Watching the World Series of Poker tonight on ESPN, a player called clock on another player who was pondering a call. This means the player has one minute, followed by a 10-second countdown.
Now we’ve all seen countdowns before, from New Year’s Eve to a rocket launch. A countdown marks off each second to zero. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Blast-off!
The player announced call immediately after “one” but before “zero.” However, there was no zero forthcoming as the Floor said that the count had already ended and that counting to zero would have represented eleven seconds. After much arguing, the ruling stood and the hand was killed.
The allowed 10 seconds presumably officially start with the initial “10”, not one second before it, right? Everyone agrees on that, and some are just too stupid to reason correctly from there?
In that case… thanks for making me annoyed and angry over something I never saw and have no connection to. Now my day is shot…
Short of rockets launching on a digital countdown which does include “0”, most human oriented countdowns terminate after “1” with the initiation of action beginning after 1. There’s rarely “5,4,3,2,1, 0 > Go” It’s usually “5,4,3,2,1 > Go”
Yes, the “Go” is the “zero” the player was waiting for. There’s only 9 seconds from “10” to “1” in “10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1”; if you’re allowed 10 seconds total starting from “10”, you should be allowed another second after “1” (i.e., until “0” or “Go” or whatever you call it).
In my experience, “5, 4, 3, 2, 1” is always followed by something like “time’s up,” a buzzer or something. Ending on “1” is tantamount to “5, 4, 3, 2, TIME!”
Floorman clearly says, “You have ten seconds… nine… eight…” If the countdown really ended on one (as the tournament director is now saying), then the player was actually only given nine seconds.
In the video, the guy counting clearly says the word “dead” just after the player says “I call”, with a timing that matches that of the preceding numbers. If you thus regard “dead” as the zero of the count then the count was done properly, the call was in time, and the final ruling is very obviously wrong.
But it seems that the counter guy is saying, in effect “You didn’t call before I said “one”, therefore I said “dead” to indicate that your call was not made in time.” Highly bogus conclusion.
Yup, it’s bullshit. But I gather it only ended up helping the guy who tried to call; odd that the other guy who would’ve won that hand either way (and thus stood the most to gain from having the attempt to call stand) doesn’t seem to be protesting in the clip [I guess he doesn’t realize what happened].
Bort was probably okay winning the pot without a showdown (he never saw Friedman’s hand though he might have noticed Friedman wasn’t exactly complaining) and Friedman, having seen Bort’s cards, knew he was beat. It seemed that most of the arguing was coming from the other players and the spectators.
Could someone versed in the finer points of tournament poker explain the context ?
From the commentary, it seemed like the player who made the marginal call benefited from being declared out of time :- is that correct, and if so why ?
One player has made a bet and the other has the option to call or fold. In this scenario, at some point the better can “call the clock”, meaning the would-be-caller has a limited amount of time to act. The end of this clock is counted down before the hand is declared dead (equivalent to a fold decision).
The would-be-caller decided to call between the “1” count and the “dead” call. The “floor” (basically the tournament officials) decided that the head was dead because the clock ended the moment “1” was spoken rather than one second after that moment.
Yes, the would-be-caller benefited because his hand was declared dead, and his hand was worse than the original better (i.e., he would have lost the hand had the call stood).
Ok, I’m not a poker expert but this site had a different explanation of what went on.
This appears like the players were well aware that the count ended at one and you get a full minute including the countdown which starts at ten and ending at one. It seems to be saying that no one disputed that the count ends at one rather than the call came before one.
From the same article, this seems again to downplay the one/zero issue but rather says that they couldn’t determine if he called before or after the one which looks to be the actual number that matters if this article is correct.
It would be very interesting to hear how the (apparently rather clear) rule calling for a final 10-second countdown gets construed as requiring one that ends after exactly 9 seconds.
Yeah, there was much discussion in the poker blogs back in July when this all went down and not everyone agrees with the ‘end on one’ interpretation. But the WSOP saying that counting from ‘10’ to ‘0’ represents eleven seconds is just plain wrong.
However, the video aired yesterday for the first time and we hear the floorman saying, “You have ten seconds… nine… eight…” Therefore one would assume that when he says “two” that one would have two seconds left in the count rather than one. The rules clearly state that the player gets ten seconds. Ending at one (1) is nine seconds. In the video, the tournament director is heard to say, “you should have called at ‘five.’” Okay… Then why even bother with a ten-second countdown in the first place? If the countdown is going to end one second after ‘two’ then that should be explicitly stated in the rules.
But claiming that counting from ten to zero represents eleven seconds is where the fencepost problem creeps in and the reason I thought it might be of interest to dopers.
The dialogue was clearly " 1… call… dead hand". The guy even said he was beat but the winner did not complain about not being able to collect all of the guys chips. The biggest complainer from what I could see was a spectator. That guy should have kept his nose out of it. He may be right but it wasn’t his hand and really none of his damn concern. I could almost see other players maybe having something to say about it but in my experience it’s best to stay out of it when you are no longer in the hand. Had the loser had a better hand he would have most certainly made a stink, but he was beat and I’m sure very glad not to lose all of his chips. On the other hand, the winner was happy with the outcome and content with the decision.
All of that to say, the winner was happy, the loser was happy. The rest of us can STFU.
… and wait until an obvious problem again rears its head, perhaps with a much less friendly outcome. Or, possibly, raise enough fuss that the problem is resolved.
