PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: The Riddler on March 18, 2017, 09:13:46 PM
-
Hi everybody,
Tournament with 6 players left,
Blinds 2.500/5.000/500
UTG player is all in with 55.000 chips, next 2 players folded, button ( position 9)
is all in with 35.000 chips but dealer muckes accidentaly his hand. Button player claims to have AK but can not describe both cards
exactly so cards are mucked.
Will he now lose all his chips without cards?..he didnt even made mistake, dealer killed his hand.
What is the rule?
Thank you very much
-
Riddler,
This is one of the most unfortunate occurrences in poker. Players must protect their own hands.
TDA GENERAL CONCEPTS (#2 Players Responsibilities)....POTS/SHOWDOWN (#13 B Tabling Cards and Killing Winning Hand)....PLAY/OTHER (#60 Accidently Killed/Fouled Hands) These will fully explain your situation.
In your situation, because his opponent had the Button covered, he will be eliminated from the contest.
-
Thank you Nick,
i read the rules and yes we need them.
The problem is we take the chips from a player who didnīt made a mistake..the dealer did it and he belongs to the card room.
but we punish the player who is maybe in day 3,4 or 5 of the tournament playing 10-12 hours/day.
The other side of the problem is that i think is unfair to take the whole chips from a player without cards. And the cards where mucked by a dealer mistake.
maybe paying the last raise/bet would be a fair decision but the whole chips/existance of a player is unfair and non competitive.
maybe a ruling like in case Baumann/Koroknai or Estelle Denis would be a fair decision.
-
Riddler,
Players really need to protect their cards. As far as the decisions made regarding your mentioned Baumann/Koroknai or Estelle Denis fiascos, in my opinion they were two of the worst floor decisions ever recorded! They are perfect examples of what the floor should never rule.
To all poker players: Hold onto your cards until the hand is decided...that's it!
-
Thanks again Nick,
yes, agree player have to protect the cards
What would you decide in the Baumann/Koroknai and Estelle Denis cases?
-
Can someone tell me about the Baumann/Koroknai and Estelle Denis cases? I've never heard of them.
-
Hi Gregg,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUqOgGk4nQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTN5l1Xjrks
-
Wow... I would be pissed if I were in that situation (not as the player with dead cards... as the player who should get all those chips from the all-in). Yes, rule 89 says that they can get back the raise, but rule 55 is specific to the situation and says they are SOL. Bad ruling! (which seems to be the consensus here).
-
Hey Gregg...We agree!!!! ;D I can't tell you how happy I am that there are others that don't always agree with the floor decision...no matter how prominent and respected the floor. We all make mistakes (not many), but there were a few calls I've made that I wished I could have back. They were both "horrible" calls and if you're not familiar with the complete story, I suggest you look them up...both of them.
Lengthy discussions can be found in the TDA archives. Definitely worth looking up. Instead of trying to defend their errors, they would have gained more credibility if they just admitted...they blew the calls. ::)
-
Riddler,
Couple of questions regarding your situation.
- Did the Small Blind and Big Blind fold prior to the discovery that the hand was mucked ?, or did the player say All-in, and the dealer muck his hand then before any subsequent action ?
- Assuming the SB and BB folded prior, was the discovery prior to the flop/turn/river ?
-
Gregg,
If you really want to get an idea how bad Baumann got screwed...consider the fact that the next day, she was eliminated from the WSOP by...you guessed it...Koroknai!!!!
If that's not bad enough, take a look at the final table players for 2012.
-
Hi Uniden,
Seat 1, sb
seat 2, bb
seat 3 utg, all in 55k
seat 5, fold
seat 7, fold
seat 9, all in 35k
the dealer mistake was seein instantly by everyone just the dealer was so quick we couldnīt even say one word and the cards were gone :-)
thank you
Interesting to Gaelle Baumann is that she called the decision fair
"Now, a year later, I think it was fair. Even though it may have been fair it was still tough to live through.
