Trending: Ruling That was Made in the Most Famous Tournament in World!

[LloydFontillas]

Hi Everyone,

I saw this treading on FB. This actually happened in WSOP 2012 Main Event and was reported during live updates by pokernews! How do you feel about the ruling that was made?

Titled: Andras Koroknai Moves All In, Then Mucks, does not lose his tournament life


Gaelle Baumann opened for a min-raise to 60,000 from under the gun, and the action folded to Andras Koroknai, who moved all in for what looked like 2 million from the small blind. Gavin Smith folded from the big blind, and thinking that the action was completed, Koroknai mucked his hand.

When he realized his mistake, he pulled back one of his cards, but the other was irretrievable. A floorperson was called to the table, and the dealer explained what had happened. Tournament Director Dennis Jones was called over to make the ruling, and upon hearing the story, he stood silently for half a minute.

Smith, who was standing next to him, began laughing at the difficulty of the decision.

After a moment for thought, Jones informed the table that Koroknai would have to forfeit 60,000 chips to Baumann, but that he wouldn't be eliminated completely. "Really?" Smith blurted.

Baumann was also confused with the ruling, so Jones pulled out his iPhone and called Vice President of the World Series of Poker Jack Effel. After a two-minute conversation, Jones hung up, and announced to the table that the original ruling would stand.

"You're not losing your tournament life," Jones told Koroknai.

In Jones' explanation to the table, he cited the "integrity of the tournament" as the major factor in the decision.

According to Smith, Baumann showed two kings.

[pa2bear]

Hi Everyone,

I saw this treading on FB. This actually happened in WSOP 2012 Main Event and was reported during live updates by pokernews! How do you feel about the ruling that was made?

Titled: Andras Koroknai Moves All In, Then Mucks, does not lose his tournament life


Gaelle Baumann opened for a min-raise to 60,000 from under the gun, and the action folded to Andras Koroknai, who moved all in for what looked like 2 million from the small blind. Gavin Smith folded from the big blind, and thinking that the action was completed, Koroknai mucked his hand.

When he realized his mistake, he pulled back one of his cards, but the other was irretrievable. A floorperson was called to the table, and the dealer explained what had happened. Tournament Director Dennis Jones was called over to make the ruling, and upon hearing the story, he stood silently for half a minute.

Smith, who was standing next to him, began laughing at the difficulty of the decision.

After a moment for thought, Jones informed the table that Koroknai would have to forfeit 60,000 chips to Baumann, but that he wouldn't be eliminated completely. "Really?" Smith blurted.

Baumann was also confused with the ruling, so Jones pulled out his iPhone and called Vice President of the World Series of Poker Jack Effel. After a two-minute conversation, Jones hung up, and announced to the table that the original ruling would stand.

"You're not losing your tournament life," Jones told Koroknai.

In Jones' explanation to the table, he cited the "integrity of the tournament" as the major factor in the decision.

According to Smith, Baumann showed two kings.

it made me smile reading this

[sykora]

What if GAELLE opts to call ALL-IN? Didn't she felt robbed?

[LloydFontillas]

What if GAELLE opts to call ALL-IN? Didn't she felt robbed?

I understand the concern. But, the fact is that she did not say all-in. I think there are many views on what should have happened.

As this is trending on some of the biggest forums in the industry. I can see that to many people are not happy with the decision. The way the decision came down, I can't see any other way to rule it?

[JAKE300]

I cant see anyway other to rule this,.. the matched part of his bet is forfeit but the rest in at the time of mucking uncontested.

since the guy only had one card then he doesnt have a valid hand, so cant turn over two cards to claim the pot (which the WSOP will insist upon), so you are effectively giving Gaelle a free win for a complete double up with no risk... even if they let him play one card only the value of his hand interms of ability is dramatically reduced by much more than half. (its closer to 25% of potential)

while some might say, oh but the lady had kings, she would have won,,,, really ! kings is a lock ?  so while everyone else has to play a full hand and take all the chances, Gaelle suddenly takes no risk and gets a free hand,,, that must be fair on the whole tournament ? which at the end of the day is the objective of any ruling of theory behind them.

i am somewhat unsettled that the call had to be made on the phone, as this should be a straight forward ruling.

[sgt.santori]

I agree with this ruling. Time and again, the preservation of the "Integrity of the Tournament" is repeated and emphasized even in the TDA rules (of which, I think serves as a basis for WSOP). I interpret this as - decisions should be based not just solely on that basic actions but considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances also.

As it is the natural tendency of people to err (the fact that we've seen this scenario time and again even in our local tourneys is proof enough), the intent of the act and (for lack of a better term)  the prevailing atmosphere when it was executed, should really be taken heavily into consideration.

In this scenario, nobody in his right mind would muck his cards after declaring all-in so clearly, the player who did didn't know there was an initial raise. While it can be argued (as always) that he should have know, that it was his responsibility, etc, the fact still remain that the player made an error. The question now is - Is the error too grave that it would merit the player to lose his tournament life? Yes the rules calls for a penalty and that is already addressed, the question now is how grave the penalty would be?

I believe the TD and the VP viewed that it was an honest mistake on the part of Gavin Smith but not grave enough to merit such a stiff sanction. The WSOP is the much awaited highlight tournament of the year. Players go to such extent just to BI and join, and so, allowing Mr. Smith to continue and not jeopardizing his WSOP aspirations is the very example of preserving the Integrity of the WSOP as a fair, just and well-managed tournament.

[LloydFontillas]

I agree with this ruling. Time and again, the preservation of the "Integrity of the Tournament" is repeated and emphasized even in the TDA rules (of which, I think serves as a basis for WSOP). I interpret this as - decisions should be based not just solely on that basic actions but considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances also.

As it is the natural tendency of people to err (the fact that we've seen this scenario time and again even in our local tourneys is proof enough), the intent of the act and (for lack of a better term)  the prevailing atmosphere when it was executed, should really be taken heavily into consideration.

In this scenario, nobody in his right mind would muck his cards after declaring all-in so clearly, the player who did didn't know there was an initial raise. While it can be argued (as always) that he should have know, that it was his responsibility, etc, the fact still remain that the player made an error. The question now is - Is the error too grave that it would merit the player to lose his tournament life? Yes the rules calls for a penalty and that is already addressed, the question now is how grave the penalty would be?

I believe the TD and the VP viewed that it was an honest mistake on the part of Gavin Smith but not grave enough to merit such a stiff sanction. The WSOP is the much awaited highlight tournament of the year. Players go to such extent just to BI and join, and so, allowing Mr. Smith to continue and not jeopardizing his WSOP aspirations is the very example of preserving the Integrity of the WSOP as a fair, just and well-managed tournament.

Great view but, if Smith was taken out of the tournament or asked to give up more chips? All hell would have broke lose because Galvin Smith had nothing to do with the ruling (read the scenario again) 

On the serious side. The debate would be to many, when you say in the right mind? How about a guy intentionally moving all-in than mucking to squeeze out other players in the hand and only have to give up a call amount to keep his buddy alive? I know that is not the case here, so like you, I agree with the ruling!