also tell the trainee that in doing this, they expose the fact that have no true understanding of the game. If being a good floor person/decision maker means that you can read a rule book, then anyone with passable reading skills can make an excellent floor.

The real floor people, the ones worth their salt, can step outside what the rule book says and apply rule #1, which refers to certain situations where the spirit and fairness of the game are to be taken into consideration. Instead of hiding behind a rule book, they can apply their years of knowledge and training to make a decision that is best for the game/situation. They can be creative. All I ask of someone when they make a decision like this is that they can logically explain why they made the decision they made, and be prepared to explain it to the players first, then to me second.

Look at any of the people that are widely considered to be excellent TD's and floor persons. You will see a history of those kinds of decisions. And those decisions are repeated within the industry and eventually become standards, in a manner much the same as judicial precedent.

I am sure that if you ask any widely respected TD/floor, they will tell you in different terms that what I have said here Is correct.

In the situation above, if I were uncomfortable making the ruling to render the 2-4 hand dead (which I wouldn't have been ) I would have asked for the highest ranking floor person on duty, and asked them to make the call. Eventually, someone up the chain of command would have gotten it right.

I would have stepped into traffic and set the rule book on fire, used common sense, and told the guy that while funny, he shouldn't do that again. Kill the hand. Move on, and let the players play the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我明白，这件事其实很难有一个普世认同的准则，即便是专业人士，也可能会有不同的意见和裁决。但我就坚决站在Johnny Grooms这边了。

J Grooms评价的始终是floor和dealer

对于牌手的是非对错，从加粗的那句话，隐约可以有个印象。

不知道怎么就想起了这句话

“一句玩笑话，绝对不会帮你赢得朋友，但很可能给你树立了一个敌人。”