-
The Riddler,
The Baumann/Koroknai was in 2012. The decision was not fair then, and it should be a landmark example of what not to do...as a player or as the floor!
-
Hi everybody,
let me answer this way...
YOU want to travel from A to B with the train.
YOU buy a ticket. Time later somebody stole your ticket and few minutes later youre asked what are YOU doing on this train?!
YOU say i travel from A to B and I pay for it. Wehre is YOUr ticket? Well, it was here but somebody took it away.
Why did YOU not protect YOUr ticket all the time. I did, but...
So YOU will dropped out of the train by 100 miles/hour..thank YOU
Nice rule and fair to everybody..take YOUr seat please
-
Riddler,
Please don't get frustrated, there are a lot of TDs (or TD wannabees) who are going to rule by the strict letter of the law without considering what would be best for the game.
Fact is, I'm not eliminating a player from the tournament due to a dealer error if it can be avoided.
In this scenario, as you describe it, my ruling would be to give the player back his 35k in chips as no player has acted on his "All-in".
-
In this scenario, as you describe it, my ruling would be to give the player back his 35k in chips as no player has acted on his "All-in".
Hi Ralph: my problem with this is that the button is covered by the UTG's prior bet of 55k. Thanks for raising the important distinction that if player does have an uncalled bet in progress and the error is discovered, any uncalled amount will be returned to the player per Rule 60.
As to questions about the Koroknoi / Baumann decision, from memory I recall Baumann had not called Koroknoi's bet at the time his cards were mucked.
-
Mike,
Koroknai mucked before she had a chance to do anything. He should have held his cards. How could he not know another player were still in the hand when she raised before he acted? She had a pair of kings, and Koroknai should have been eliminated! That is by TDA rules and any existing set of poker rules anywhere.
For so many that support TDA #49 Accepted Action...how can you defend any player that doesn't even know who bet in front of him? Ridiculous!
-
Hi Nick:
1: Exactly, Koroknoi tossed his cards and the dealer mucked them ... before Baumann called or folded.
2: How could he not know? Simple... he made a mistake, .. Mistakes happen in this game, sorry.
3: Accepted action has nothing to do with this... because a call was never made.
4: I'm not "defending" Koroknoi in any way... but I defend the decision made by Jack Effel not to ship all of Koroknoi's chips to a player who had not called him at the time his cards were mucked.
-
Thank You MikeB and Uniden32!
-
Hi Ralph: my problem with this is that the button is covered by the UTG's prior bet of 55k.
For me, there is a difference between a player calling a bet, as it is in Riddler's scenario, and a player putting out chips and then having other players act on those chips (call, fold, raise, etc.).
-
Mike,
The issue here is the fact that some of us are blaming the dealer (dealer error) for mucking a hand. The rules clearly state that the Player is to blame if the dealer, by accident kills an "unprotected" hand!
Mike, You said:
"I'm not "defending" Koroknoi in any way... but I defend the decision made by Jack Effel not to ship all of Koroknoi's chips to a player who had not called him at the time his cards were mucked."
What's to protect any player in a similar position (Baumann) from a player making a move (Koroknai) by going all-in with a terrible hand, attempting a bluff! When he realises he might be called...he ditches his hand hoping for the exact ruling that was made. Somehow, I think if Jack Effel were present and not having the situation explained to him over the phone, he would have made the correct decision...not the one he made. Even the announcer said they should take another look at that rule.
How can we not consider Accepted Action in this situation??? Koroknai was the SB, Baumann raised the BB to 60K Koroknai goes all-in for 1,327,000 (or somewhere thereabouts)... The BB folds. This leaves Baumann, the only opposing player. The fact that she was holding pocket Kings was determined after the decision was made.
While we're on this Baumann/Koroknai debacle I'd like to mention another subject that really bothers me...looking in the muck to confirm what a player might have had? ::) You've got to be kidding me!
