Author Topic: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?  (Read 7059 times)

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
    • The Nuts Poker League
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9OsFYnwpJ_4%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player&h=3AQHSTjY_AQEOBP_ndwcTdREIECtUZzXvMDhoGjB2ESX1Pg&s=1

Discuss!

For me the ruling they made is consistent and fair, and I would of ruled the same way, given that she only called the all-in after the cards were irretrievably mucked.

Regards
Stuart
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 10:23:21 PM by MikeB »
Stuart Murray
The Nuts Poker League
South Scotland &
National Tournament Director

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Standard Ruling?
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2012, 10:22:33 PM »
Stu: I think we have two evils here:

1: Allow Player A who hasn't yet called 1.3 million to declare "call" after she sees that her opponent (Player B) has no hand to play... hmmm, I don't like that very much...

2: Allow Player B to raise Player A's 60,000 bet to him all-in for a total of 1.3MM, then muck his cards (intentionally or otherwise, we cannot 100% know), before he can be called. That also seems real wrong.

So how to resolve this? We do have a vaguely-related rule (TDA Rule 48) that if the dealer erroneously snatches and mucks Player B's hand before Player A can call, then Player B only owes the amount of his call, not his uncalled raise. But that isn't exactly what we have here b/c Player B has mucked his hand, it wasn't initially snatched by the dealer.

Some considerations:

A: I don't like allowing Player A to win nearly 1.3 million without having anywhere near 1.3 million at risk herself... that just totally stinks to me...
B: I don't like allowing Player B to raise and then avoid honoring his raise by self-mucking.
C: I don't like the idea that someone can "call" a non-existent hand
D: Is the hand not over by definition once only one hand remains? In that case, how can you call (i.e. have betting action) when the hand is over?

Further, I presume that the dealer had some role in pulling the discards into the muck. The ideal reaction by the dealer would have been to preserve Player B's cards so indirectly there is some, if little, relationship to our existing rule regarding cards mucked by the dealer and therefore a return of any uncalled bet or raise. Also, I note that the house made every reasonable effort to identify the mucked cards, which would have been the ideal solution, to retrieve them and deal the hand out, but that couldn't be done to 100% certainty...

Thus, at the end of the day, I agree with the ruling as made... I think in this case some warning to Player B is also in order. Ultimately it seems like two bad choices and this is clearly the lesser of two evils, IMO. By memory of the tape, I recall the Floorman saying that a ruling must be made in the best interest of the game. I think it was in this case b/c I can't justify allowing a player to win 1.3 million that she never had at risk, to call a hand that didn't exist, or to make a betting action once she is the lone surviving hand.

Thanks alot for the post and video-link. This may be reviewed at the next Summit.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 10:29:46 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2012, 10:51:12 PM »
Just as a reminder, we discussed this case (and ones like it) here:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=714.0

Players may hate the ruling, but at the end of the day, she did not have to risk her chips by calling so I don't think she deserves a windfall equal to his whole stack.

I have a feeling that if the personalities were reversed, players would have probably been more sympathetic.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2012, 08:34:18 AM »
Ken,

 Another great observation, and post. I watched the video several times and I have to agree that the decision made was probably best. I also like your mention of the dealer. I have always defended dealer's whenever they are criticized for following proper procedures. However, I am also the first to blame them for their lack of concentration and failure to control the game.

 An alert dealer would have prevented the hand from hitting the muck. The hand would have continued and quite possibly would have changed the players at final table, and ultimately the eventual winner.

 I agree that Player A should not win 1.3 million without having anything at risk. However, she had pocket kings and was certain to call, and probably had the best hand.

 So how would we feel, after making the same ruling, if the non-offending player were holding the nut hand?




Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2012, 10:42:39 AM »
I would say 95% certain to call...players do lay down pocket kings pre-flop sometimes.  I don't think that we want to become responsible for determining what players would have done or what would have happened.  There are many different aspects to the game and different styles of play.  We also all know that the current best hand does not always end up being the best.  So unless all of us become all-knowing, that is a recipe for disaster.  To me, what she has in her hand has no impact on my decision.

I agree with the ruling made as well.

I like the points about not being able to continue action with only one hand in play, and the one about having to risk chips to win them.

I also think that if it became the standard to go the other way, to allow all the chips to be awarded to the other player, it makes chip dumping way too easy.  (If a dealer is not properly protecting the muck)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 11:47:58 AM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2012, 11:35:24 AM »
The more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes. There are so many different scenarios that could affect the best call by the floor.

 Tristan, I agree we can't make any assumptions, with certainty, as to what hand will win, especially pre-flop. What about the same situation after the flop? I'm sure it would have been handled the same way. In fact, there are so many scenarios, as rule-makers, that we really need to take a closer look at a better solution.

 The non-offending player deserves more protection.
 The dealer needs to protect the muck from a premature fold.
 The offending player, should ultimately suffer the consequences for not protecting his hand.

