PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Pokerbug13 on August 11, 2013, 02:03:34 AM
-
Hi all - I am new here. Had an interesting situation the other night and would like feed back. NLH tournament. Blinds are at 500/1k. 5 players limp to see the flop. SB (seat 4) bets 4K. next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly. The other player in the 3 seat also folds. The dealer puts down the stub, pushes the pot to the sb as the caller is counting her chips out for the call. SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her. 8 seat says "I called", and dealer realizes he missed the verbal and the fact that another player still had cards, but SB cards are deep in the muck and unidentifiable. Now what?
-
Hi Pokerbug -
SB will lose the pot here. It is unfortunate that the dealer made an error and effectively induced SB to fold by pushing him or her the pot prematurely.
However, it is ultimately the player's responsibility to protect their own hand and that includes being aware of the action, which in turn includes being aware of which players at the table have not folded and thus still have cards in their possession.
In this case, seat 8, being the last player with cards, would be awarded the pot, including the SB's full bet of 4K which has been duly called [see Rule 56, also see new Rule 13 B]. For what it's worth, if the SB's cards were still clearly retrievable and identifiable despite making a motion to fold, they would be given back to the SB, and the hand would be played out.
K
-
Agreed.
-
Agreed
-
I'm having a problem with this one...There are a few rules that we could apply that would not support awarding the pot to the silent raiser.
TDA #2, in part make your intentions clear...and especially:
Play: Bets & Raises
37: Verbal Bet Declarations / Acting in Turn / Undercalls
B: Players should wait for clear bet amounts before acting. Ex: A says “raise” (but states no
amount), and B and C quickly fold. B and C should wait to act until A’s exact raise amount is
clear. All-in buttons can greatly reduce undercall frequency.
I have a tough time killing a players hand, when the dealer induces the action. Especially when the player was pushed the pot, before they mucked. Also, how long does it take the silent caller to put 4000 into the pot? Sometimes verbal is not good enough...I prefer the forward movement of chips.
-
Unfortunately, when you introduce dealer error in the equation, someone is going to have to pay for that error and whoever it is, he is not going to be happy with the ruling.
-
next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly.
I would say her intentions were clear enough as multiple people heard her.
One way or another you going to upset someone with this call.
If no one heard seat 8 say call, I would have ruled their hand dead. If the SB's cards were retrievable I would allow them to play. From the sounds of it, though, neither of those things happened...so the pot goes to seat 8.
-
Tristan,
The pot goes to seat 8 when you're on the floor ;D
-
So I had a very similar situation tonight. Although the ruling is pretty much "standard" now, players still get upset....
8 handed table. Blinds are 2000-4000. Seat 8 has the SB, Seat 1 has the BB. Action folds around to seat 6 who goes all-in for ~12000. Seats 7 and 8 fold.
Dealer forgets that the BB is in seat 1 and has not yet acted, and pushes the pot to Seat 6. Seat 6, seeing the pot pushed to her, releases her hand, which gets irretrievably mucked by the dealer.
Seat 1 points out that she still has cards, and the dealer admits his error. Seat 1's cards are still beneath a chip protector in front of her, and there was no indication that her cards were not in plain view to the table.
I ruled that the pot goes to seat 1, being the last person with live cards; seat 6 will lose the amount of the call (4000) but the rest of her wager (i.e. the uncalled portion of the all-in bet) is returned.
Seat 6 now has a few choice words for seat 1 ("why didn't you say anything while the pot was being pushed"), and wanted us to retrieve her (untabled) cards from the muck. She feels she shouldn't have to protect her hand once she is all-in and the pot is pushed to her. I explain that even though she is all-in, unfortunately, this does not relieve her of the obligation to protect her hand, and this includes ensuring that everyone else has folded. Unfortunately, since her cards are deep in the muck and were not tabled, I am obliged to award the pot to the player who still has live cards, despite the dealer error.
Would anyone else have handled this differently? Seat 6 was livid.
-
Ken,
I guess you didn't read my earlier reply. I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. If the dealer pushes you the pot, it's yours. We have TD's that are awarding pots to players that muck their damn cards...and now we want to kill a hand that was pushed before the cards were mucked? I'm sorry guys, this is another one that doesn't sit well with me. When the dealer gives you the pot, you're supposed to muck your hand. No mention of the "slow to react player" not stopping the error? Sorry...too many double standards.
The division between tournament poker and cash games is growing with each new rule.
-
Wow! I always tell players never release your hand until pot is pushed to you.
Rule #1 will/must/have to play here, nothing else could be acceptable.
-
Rocky it's good to hear from you but, I'm not sure I understand exactly how you feel about K-Lo's situation? You say that you always tell player's to never release their hands until the pot is pushed to them. Therefore, I will take your statement as not agreeing with the way K-Lo handled it, right?
-
As far as I could tell, the player that still had cards was not at fault. The dealer and mucker acted very quickly before seat 1 could do anything. My guess is that both the dealer and the mucker may have simply forgot someone was sitting on the other side of the table, and once the player to the right of the dealer folded, it went "push-muck" right away.
Nick - I see your point. And you are right, if this was a cash game situation, we definitely would have more leeway. I am pretty sure the decision is "standard" now (correct me if I'm wrong), for better or worse. As I'm sure you are aware, more and more responsibility is being put on players now despite dealer error (accepted action!) ::).
But maybe there does need to be further consideration on this one since there is an element of dealer error here, with a dealer prematurely pushing the pot. Let's think about this one a bit. I think a few issues need to be addressed here:
1. While it is true that we are killing seat 6's hand, and that is a crappy reason to kill a hand especially since the dealer induced the error, if we allow seat 6 to keep the pot, then are we not effectively killing seat 1's hand? Seat 1 hasn't done anything wrong. Now if seat 1 was hiding her cards, and that contributed to the error, then you could definitely take that into account. But if there is no evidence of that and she was just sitting there, with cards in plain view, and it was her turn to the act as BB, she looks down at her cards and hesitates for a moment to consider her action - yet meanwhile the dealer has pushed the pot -- on her turn-- and seat 6 happily grabbed the pot, what makes seat 6 "more" innocent than seat 1 here?
2. Does it matter that when you come to the table to make your decision, that seat 1 is the only player with live, identifiable cards?
3. Are you going to dig through the muck to search for a hand that has not been tabled? Do you take the word of seat 6 that she will accurately tell you the cards that she has? What if she tells you which cards that she has and you cannot find them in the muck? We've been through this whole issue before, and no one goes through the muck any more.
4. The problem is that we potentially have two innocent parties here that have both been screwed by the dealer. Therefore, I have to ask: Who is in a better spot to protect their hand?
You open the action with a raise in late position, and hope to steal the blinds. It's late in the tournament, blinds are big, you are hoping that everyone folds. The button folds (yes!)... the small blind folds (whew!)... you look over at the big blind and hope he folds as well... you wait silently as the big blind peels up his cards... meanwhile you notice that the dealer has pushed you the pot!
Are you taking this pot, or do you say "wait, the big blind hasn't acted"? Unless the big blind is hiding cards, I find it much harder to accept that the raiser, who was attempting a steal of the blinds, was not paying attention to whether the blinds have folded. And if she wasn't paying attention, IMO, she ought to have been. I have to consider the (in my mind, much more likely) possibility that the raiser knew full well that the action was not yet completed, but accepted the pot anyways to try to "force the win". I call this "willful blindness", and I don't think it's something that we can reward.
5. Is there any merit to the argument that in a situation analogous to the skipped player situations that we have been discussing, that the dealer and seat 6 are essentially "acting out of turn" here, and that seat 1, who is acting in turn, may be worthy of protection rather than having her hand automatically killed?
I think it's this last point that perhaps may actually be the strongest argument for those who favor letting the raiser keep the pot. Seat 1 does have an obligation to preserve her right to act if she is about to be skipped. There may be analogous "skipped player" situations, some which give the skipped player the benefit of the doubt if not enough time has passed to stop the action, while other suggest the hand may be ruled dead. For example, if the dealer makes a mistake and prematurely deals the next board card, the rules allow for the action to be completed and the board card to be redealt. Is this an analogous situation? Alternatively, if the dealer prematurely deals the next board card and there is further action, then many TDs will rule that the skipped hand would be dead if there was an outstanding bet that had not yet been called on the previous street. Is this similar?
I think on balance, unless the skipped player is hiding her cards, I personally think more of the fault has to lie with the raiser here -- unless there is some way to give skipped players more time to speak up. It's too bad we don't get dealers to announce something like "last chance to speak up before I award the pot", before pushing the pot.
Would anybody consider an even more creative solution... e.g. would you consider looking at the Big Blind's cards and trying to determine if they may have folded?
-
I think if the standard was the opposite, that a pot pushed stays where it is...there would be a large security concern regarding dealers. "Oops, I thought the hand was over and I pushed this pot to this guy that always hooks me up with big tips!" or "Man, this guy always takes so long to make a decision...I'll show him!" *Pushes pot to other player*.
Plus, as K-Lo pointed out, I'm not so sure the mucked player was so innocent in most of these cases. When I put all my chips at risk, I keep pretty close tabs on who is still in the hand...especially the blinds.
With that being said, I'm not opposed to other creative solutions...I just don't think keeping the, mistakenly pushed, pot in the wrong spot is the right move.
-
I think if the standard was the opposite, that a pot pushed stays where it is...there would be a large security concern regarding dealers. "Oops, I thought the hand was over and I pushed this pot to this guy that always hooks me up with big tips!" or "Man, this guy always takes so long to make a decision...I'll show him!" *Pushes pot to other player*.
Yes, exactly.
By the way, I polled a few other TDs off this board. Same decision.
-
Tristan,
I hear you but, you could argue dealer collusion either way, don't you think?
It's difficult to pinpoint the total blame on one individual. Let's consider what happened. The dealer clearly missed the BB still being in the hand, the BB did not protect her right to act, the 6 seat player failed to notice that the BB was still in the hand, as did all of the other players seated at the table.
A better trained dealer, that controls the action and is aware of the number of player's in the hand, would have prevented this mistake. We all know that...so why do we insist on making rules that stifle dealers by encouraging them to be silent? Player's and management don't trust dealers to do much of anything, and that's the problem.
Ken, I'm not sure I like giving the BB the 4000 call amount, either. It's bad enough the dealer pushes the pot prematurely. I might accept giving the total bet back, thus causing less financial damage to a player that just had their pot taken away.
-
It's difficult to pinpoint the total blame on one individual.
This is true.
the BB did not protect her right to act
I do not think this is true. The BB pointed out the error when the pot was pushed. The dealer pushing the pot is really only 1 action behind. We have defined substantial action as 2-3 actions depending on the situation. So I do not think it is fair to say that the BB failed to protect their action anymore than it would be fair to say that 1 player checking behind you means you failed to protect your action.
-
Thanks everyone for the great discussion. Let me pose another question...
What PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS might be considered that would minimize the risk of this type of situation occuring in the first place??
-
What PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS might be considered that would minimize the risk of this type of situation occuring in the first place??
It would be great if the dealer could make some sort of announcement before awarding the pot, but I think that is impractical and would slow down the game a lot. This type of thing happens so rarely to justify such a huge change in procedure. 99% of the time, the dealer does the right thing, and players are paying attention.
Also note that if the player had actually tabled her hand, the cards could be retrieved. We could force everyone to show their hands every time they take in a pot... but this is unrealistic.
The best thing that could have happened in my view, is to obligate players to make sure players keep their cards plainly visible at all times -- and this is now explicitly in the rules! If a player is able to plainly see that an opponent still has cards, he or she shouldn't be accepting any pot before the cards of that opponent are in the muck. Period.
Put another way, I am now going to point to seat 1's cards and say "why did you fold when you can clearly see that this player still has live cards?" Unless seat 6 has a good answer to that question, and not just "I didn't see it" or "who cares? The dealer pushed me the pot" or "I was all-in", seat 6 has to take responsibility for the error.
the BB did not protect her right to act
I do not think this is true. The BB pointed out the error when the pot was pushed. The dealer pushing the pot is really only 1 action behind. We have defined substantial action as 2-3 actions depending on the situation. So I do not think it is fair to say that the BB failed to protect their action anymore than it would be fair to say that 1 player checking behind you means you failed to protect your action.
I would tend to agree.
-
Dealer awareness is exactly what we need. We also need to allow the dealers to control the action clockwise from player to player. Clear verbal declarations are needed. Verbal is binding has been around for as long as I can remember but, it also causes confusion when statements are unclear. Dealers should ask for clarification from players before proceeding.
Tristan and Ken, you might be right about the BB not being guilty of "defending her right to act" but it's pretty tough to fault a player that was awarded the pot and asked to surrender their hand. I find it hard to believe that something like this would ever be a problem. Our tournaments need better dealers, and the good ones we have need to be allowed to control the action.
-
Seat #1 had a responsibility here that did not happen for whatever reason,
Seat #6 had a responsibility here that did not happen for whatever reason,
The dealer screwed up, I think I would be going to the muck on this one.
Ask seat six in private their hand if they cannot give me an exact hand to look for they forfeit pot, if the cards they claim are not in muck they forfeit pot.
If cards as stated are retrieved best hand wins.
-
The dealer screwed up, I think I would be going to the muck on this one.
Ask seat six in private their hand if they cannot give me an exact hand to look for they forfeit pot, if the cards they claim are not in muck they forfeit pot.
If cards as stated are retrieved best hand wins.
I think 5+ years ago, this may have been more acceptable, but I think that even Nick ::) would agree that the current practice is to not go through the muck looking for cards that have not been tabled. I think in a social, friendly game, you might make exceptions, and certainly your house rules may permit it. But in general, unless cards have been tabled (e.g. visible to cameras), I don't think digging through the muck for cards is considered a best practice in tournament direction anymore. Not even under an application of Rule 1.
There are many well-accepted reasons often given for this, not the least of which is that if we wanted to better protect against this type of dealer error, we could simply use a discard pile (e.g. like in blackjack where discards are kept in order) rather than a muck. For me personally though, the game integrity and security issues remain the most persuasive. Without going deep into the subject here (perhaps it's best left to another thread), let me just say this: leaving a mucked hand in the muck leaves the ultimate responsibility for the hand on the player who originally held it (which I think is where it must lie); this is preferable to pulling out cards from the muck and opening up the real possibility of dealers and/or the TD being accused of colluding with that player, or giving the impression that the player may be getting a chance to draw a better hand.
I agree with Nick that dealer awareness, and better trained dealers are important and much needed. Great dealers will prevent a lot of headaches. But I think there will always be a human element to consider so long as poker is played live, and even the best dealers will occasionally make mistakes. Given that possibility, i think it is more efficient to deal with the situation by better educating players: Yes, it is good practice to wait for the dealer to push you the pot before mucking your cards. That is your first line of defence. But be aware that dealers can err too, and there is room to further protect yourself by staying alert and satisfying yourself that no one else has live cards before releasing your hand. That is your last line of defence.
-
There are basic fundamental rules for players and dealers alike. if we practice these rules, the majority of the issues we discuss on a daily basis would be non-existent. Perhaps that is why we keep changing the simple rules of etiquette for job security for floorpersons! ;D
Seriously speaking, for players: act in turn, protect your own hand, and never surrender your winning hand until the pot is pushed to you...these are just a few basics that will prevent the great majority of problems from occurring.
Dealers: Control the action verbally and assist players when an obvious error is about to be made.
One other issue that I'd like to address: STAY OUT OF THE MUCK!!! And ken, I know you were joking about the discard rack. ;D You were joking, weren't you?
-
One other issue that I'd like to address: STAY OUT OF THE MUCK!!! And ken, I know you were joking about the discard rack. ;D You were joking, weren't you?
:) I wasn't advocating for the use of a discard rack, just simply pointing out that there's a reason why we use a muck and not a discard rack -- mucked cards are intended to stay mucked.
-
Seriously speaking, for players: act in turn, protect your own hand, and never surrender your winning hand until the hand is complete...these are just a few basics that will prevent the great majority of problems from occurring.
Fixed your post! ;)
-
Hi Pokerbug -
SB will lose the pot here. It is unfortunate that the dealer made an error and effectively induced SB to fold by pushing him or her the pot prematurely.
However, it is ultimately the player's responsibility to protect their own hand and that includes being aware of the action, which in turn includes being aware of which players at the table have not folded and thus still have cards in their possession.
In this case, seat 8, being the last player with cards, would be awarded the pot, including the SB's full bet of 4K which has been duly called [see Rule 56, also see new Rule 13 B]. For what it's worth, if the SB's cards were still clearly retrievable and identifiable despite making a motion to fold, they would be given back to the SB, and the hand would be played out.
K
Agreed.
Agreed
DISAGREE Completely.
1) At worst both players are chopping the pot. 2) At best Seat 4 (SB) is getting their bet returned and losing the right to all previous called bets. Both rules referenced, #13 and #56 have no bearing here. They do not address pushed pots. How can you possibly blame any player for releasing their hand after they have received the pot? HOW? When are you supposed to release your cards to the dealer if not after they've pushed the pot to you? After the dealer checks under every players hand and under the rail? When? That's preposterous that you're going to penalize them for following the rules of being pushed the pot.
I can argue all day and twice on Sunday if we have to (as long as football is over) for both rulings above. The reason #1 is worse is because Seat 4 benefits for not paying attention and actually nets 1,500 in chips. In option #2 Seat 4 loses 1,000 in chips and the right to all previous called bets, which is 5,000.
Of course I can argue it the other way as well, such as happened to me. I have first hand experience of having this happen to me. Therefore I'm extremely adamant about never releasing my cards and telling players the same. You're not getting my cards until I got every last chip in front me.
My actual hand was as follows - I'm in Seat 7 in BB. Everyone folds to Seat 5 and Seat 6 who limp for the call. I check and see the flop. I flop a full house. We checked and see the turn. Seat 6 checks and I bet (amount is irrelevant). Seat 5 calls, Seat 6 calls. River. Seat 6 checks. I bet, I get engaged in conversation with Seat 8 and 10. Pot gets pushed to me. I give the dealer my cards. Dealer mucks the board and begins to scramble. Seat 6 says "Hey I have cards". Everyone freezes in disbelief. How is this possible? What do you mean you have cards? We all look and see that he has both hands completely covering his cards. He lifts his hands and shows that in fact there are cards under them. Floor comes over and rules a chopped pot. Seems illogical to me since I'm involved in the hand and seeing how seat 6 was completely concealing his hand from everyone and the bet had never been called. The reason the floor made it a chopped pot was because he asked Seat 6 if he intended to call and Seat 6 replied, "Of Course!" "I have an Ace!" he says. I'm looking at the floor in complete disbelief.
But I guess I should be grateful, because if any of you guys would have been on the floor I WOULD'VE LOST ALL MY BETS AND THE POT!! :o :'(
So I had a very similar situation tonight. Although the ruling is pretty much "standard" now, players still get upset....
8 handed table. Blinds are 2000-4000. Seat 8 has the SB, Seat 1 has the BB. Action folds around to seat 6 who goes all-in for ~12000. Seats 7 and 8 fold.
Dealer forgets that the BB is in seat 1 and has not yet acted, and pushes the pot to Seat 6. Seat 6, seeing the pot pushed to her, releases her hand, which gets irretrievably mucked by the dealer.
Seat 1 points out that she still has cards, and the dealer admits his error. Seat 1's cards are still beneath a chip protector in front of her, and there was no indication that her cards were not in plain view to the table.
I ruled that the pot goes to seat 1, being the last person with live cards; seat 6 will lose the amount of the call (4000) but the rest of her wager (i.e. the uncalled portion of the all-in bet) is returned.
Would anyone else have handled this differently? Seat 6 was livid.
Much easier, the bet is uncalled. Ruling this the same.
-
1) At worst both players are chopping the pot. 2) At best Seat 4 (SB) is getting their bet returned and losing the right to all previous called bets. Both rules referenced, #13 and #56 have no bearing here. They do not address pushed pots.
I think the last point identifies the big problem here - as you say, the rules don't address pushed pots specifically. On the one hand, you have an explicit rule that says "If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his own risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules that the hand could not clearly be read, the player has no claim to the pot", which may or may not apply, and on the other hand, you have ... well... a "practice tip" that most people have heard of but has not been explicitly reflected in any rule book (I may be mistaken but I don't think I've seen any actual "rules" regarding pushed pots, although perhaps we should have one).
Thomas, when I first read your answer "DISAGREE Completely", it sounded like you were suggesting that the SB should be awarded the whole pot. But your option #2 has the SB effectively losing the pot anyways, so I don't think it is that much different from what the others have agreed on. Whether SB should get a "penalty" of the "called" 4K is at least debatable.
I don't like the "chopping the pot" solution. I think that's just a cop out to avoid making a difficult decision. In addition to the discovery of a fouled deck, I think chopping the pot should generally be reserved, in theory, for very extreme situations -- possibly where the house has made a huge error and both players are completely innocent. I'm not sure that's the case here.
To be clear, if there is evidence that an opponent hid his cards or that the cards were otherwise not in plain view, and that contributed to everyone at the table believing that the hand was over, then I actually would have no problem with even awarding the SB the pot as pushed in some cases. That certainly would seem to be defensible and in my view, fair. I would therefore not expect that the dealer has to check for all cards under the rail every time (that sounds pretty dramatic)... but I think both the dealer and the players have an obligation to follow the action and be reasonably certain that all action in the hand is complete before accepting the pot.
My actual hand was as follows - I'm in Seat 7 in BB. Everyone folds to Seat 5 and Seat 6 who limp for the call. I check and see the flop. I flop a full house. We checked and see the turn. Seat 6 checks and I bet (amount is irrelevant). Seat 5 calls, Seat 6 calls. River. Seat 6 checks. I bet, I get engaged in conversation with Seat 8 and 10. Pot gets pushed to me. I give the dealer my cards. Dealer mucks the board and begins to scramble. Seat 6 says "Hey I have cards". Everyone freezes in disbelief. How is this possible? What do you mean you have cards? We all look and see that he has both hands completely covering his cards. He lifts his hands and shows that in fact there are cards under them.
Just so I'm clear, how would you have ruled in your own situation? Would you have awarded yourself the pot or would you have returned your river bet and awarded seat 6 the remainder of the pot?
In any event, this is a much different situation. There does not seem to be any doubt that the cards were hidden. It is safe to assume that no one at the table could have reasonably verified that there was still action to be had.
However, poker is a visual game -- if an opponent's cards are in plain view, and especially if the called chips were put forth in plain view, I believe players have a responsibility to know what that means... there is still action pending. Could I accept the possibility of returning the SB's last bet in questionable situations? Perhaps. Would I award the SB the pot just because it was pushed to him? No way.
-
Yeah, I see those situations as different as well. Hidden cards are one thing, but in this situation seat 8 did no wrong. The funny thing is that I would have an easier time understanding a chop pot than I would giving a player a called bet back even though, in this situation, seat 8 would come out better that way (I think).
When I went back to re-read the original post, I was a bit confused with how much is actually in the pot. 5 players limped to see the pot, but none of the 5 seem to be the big blind unless seat 8 is actually the big blind and there are some empty seats. So I couldn't really determine the pot size, not that that should really have any bearing on the decision anyway.
-
1) At worst both players are chopping the pot. 2) At best Seat 4 (SB) is getting their bet returned and losing the right to all previous called bets. Both rules referenced, #13 and #56 have no bearing here. They do not address pushed pots.
I think the last point identifies the big problem here - as you say, the rules don't address pushed pots specifically. On the one hand, you have an explicit rule that says "If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his own risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules that the hand could not clearly be read, the player has no claim to the pot", which may or may not apply, and on the other hand, you have ... well... a "practice tip" that most people have heard of but has not been explicitly reflected in any rule book (I may be mistaken but I don't think I've seen any actual "rules" regarding pushed pots, although perhaps we should have one).
Thomas, when I first read your answer "DISAGREE Completely", it sounded like you were suggesting that the SB should be awarded the whole pot. But your option #2 has the SB effectively losing the pot anyways, so I don't think it is that much different from what the others have agreed on. Whether SB should get a "penalty" of the "called" 4K is at least debatable.
Correct. I'm glad I saw this thread and wish this would have been able to be addressed at the Summit. This subject matter has way more weight IMO than most of the other subjects that were addressed. It's definitely a sore spot with me due my first hand experience. It's one thing to have the dealer swipe your unprotected cards and lose out on a pot because of both player error and dealer error combined. It's a whole different situation to have the pot pushed to you, you receive the chips and then release your cards after accepting the pot and then have it taken away from you because the dealer failed to see that some other player hasn't protected their own action. There's a thread that I can't seem to find where I advocate that the dealer is in fact part of the action. Meaning that when the dealer raps the table, that is your clue as a player that all action has been concluded for that betting round. Speak up of forever hold your peace and lose your right to act. There's also another reference I saw
So I'm in no way in favor like you and many others, of letting the SB win the hand in this spot. However, I'm not in favor of complete and total collateral damage either. The only reason the SB doesn't have cards is because the dealer pushed the pot to them. So the only options available here are a refund of the called bet, which many folks would go crazy over I'm sure or to chop the pot, which a whole other group would go crazy over as well. But which is the least damage to both players who didn't do anything wrong. The person in this equation who did anything wrong is our Dealer. So why are we penalizing any of the players?
This is not the same as the Gail Baumann situation where the player threw his cards in thinking he won the blinds and the TDA felt compelled to address this in Rule #13. It's completely different.
This is a situation where a bet was called verbally, heard by two players, but not the whole table and not even the dealer, nor were there any chips pushed into the pot to make the call. The player by the posters own account was still counting chips and had made no motion to the pot. How can we in good faith hold accountable the person who got pushed the pot for not knowing that another player had cards? When you get pushed a pot you are in full faith that all other players have folded. That's just common instinct.
I don't like the "chopping the pot" solution. I think that's just a cop out to avoid making a difficult decision. In addition to the discovery of a fouled deck, I think chopping the pot should generally be reserved, in theory, for very extreme situations -- possibly where the house has made a huge error and both players are completely innocent. I'm not sure that's the case here.
So you agree with me, that Chopping the pot is the best option. You say it here yourself in bold. The dealer is part of the house. The dealer works for the house. The dealer is an instrument the house employs to control the game. You know by most of my posts here that I'm no advocate for placing blame on the dealer in 90% of my posts. The players are to be held accountable too. But for me, in this case. I just don't see it.
To be clear, if there is evidence that an opponent hid his cards or that the cards were otherwise not in plain view, and that contributed to everyone at the table believing that the hand was over, then I actually would have no problem with even awarding the SB the pot as pushed in some cases. That certainly would seem to be defensible and in my view, fair. I would therefore not expect that the dealer has to check for all cards under the rail every time (that sounds pretty dramatic)... but I think both the dealer and the players have an obligation to follow the action and be reasonably certain that all action in the hand is complete before accepting the pot.
Again... you agree with me, although you try to persuade yourself from it ;)
My actual hand was as follows - I'm in Seat 7 in BB. Everyone folds to Seat 5 and Seat 6 who limp for the call. I check and see the flop. I flop a full house. We checked and see the turn. Seat 6 checks and I bet (amount is irrelevant). Seat 5 calls, Seat 6 calls. River. Seat 6 checks. I bet, I get engaged in conversation with Seat 8 and 10. Pot gets pushed to me. I give the dealer my cards. Dealer mucks the board and begins to scramble. Seat 6 says "Hey I have cards". Everyone freezes in disbelief. How is this possible? What do you mean you have cards? We all look and see that he has both hands completely covering his cards. He lifts his hands and shows that in fact there are cards under them.
Just so I'm clear, how would you have ruled in your own situation? Would you have awarded yourself the pot or would you have returned your river bet and awarded seat 6 the remainder of the pot?
In any event, this is a much different situation. There does not seem to be any doubt that the cards were hidden. It is safe to assume that no one at the table could have reasonably verified that there was still action to be had.
However, poker is a visual game -- if an opponent's cards are in plain view, and especially if the called chips were put forth in plain view, I believe players have a responsibility to know what that means... there is still action pending. Could I accept the possibility of returning the SB's last bet in questionable situations? Perhaps. Would I award the SB the pot just because it was pushed to him? No way.
In my situation I would have given myself the pot!! What self proclaimed poker player would give up any portion of a pot voluntarily? None. (KIDDING sorta). I would have give myself the pot. In my situation two things were really clear. There was a bet, in clear view (a giant stack of chips). Dealer had looked for other hands, did not see any, pushed the pot to me, I released my hand, dealer mucks the board and begins to scramble. It was not until this moment that the player with cards spoke up. Whats a reasonable time allotment here? How long does a player have in order to protect his hand. Is it before the pot is pushed? After the pot is pushed? Before a dealer begins to scramble for the next hand? Is it after the dealer begins to scramble? How long do we give him before his action is void? I mean, by all accounts assuming I would get a shot at the pot, it be in my best interest as a player to never fold my hand. Just wait for the dealer to push a pot and start to scramble and then say "Hey, I have cards" and win every pot uncontested.
I don't particularly like chopping pots either, but sometimes you have to ask yourself what is fair, pushing someone a pot simple because they have cards, when they haven't called all bets and the pot has been pushed, is absolute craziness.
-
When I went back to re-read the original post, I was a bit confused with how much is actually in the pot. 5 players limped to see the pot, but none of the 5 seem to be the big blind unless seat 8 is actually the big blind and there are some empty seats. So I couldn't really determine the pot size
Read it again ;)
-
So I'm in no way in favor like you and many others, of letting the SB win the hand in this spot.
Just so that we are clear, as far as characterizing my position, you mean letting the other player win the pot (the player that still has cards), yes?
This is a situation where a bet was called verbally, heard by two players, but not the whole table and not even the dealer, nor were there any chips pushed into the pot to make the call.
So, are you saying that IF the chips had been pushed into the pot to make the call, you would let the player still with cards win the whole pot?
Dealer had looked for other hands, did not see any, pushed the pot to me
So, what if there was NO evidence that the other player's cards were covered or hidden?
Let's change the situation slightly -- what if the player who was pushed the pot even admitted as much (e.g. "I didn't notice if he had cards still, I wasn't looking"; "Yeah, I saw he still had cards, but so what, the dealer pushed me the pot"), would you still allow the pot to be awarded as pushed or split the pot?
pushing someone a pot simple because they have cards, when they haven't called all bets and the pot has been pushed, is absolute craziness.
In making your point, you very cleverly ignored the most important part of my summary:
"if an opponent's cards are in plain view, and especially if the called chips were put forth in plain view, I believe players have a responsibility to know what that means... there is still action pending"
IMO, all of these types of situations are... situational. I don't think that someone should be pushed the pot simply because they have cards; on the other hand, I don't think the player who doesn't have cards should automatically deserve any protection simply because the dealer makes an error.
If a player's cards aren't hidden (unlike your situation, there was no evidence that cards were hidden in the original post, and if there was, the decision would be different), but the pot is about to be pushed elsewhere because the dealer isn't paying attention, you really don't think the player about to receive the pot has any obligation to point out the error to the dealer and the table before allowing the dealer to take his cards?
-
Hi all - I am new here. Had an interesting situation the other night and would like feed back. NLH tournament. Blinds are at 500/1k. 5 players limp to see the flop. SB (seat 4) bets 4K. next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly. The other player in the 3 seat also folds. The dealer puts down the stub, pushes the pot to the sb as the caller is counting her chips out for the call. SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her. 8 seat says "I called", and dealer realizes he missed the verbal and the fact that another player still had cards, but SB cards are deep in the muck and unidentifiable. Now what?
Perhaps my interpretation of the scenario is different than others. The way it was laid out, I envision seat 8, with cards in plain view, saying call and then looking down to cut out their chips. Meanwhile the other players fold and while the dealer is pushing the pot, 2 things happen. The SB mucks their own cards and seat 8, presumably in the process of pushing out the amount of the call, notices what is going on and voices a protest.
I only see 2 mistakes there. Seat 8 did absolutely no wrong as far as I can tell from the information provided. The dealer started pushing the pot too soon...that is a mistake. I see that mistake at least 2-3 times a week and that is only when the pot gets intermingled with a players stack. Usually the dealer will catch it before it gets that far. The other mistake was the SB mucking their own cards before the hand was complete. Undeniably their 'mistake' was caused by the dealers mistake...but can we be 100% sure that it was a mistake?? I say no...if they were bluffing it is a perfect angle shot to throw their cards into the muck and hope to keep the pot (or hope Thomas is the TD and they get half of it ;D ).
I cannot see taking away half of a pot from a player that seemingly did no wrong because of a mistake by a dealer and a mistake by the other player that may or may not have been an actual mistake.
Why I see it that way:
It is titled dealer error.
Multiple players heard seat 8 say call.
No mention was made of hidden cards.
A valid reason was given on why seat 8 missed the pot being pushed too soon.
The SB, not the dealer, mucked their cards too soon.
Had the cards been hidden or if the dealer had also been the one to muck the SB's hand, I would view the situation differently. If we start to make chopping the pot the norm in this case, we are encouraging the SB to remain silent and muck quickly unless they have a good hand. We create a large angle that cannot be fixed...and it could be argued that the situation will not happen that often, but I would counter that with saying that if chopping here is the norm...this 'mistake' will happen more often than it does now.
I usually agree with what you Thomas, but here I think maybe you are letting your previous bad experience influence the way you view this scenario. I don't view what happened to you as the same as what happened here.
-
Hi all - I am new here. Had an interesting situation the other night and would like feed back. NLH tournament. Blinds are at 500/1k. 5 players limp to see the flop. SB (seat 4) bets 4K. next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly. The other player in the 3 seat also folds. The dealer puts down the stub, pushes the pot to the sb as the caller is counting her chips out for the call. SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her. 8 seat says "I called", and dealer realizes he missed the verbal and the fact that another player still had cards, but SB cards are deep in the muck and unidentifiable. Now what?
Perhaps my interpretation of the scenario is different than others. The way it was laid out, I envision seat 8, with cards in plain view, saying call and then looking down to cut out their chips. Meanwhile the other players fold and while the dealer is pushing the pot, 2 things happen. The SB mucks their own cards and seat 8, presumably in the process of pushing out the amount of the call, notices what is going on and voices a protest.
I usually agree with you Thomas, but here I think maybe you are letting your previous bad experience influence the way you view this scenario. I don't view what happened to you as the same as what happened here.
I was kinda joking about the read it again thing. But I highlighted the quote from the original post determines my decision and I'll recopy here.
SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her.
The words 'since the pot has been pushed to her', which means to me, the dealer has completed pushing the pot. But that's not the sole thing. In addition, the player with cards who says they called, has not put any chips in the pot. How do you make a call, not put any chips in the pot, let the action fold around, let the dealer push the pot, let the dealer muck the board presumably, let the SB player muck their hand and then decide to speak up and let the dealer know that you called? How is it that NONE of the other players tried to stop the dealer from doing all of this knowing that Seat 8 said call? And then, after all that happens, you're going to get called over and you're going to tell the SB player "Sorry Charlie" you lose the pot and all your chips in that pot. And then, you get to tell the SB player, I'm sorry you should have not mucked your hand after the receiving the pot. I'm sorry that you've made a mistake, you shouldn't muck after receiving the pot. You should know that. Or you should know that another player called when there's no chips in the pot. That's your mistake.
That's just nonsense.
K-lo in his above reply wants to change the situation a little bit, so lets suppose that the SB is deaf. They see the pot pushed them and release their cards toward the muck because that's what you do when you get pushed the pot. You release your hand. Now what? How do you protect the SB player?
You actually believe that the SB getting pushed the pot creates an angle play by the SB to muck their hand so they can get their chips back? Com'on guys.
If there's any angle play here, it's seat 8 saying call and not putting any chips into the pot, the letting the dealer do all that they did, including letting the SB muck their cards AFTER receiving the pot and then saying "Hey I've got cards" in order to win the entire pot. If any player is going to angle shoot, they're going to angle shoot for the entire pot, not half of a pot.
Just my view. I do what I can to be fair. Rule #1 trumps all other rules IMO.
-
So I'm in no way in favor like you and many others, of letting the SB win the hand in this spot.
Just so that we are clear, as far as characterizing my position, you mean letting the other player win the pot (the player that still has cards), yes?
No I mean, not letting the small blind win the pot entirely.
This is a situation where a bet was called verbally, heard by two players, but not the whole table and not even the dealer, nor were there any chips pushed into the pot to make the call.
So, are you saying that IF the chips had been pushed into the pot to make the call, you would let the player still with cards win the whole pot?
[/quote]
Yes, because as many TD's like to say, "It's a visual game." Nobody says "It's a verbal game". They say, "Verbal is binding" but that is in regards to binding action.
Dealer had looked for other hands, did not see any, pushed the pot to me
So, what if there was NO evidence that the other player's cards were covered or hidden?
Let's change the situation slightly -- what if the player who was pushed the pot even admitted as much (e.g. "I didn't notice if he had cards still, I wasn't looking"; "Yeah, I saw he still had cards, but so what, the dealer pushed me the pot"), would you still allow the pot to be awarded as pushed or split the pot?
[/quote]
These are the question I like to ask too. A mini interrogation.
For #1 - "I didn't notice" - my next question is going to be, "Well were they hidden?" That usually leads to my decision one way or another and I'll probably ask another question based on their response, before a final decision.
For #2 - "I saw he had cards" - my question is going to be, "And what made you think they folded?". If I get this response, they just lost the pot. It's no different than a judge listening to someone plead their case. So many times on these TV court shows you see Party A suing Part B. Party A says, "I loaned Party B money". Party B denies this. The judge then says to Party B, "Tell how it came about that Party A gave you money?" "Blah blah blah and I said I'd pay them back, but I didn't sign any papers that said it was a loan!" Uh..... ya pal. You just said you'd pay them back. That's a loan. You lose Party B.
pushing someone a pot simple because they have cards, when they haven't called all bets and the pot has been pushed, is absolute craziness.
In making your point, you very cleverly ignored the most important part of my summary:
"if an opponent's cards are in plain view, and especially if the called chips were put forth in plain view, I believe players have a responsibility to know what that means... there is still action pending"
IMO, all of these types of situations are... situational. I don't think that someone should be pushed the pot simply because they have cards; on the other hand, I don't think the player who doesn't have cards should automatically deserve any protection simply because the dealer makes an error.
If a player's cards aren't hidden (unlike your situation, there was no evidence that cards were hidden in the original post, and if there was, the decision would be different), but the pot is about to be pushed elsewhere because the dealer isn't paying attention, you really don't think the player about to receive the pot has any obligation to point out the error to the dealer and the table before allowing the dealer to take his cards?
[/quote]
I think they a responsibility if they are aware. Because this is a post and we weren't there we have to presume that the SB player is unaware. We do know that it was a multi-way pot. It wasn't heads up. That's a factor to me. In heads up I fully expect the SB player to know if the other player has cards. In a multi-way pot, not necessarily the case.
-
So despite the post before last, from the last post it seems that we aren't actually that far apart in opinion. We are probably all reading things into the question that are unknown - Thomas assumes that the SB was unaware and had no reason to think it was called (perhaps the cards were hidden in addition to no chips being put out), where Tristan and I assumed that the cards were in plain view and that SB should at least ought to have been aware of them since they were not hidden. Since none of us were there, we do not know what happened.
Nevertheless, the last post, I believe, shows where we have common ground. I think much earlier in this thread I suggested that the SB really ought to have been asked something to the effect "why did you fold when this player clearly still had cards"? The question really needs to be asked by the TD, and the SB needs to give a satisfactory answer in order to save himself.
Even more important, I think we agree that if a caller's chips are pushed forward and someone else mucks thinking they have won, it is going to be much more difficult for the SB to answer the question "and what made you think they folded" satisfactorily.
-
Hi all - I am new here. Had an interesting situation the other night and would like feed back. NLH tournament. Blinds are at 500/1k. 5 players limp to see the flop. SB (seat 4) bets 4K. next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly. The other player in the 3 seat also folds. The dealer puts down the stub, pushes the pot to the sb as the caller is counting her chips out for the call. SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her. 8 seat says "I called", and dealer realizes he missed the verbal and the fact that another player still had cards, but SB cards are deep in the muck and unidentifiable. Now what?
Yep, like I said earlier...I think it is our interpretation that is different. My bolded part below in the OP's example, happened before the SB mucked. That implies, to me, that there were chips being put forward. Which then leads me to believe that seat 8 is doing nothing that could be an angle. Say call, start putting out chips for the call, and then protest when the pot gets pushed incorrectly. What else can you do??
I think we all agree that if the situation is slightly different, we would make rulings according with the circumstances. I stress again, this is my ruling based on the above interpretation.
Hi all - I am new here. Had an interesting situation the other night and would like feed back. NLH tournament. Blinds are at 500/1k. 5 players limp to see the flop. SB (seat 4) bets 4K. next to act is the 8 seat, who says call very softly, without moving. 9 and 10 seat hear her call and fold instanly. The other player in the 3 seat also folds. The dealer puts down the stub, pushes the pot to the sb as the caller is counting her chips out for the call. SB mucks INTO the muck since the pot has been pushed to her. 8 seat says "I called", and dealer realizes he missed the verbal and the fact that another player still had cards, but SB cards are deep in the muck and unidentifiable. Now what?
-
Thomas,
I agree with your earlier comment, I will quote you: "How can you possibly blame any player for releasing their hand after they have received the pot? HOW? When are you supposed to release your cards to the dealer if not after they've pushed the pot to you? After the dealer checks under every players hand and under the rail? When? That's preposterous that you're going to penalize them for following the rules of being pushed the pot."
That was your original response, and I'm sure that would have been the action you would have taken. Don't let anyone change your mind.