The FACTS: #1 Koroknai mucked his own hand
#2 Baumann did nothing wrong
#3 Nobody knows what Koroknai's cards were
#4 Baumann showed her pocket Kings
Speculation: Does anyone believe that Baumann was going to fold?...Of course not!
Could Koroknai have been making a move?...Possible.
How could a world class player be that stupid? Don't want to hear; "Everybody makes mistakes"...Everyone does make mistakes, but not world class players in a situation like that...those mistakes have consequences.
That's how I feel and nothing will change my mind. I don't care if Baumann thinks it was the right decision. Can you imagine if Koroknai were facing Daniel or Phil...I rest my case! Thanks for listening and thanks for bringing this beauty back to the forefront.
-
Riddler,
Please don't get frustrated, there are a lot of TDs (or TD wannabees) who are going to rule by the strict letter of the law without considering what would be best for the game.
Fact is, I'm not eliminating a player from the tournament due to a dealer error if it can be avoided.
In this scenario, as you describe it, my ruling would be to give the player back his 35k in chips as no player has acted on his "All-in".
I agree with you, in the end Rules #1 allows you to do what you think is better for the game...
"The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules. Floor decisions are final."
-
Mike, The issue here is the fact that some of us are blaming the dealer (dealer error) for mucking a hand. The rules clearly state that the Player is to blame if the dealer, by accident kills an "unprotected" hand!
Not sure what rule that is? The TDA rule does state that if a player's cards are mucked in error the player will have no redress but will have any uncalled bet returned to them. It does not say that the player's entire stack will be shipped to a player who hasn't called them (yes, even if "we're real sure" they would have been called).
Mike, You said:
"I'm not "defending" Koroknoi in any way... but I defend the decision made by Jack Effel not to ship all of Koroknoi's chips to a player who had not called him at the time his cards were mucked."
What's to protect any player in a similar position (Baumann) from a player making a move (Koroknai) by going all-in with a terrible hand, attempting a bluff! When he realises he might be called...he ditches his hand hoping for the exact ruling that was made.
First of all I have no reason to believe that's what happened... a very artful intentional bet / muck... but even if it was then you go to the Penalties section of the rules and apply the harshest available penalty, none of which is to ship all the guys chips to someone who hasn't called him, sorry.
Somehow, I think if Jack Effel were present and not having the situation explained to him over the phone, he would have made the correct decision...not the one he made. Even the announcer said the rule should be reviewed.
Jack was advised over the phone by Dennis Jones one of the most experienced veteran floor people in the business. It's not an unfathomable situation where "you had to be there". Guy bets, the BB folds, Koroknai tosses his cards the dealer mucks them THEN they realize Baumann is still in the hand. You're selectively quoting the announcer... Lon McEachern also said "Koroknai mucked his cards not realizing Gail was still in the hand". i.e. he made a mistake. Try as we might we can't make poker 100% mistake free.
How can we not consider Accepted Action in this situation??? Koroknai was the SB, Baumann raised the BB to 60K Koroknai goes all-in for 1,327,000 (or somewhere thereabouts)... The BB folds. This leaves Baumann, the only opposing player. The fact that she was holding pocket Kings was determined after the decision was made.
None of that has anything to do with AA, sorry. AA would apply if Baumann had called she would have then accepted the entire amount of Koroknai's action, whatever the total bet was. She didn't do that, therefore AA is not an issue here.
The FACTS: #1 Koroknai mucked his own hand
#2 Baumann did nothing wrong
#3 Nobody knows what Koroknai's cards were
#4 Baumann showed her pocket Kings
Speculation: Does anyone believe that Baumann was going to fold?...Of course not!
So if we think a player might call, then if their opponent's cards are mucked we will just go ahead and channel whatever action we think the pending player would have made, and then proceed as if they actually had made that action, correct? What rule is that?
Could Koroknai have been making a move?...Possible.
You have allowable penalties under TDA rules up to and including expulsion from the tournament, but shipping all a players chips to someone who hasn't called them isn't one of them. How would you like to be another player at that table and see a monster stack of chips sent to one of your competitors who had not called the bet? Further, if you think there's a chance that Koroknai made a mistake (which I certainly do and many people who saw the clip think so) then what kind of fairness would it be to ship all his chips? You seem to base your argument as defending against an angle which you're not convinced occurred here.
How could a world class player be that stupid? Don't want to hear; "Everybody makes mistakes"...Everyone does make mistakes, but not world class players in a situation like that..
World class players don't make mistakes? How about Phil Ivey tossing a winning flush face down at a showdown at the WSOP final table?
those mistakes have consequences.
Yes, but they don't automatically include shipping your entire uncalled stack to a player who hasn't called you. Baumann got the entire called pot and Koroknai could have been severely punished if it was judged to be intentional.
-
What's to protect any player in a similar position (Baumann) from a player making a move (Koroknai) by going all-in with a terrible hand, attempting a bluff! When he realises he might be called...he ditches his hand hoping for the exact ruling that was made.
I want to play against that guy: "Hmmm, she only bet 60,000 ... this is a perfect spot for my favorite move ... raise all-in for 1,500,000 ... if it looks like she'll call, I'll insta-fold just before she calls ... I know the TD will save me." ;D ;D ;D
-
Bill...Now you're talking...you finally got it!!! :D
Mike...Thank you so much for your excellent response to all of my ranting about this classic hand. As you know, there are numerous discussions on this hand in the TDA archives.
I will always have a tough time understanding: How a player going all-in against the only player that raised in front of him, could muck his hand when the BB folds.The dealer didn't kill the hand, Koroknai mucked it!
I thought: "Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation...."
I also did not necessarily say that Baumann should receive such a windfall of chips. I will argue that removing the chips from play could be another option.
As the story continued, do you agree it could not have played out any worse for Baumann. She was eliminated by Koroknai the next day (I believe) and Koroknai went on to make the final table! Hmm I wonder how much of a dollar 'swing" that could have meant for both players. One more thing, Gail said she did call when asked by Dennis Jones. Dennis said, "well that's not what you said when I asked you." Too bad the cameras weren't there until after the incident occurred.
Seriously, Mike...thanks for your excellent response. I guess after all these years you're getting me to calm down a little! ;D ;D ;D
-
Iīve read this thread and Im aware of the situations cited and yet I cant make up my mind on what I would do. I guess Iīm slightly inclined towards giving back seat 9 chips.
-
Riddler,
Please don't get frustrated, there are a lot of TDs (or TD wannabees) who are going to rule by the strict letter of the law without considering what would be best for the game.
Fact is, I'm not eliminating a player from the tournament due to a dealer error if it can be avoided.
In this scenario, as you describe it, my ruling would be to give the player back his 35k in chips as no player has acted on his "All-in".
I'm gonna side with Uniden here and give the player back his last wager as it meets the criteria IMO as the most fair thing to do after we made the mistake of grabbing his hand. Yes, player responsibility, but house needs to own up to the mistakes and shortcomings of our staff at times too. That said, if I can feel confident on what the two player's cards are (he whispers to me the rank and suit of both for instance) I'm going to try and allow the hand to play out as it would have sans mistake if I can.
-
Mike,
The main problem with Bauman vs Koroknai is if Koroknai were bluffing he would be in a win win situation. If he dumps his hand, the way he did, he would be guaranteed his raise amount returned to him...if Bauman folds, he wins! I don't like it (as you well know)...especially from a professional player. YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR OWN HAND...he did not! The fact that Bauman didn't call yet should have nothing to do with anything. She was not on the clock, and she certainly had the "right" to consider her call...which I'm sure she would have made, holding pocket kings!
I might be wrong on this but I believe they asked Koroknai what he had and he said pocket jacks. They looked through the muck and could not confirm his holding. The whole situation looked bad to me.
My best argument is to put Daniel or Phil in Bauman's position and see how they would have handled that ruling. What do you think, Mike? Why not reach out to them and ask them?