 I have my idea's as to why these incidents are becoming more common than in the past. The great number of players, and tournaments is at the top of the list. The other (IMO), is the diminishing responsibility placed on dealers. Yes, there are too many floorpersons that insist the dealers don't interfere with the actions of celebrity players.

 Take a look back at almost every problem or bizarre situation, and you will see that the great majority would have been avoided by a competent dealer.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 11:37:35 AM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2012, 11:56:17 AM »
What would have happened if the dealer had protected the muck, and Player B really did have AJ and flopped the world?  Player A could have been in a really rough spot.

Gaining 60k chips (plus pot) uncontested is still a pretty good deal.  Player A did still gain from this, even if it wasn't as much as some people think they deserved. 
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2012, 02:54:35 PM »
Tristan,

 You're not suggesting that he shouldn't have surrendered the 60k, are you?

 It would have been much easier to retrieve the mucked hand if; Koroknai allowed his cards to be seen by the television audience.

 That might be a solution in the future:

You must show your hole cards during all televised broadcasts until competing at the final table.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2012, 02:59:34 PM »
I think Tristan is saying she should be happy to have won the pot, basically without having risked any of her chips in excess of that 60K (and I agree). 

One thing that is in the back of my mind is if we knew for sure that the hole card cameras picked up the hand, would we feel that it is proper to try to get that information and then dig those cards out of the muck in order to allow the hand to continue?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2012, 04:06:59 PM »
Ken,
 That's what I was referring to on my last post. Bottom line; Baumann did nothing wrong, and she wasn't the lucky one for winning the 60k. I'd like to know how you would react if you were in her place? Let's not forget that 2 days later, Koroknai eliminated Baumann from the tournament and made the final table! Talk about getting lucky.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2012, 07:29:57 PM »
Ken,
 . I'd like to know how you would react if you were in her place?

The word "call" would be out of my mouth as soon as the other player folded.  No hollywooding here... Ship it!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2012, 06:58:38 AM »
Ken,
 
  I like your honesty :D I also like that you used "call" and not some unacceptable statement like: "I'm in" or "yeah, let's dance" or.... ;D

  The more I think about what happened, the more I question how it was handled. I agreed that the uncalled raise amount should not have been awarded to Baumann. However, I keep struggling with a player (Koroknai), being allowed to play another hand after losing and going all-in?

Another option?

 Remove the uncalled portion from play and eliminate Koroknai ? If this sounds reasonable, should the amount, (large versus small) have anything to do with a decision?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 03:26:58 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2012, 11:22:34 AM »
Another option?

 Remove the uncalled portion from play and eliminate Koroknai ? If this sounds reasonable, should the amount, (large versus small) have anything to do with a decision?
There was a profound dealer error in this situation... i.e. "accepting" Koroknoi's erroneous muck when he's all-in and burying the cards. It doesn't sound equitable to knock out a player when such a house error is involved. No solution to this problem is going to seem exactly right, in the end it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2012, 03:20:52 PM »
Wow! Mike, what a great answer. I especially like some of the blame directed to the dealer. Although the ultimate fault lies with the player that raised and mucked without even recognizing who his opponent was.

 I think we all agree that there is no "perfect" answer. Problems similar to this will occur whenever there is a breakdown of proper procedure by more than one player, or in this case, a player and the dealer.

               First mistake: Koroknai for folding after raising.
          Second mistake: Dealer's failure to prevent cards from hitting the muck.
  
 Let's take another look, from a different perspective: Koroknai's huge raise may have forced the BB to fold. I would think that a case could be made for forcing a player out of the hand, that might have called if not for the raise. There's a lot to look at with this one.

 A suggestion for next years summit: After we fix, * Substantial Action (meant to write Accepted Action) ;D   We should use this video for debate and further discussion. I'm not sure there is a perfect solution to this one but, every time time I watch it, it reeks more than the time before.

*PLEASE NOTE: I MEANT TO SAY ACCEPTED ACTION AND NOT SUBSTANTIAL ACTION. Sorry for any confusion


          
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 01:21:31 PM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Standard Ruling for WSOP case of self-mucked cards after making a bet?
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2012, 09:32:55 PM »
I think Tristan is saying she should be happy to have won the pot, basically without having risked any of her chips in excess of that 60K (and I agree). 

Yep!

I like the call because Baumann, who was not at fault in any way, did gain by getting a no-risk 60k.

and

Koroknai, who was at fault, got a penalty of losing 60k without being able to defend it.


No one was eliminated on an error, and no one got an unfair advantage from an error.




What if it had been ruled the other way.  What if Baumann had gotten all of Koroknai's chips on this error?  Maybe we would be hearing another story...about a player who was knocked out only because Baumann now had chips that she didn't earn.  How if she hadn't gotten Koroknai's 1.3m, she would not have had that player covered and they would have still been in the tournament.  Remember, it is not always just what is fair between Player A and Player B.  It is also about what effect it could have on other players in the tournament. 





« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 10:14:21 PM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter