Author Topic: Three Cards in the Hole  (Read 6153 times)

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Three Cards in the Hole
« on: May 04, 2010, 06:56:05 AM »
NLHE,

8 players 1 fold, 2 fold, 3 all-in 8000, 4 fold, 5 all-in 3000, 6 fold, 7 fold, 8 BB Call.

Player 5 then calls time by saying he has three hole cards, floor is called. Player 5 did suffer from a dealer error and had looked down at a small pocket pair and when going to showdown pre-flop discovered an 8 between the deuces.  It was a genuine dealer error.

Before I tell you what happens I would like to hear everyone's thought process and ruling for the situation.

Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2010, 07:45:38 AM »
Stuart:  Per Robert's Rules of Poker, V.10, Section 3.3 Dead Hands, Sub 1(d), "The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game..." (there is an exception for Stud, not quoted here.)

I would rule the hand dead and the chips remain in the pot.  If there are too many cards in one player's hand and the others have the correct number of cards, how can that be anything but a dealer error? 

This also falls under the concept that it is the players responsibility to protect his hand.  Had this player brought this to the attention of the dealer before any action occurred, I would have likely ruled a mis-deal, but once action has taken place, (including him/herself) I believe that option is passed and the betting stands with that player having a dead hand.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2010, 08:20:11 AM »
I have to agree with Chet. How can you win when holding too many cards. The only case that I might consider a different ruling might be where the player goes all-in on the blind and everyone was certain that he didn't even see his cards. That is extreme and it can also send a message to any player that makes those "blind bets." It is very unfortunate, especially when you consider that the player is eliminated from the tournament (assuming there is no re-buy). Very interesting, count your cards immediately before picking them up from the table. That's really bad luck. I think the only thing that could ease the pain for that player would be if he had a loser even with three cards.
 

pokerfish

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • cardplayercruises.com
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2010, 08:34:06 AM »
dead hand.... player responsibility to protect his hand. He didn't make the situation known in time. If he'd won with three cards moving all in uncontested he'd have mucked and we'd never have known. How do we know where the other card came from. In this situation it was a meaningless card but suppose he had an extra ace? Dead hand. I will allow a hand to play in certain situations with too few cards but never with too many.
Jan Fisher
TDA - Board of Directors
http://www.cardplayercruises.com

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2010, 08:50:51 AM »
thanks for your input folks:

The ruling:

considerable action had occurred so a misdeal cannot be called, the player accepted his hand and then acted on it so he is eliminated from the tournament with a dead hand, unfortunate but his own fault for not better checking his whole cards.

Interestingly his deuces did not hold anyway, so he was actually not bothered atall by the decision to kill his hand and eliminate him.

Thanks for your input everyone

Stu
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

AleaLeedsCardRoom

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2010, 11:27:13 AM »
Nick C says (sorry dont know how to quote) :"The only case that I might consider a different ruling might be where the player goes all-in on the blind and everyone was certain that he didn't even see his cards."

RROP Irregularities rule#9 says :"If you play a hand without looking at all your cards, you assume the liability of having an irregular card or an improper joker."

I would like to ask why would you consider a different ruling if the quoted rule states that their hand should be dead as they have assumed liability for it by acting on it, even without looking.

I'm not trying to be difficult or to nitpick, just asking incase I've missed something or there is something else I should be considering.

Thanks:)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2010, 01:09:37 PM »
I'll see if I can give the example; Player A pre-flop raises all-in before he even picks up his cards Player B calls. Player A notices he has three cards on the table and tells the dealer. I understand the rules. I also think that there are unique situations where exceptions should be made. There is a big difference between a player intentionally holding an extra card and having a couple cards sticking together. That's what I like about rule #1, sometimes when making a decision,if it is agreeable to the other players, I have made exceptional calls. You might consider that because of the cards sticking together other players have not received their proper card. Baring a situation like the one I described I agree with you 100%. No argument from me, just something to think about.
Nick C

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2010, 03:38:59 PM »
I understand your argument Nick,

I have had a unique situation where all the players agreed after the river when heads up that the players remaining could split the pot due to two cards stuck together in the players hand, I was not very fond of splitting the pot but that's what we agreed in the best interests of the game, as the player should of been more vigilant that he had three cards in the hole, it was a unique situation where I believed emphatically that it was a terrible situation confounded by a poor deck.

Not likely to happen again and I would say highly likely to be a 'one-off' situation where I did rule in favour of the player with 3 cards by splitting the pot.

I would not though consider letting a player whom was 'blind' and had 3 hole cards have a live hand or claim to the pot, even if you are playing blind you can still check to make sure you only have two cards, I do especially when in the big blind check my hole cards to make sure there is only 2 cards but do not look at them, until my turn to act.

Stu
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 03:41:36 PM by Stuart Murray »
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Martin L. Waller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2010, 10:37:17 AM »
Stuart,

Let me throw two actual situations into this.

First, I was dealing at Harrah’s in New Orleans. Three players to the River. One player then announces that he has three hole cards. I knew what was going to happen so I called the Floor and he pronounced the hand dead.

So, like your situation the hand must be dead.

This one I watched happen, thank goodness I wasn’t dealing. Three players go to the River. Player 1 checks, player 2 checks, player 3 bet the pot. Players 1 & 2 fold. The hands are put in the muck. Player 3 tosses his CARD to the dealer. He won the pot with only one hole card.

The Floor said since the other players’ cards were mucked and he was the only player with card(s), he won.

Good luck,
Martin

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2010, 11:32:52 AM »
Hello Martin,

  I like the call awarding the pot to the player with only one card. It is more accepted in stud than hold'em but, what else can you do? A player holding three cards is a different story. You are a dealer so how do you think this happened? I would assume that the player was on the button because sometimes dealers forget to give that position their last card, right? The real bad news is; when that does happen, the flop and board cards are all wrong. Something to think about. Interesting situations.

Nick C

goldendd

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 03:39:48 PM »
I agree that in most instances a player with either an incomplete hand or too many cards should have a dead hand. However, if you could determine with reasonable certainty that the extra card was delivered by the dealer on the deal (not a loose card that was mucked) causing the cards to be out of sequence I feel this should be a misdeal. Which brings up another question. When is it too late to call a misdeal? If the cards are out of sequence due to a misplaced button or something similar, how much action is too much action to call it a misdeal??

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2010, 04:02:16 PM »
It is the players responsibility to ascertain that their hand (hole cards) is correct.  Robert's Rule of Poker is very clear, a hand with too many cards in a flop game is DEAD!  The only way there can be a misdeal, in my opinion is if the player brings it to the attention of the dealer BEFORE there is any action.

Hope this helps!!

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 06:22:46 AM »
I believe (without checking) that RROP declares the deal cannot be declared a misdeal if two persons have acted on their whole cards i.e. by the time UTG+1 has acted a misdeal cannot be called, you simply cannot call a misdeal in this scenario as substantial action has already occurred, including the player with 3 cards - that would be totally against the best interests of the game, perhaps harsh on one player but not the tournament - remember this guy did not draw attention to his problem until the round was complete and showdown was due to commence.

Regards
Stuart
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3176
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2010, 02:04:16 PM »
Goldendd,
To answer your question about when it is too late to call a misdeal. Once substantial action has taken place, there can be no misdeal. The problem that we have had on other posts is how many players constitutes substantial action? Remember, the blinds are never considered when determining action until the betting returns to their position. Therefore, pre- flop the first player clockwise to the big blind is the first player counted in substantial action. IMO, when the next player acts it is too late to call for a misdeal.

Nick C

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Three Cards in the Hole
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2010, 10:46:11 PM »
From the WSOP 2010 Live Action Rules:

100. Once there is substantial action, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, substantial action is considered to occur when a player has raised the pot or someone has called and the next player has acted on his hand. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands.

Hope this helps!!