PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Luca P. on January 17, 2013, 08:16:19 AM
-
here is the situation:
On the flop, 5 players left, fairly decent size pot already, player 1 bets 5000, player 2 and 3 call, player 4 raise to 20000, while player 5 is thinking, player 4 deliberately mucks his cards, his cards are irretrievable.
What do you rule and why?
-
Based on the information you have provided and not interjecting any other outside factors that may apply:
Player 4's hand is dead and the 20,000 stays in the pot,
Player 5 can call the 20,000, raise or fold,
Players 1, 2 and 3 have the same options as player 5
Under no circumstances would I consider returning Player 4's raise, nor would I consider freezing the betting, nor would I consider the hand dead and return bets.
Expensive lesson for Player 4, but it is one not likely to be forgotten anytime soon.
Chet
-
It's a toss up between Chet's answer and returning the 15,000 raise portion to player 4 and giving him a penalty. I think because no-one has called the 15,000 more yet that I would return it to him and give him a penalty that means he loses at least the 15,000 he has been returned as leaving it in the middle for me creates a free-roll situation for the players still in the hand.
-
This is very similar to a recent post involving Koroknai and Baumann. After much discussion I decided that if I were faced with that situation I would kill Player 4's hand, remove the uncalled raise amount from tournament play and disqualify Player 4 from the tournament.
Too easy to allow Player 4 to dump chips, or get his 15000 raise amount back if he gets any read that Player 5 might call.
-
Interesting because of the multi-way action! I would have no sympathy for Player 4 in this circumstance. If it was a possibility that they didn't see one players cards or something like that I probably would return the uncalled portion. But with three players yet to act I would have to assume it is Player 4 trying to angle shoot. They (most likely) saw that Player 5 was going to call their bluff and hoped for a floor ruling that returned their 15k chips to them.
No question in my mind that Player 4 loses the 20k.
But I'm not sure I like the money staying in the pot. That puts Player 3 in a very advantageous position! Also, a hand is complete once only one player has cards...so you put yourself in a weird situation if you keep the 20k as the bet and in the pot and it gets folded around to Player 3. They would technically win without calling the bet. I think in this spot I would like Nick's suggestion of removing the 15k from tournament play and continuing the hand at a 5k bet. It punishes the abuser without giving another player an advantage.
Punish the abusers!!! Lol
-
I think I would rule in a way that achieves the same result: the uncalled portion is returned to the player, and that player is disqualified for chip dumping which is what he is effectively doing by inflating the pot and then folding (after which the chips are removed from play).
-
Tristan:
I don't understand why Player 3 is in such an advantages position? All the other players have yet to act, Player 5, Player 1, and Player 2. Maybe I am getting a little dense up here in the cold, but I just don't see it.
Chet
-
Chet,
If I may try to clarify what Tristan was referring to. I believe he was putting Player 3 in the best position only if the raise amount were allowed to remain in the pot. If that were the case, Player 3 would have the "last action" on that round, with the possibility of the others electing not to call the additional 15000.
-
I think I would rule in a way that achieves the same result: the uncalled portion is returned to the player, and that player is disqualified for chip dumping which is what he is effectively doing by inflating the pot and then folding (after which the chips are removed from play).
Good point.
Tristan:
I don't understand why Player 3 is in such an advantages position? All the other players have yet to act, Player 5, Player 1, and Player 2. Maybe I am getting a little dense up here in the cold, but I just don't see it.
Chet
I guess I view it like this. Player 3, at this point, has the benefits of a raise without the risk. The other players have to call 20k or else Player 3 will win by default...which is the same as if Player 3 had raised to 20k, yet he only put in 5k.
That additional 20k of dead money also influences pot odds quite a bit and messes up the integrity of the whole hand.
I am just really against allowing any player to get uncontested money. I also don't like to make rulings where players can possibly point to them later on and say that my ruling (possibly) caused the player to win the tournament. As we all know, when people lose, most of them look for external places to place the blame.
-
Tristan,
I think you agreed with what I wrote.
-
Tristan:
I don't disagree with what you said, but isn't that true ONLY if Players 5, 1, and 2 take no further aggressive action? If I was anyone of those players and knew that player 4 was gone and the 20-k was still in the pot, it wouldn't take much for me to pop it again, but that is just me.
Chet
-
Tristan,
I think you agreed with what I wrote.
Yep, sure did! Thanks Nick, you nailed exactly what I was trying to say. :) You and K-Lo said pretty much the same thing regarding the situation at hand as well. The only thing I'm not sure of is if I would disqualify the player. If I thought it was attempt to dump chips, yes. If it was an attempt to angle shoot, well... People attempt to angle shoot pretty regularly. I'm not sure if I think the loss of the 20k would be a penalty enough or if there is further penalty required. I suppose it would depend on the player.
Tristan:
I don't disagree with what you said, but isn't that true ONLY if Players 5, 1, and 2 take no further aggressive action? If I was anyone of those players and knew that player 4 was gone and the 20-k was still in the pot, it wouldn't take much for me to pop it again, but that is just me.
Chet
Very true. Just like the button starts off as the best position at the table, it doesn't mean they will always get to take advantage of it.
-
FIW:
On the chip dumping issue, I find it hard to make a finding of player 4 dumping chips in the example given. There are still 4 other players in the hand and he has no idea which of those players will be the recipient of those chips when he mucks his hand. Now, if there was only one other player in the hand (maybe two), and he did the same thing, I could support a finding of chip dumping w/o question. But with half of the players at the table involved besides the "Hero", ??????????????????
Chet
-
FIW:
On the chip dumping issue, I find it hard to make a finding of player 4 dumping chips in the example given. There are still 4 other players in the hand and he has no idea which of those players will be the recipient of those chips when he mucks his hand. Now, if there was only one other player in the hand (maybe two), and he did the same thing, I could support a finding of chip dumping w/o question. But with half of the players at the table involved besides the "Hero", ??????????????????
Chet
Yeah, I agree. He is dumping chips, technically, because he is putting chips in the pot and then sacrificing them while he has a chance to win...but he cannot really have a specific partner at that point unless he knows his friend/partner has the nuts with no chance to lose. So it is possible, but not probable.
-
Tristan and Chet,
I'll have to admit, trying to understand why any player would raise 15000, and then throw his hand away before anyone calls is pretty difficult to figure. Tristan, you might be correct when you say disqualification might be too severe. I was thinking of the WSOP incident when the raiser went all-in before mucking. This is different. There was no mention of the raiser being all-in.
Removing the raise amount from play, and issuing a warning that the next similar occurrence would be cause for disqualification, would be better than immediate removal.
Chet, your post also makes sense, but if it's not chip dumping, what else can we call it?
-
Stupidity
-
Hi guys:
I see your point, but I'm not necessarily convinced that we need to be absolutely certain who the intended beneficiary of a chip dump is, before ruling it a chip dump. I actually misinterpreted the original question here, because I assumed that that the dumper was all-in... But I'm not sure I'd rule differently even if he still had chips behind.
Let's say for example, that the the dumper was colluding with a big stack at the table, perhaps it was player 5. While it is true that any of the four remaining players could theoretically call, we don't know if the plan was for player 5 to shove over top, making it that much less likely for the others to call, and making it more likely that player 5 would pick up the dumped chips. In fact, it could have been any of the other players to whom the betting was reopened for that matter. Or perhaps the dumper did not care who got the chips, so long as they didn't go to a player who had already folded. Or even if the dumper didn't have a particular person in mind, but just wanted to go home, the action certainly fails to protect others in the tournament.
I guess my point is that I don't think as a TD, I should be put into the position of trying to workout who exactly he might have been trying to dump chips to, and to what extent he expected the dump to succeed given that the pot up to that point was multi-way, before feeling justified in ruling that the action amounted to chip dumping and warranted disqualification. It clearly looks like a chip dump to me, and unless the player has a really good answer to the question "so you've seen three callers before you, you throw a whole bunch of chips into the pot and then fold before anyone else has acted, it looks to me that you are just throwing away chips to the players left in the hand, why did you do it", I doubt he can say that it didn't look like a chip dump either -- and if it is a chip dump, the penalty is spelled out clearly in the Rules.