Author Topic: Hypothetical Situation  (Read 11025 times)

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Hypothetical Situation
« on: August 21, 2010, 12:57:32 PM »
Were having a Technical Debate over a hypothetical siuation!

2 players left at the river and a big pot has ensued, the river card goes down and both players muck their cards at the same time (say for example they have both missed their draws)

What happens to the money in the middle!? We've came up with a few technical reasoning's that should apply to the situation, and finally after some deliberation and debate came up with a valid solution.

1) You can't split the pot as that is not in the best interests of the tournament
2) No-one won the pot as the last man standing, A folded in turn and B folded out of turn (at the same time as A)

Before I say what I came up with I'd like to hear other people's opinion and reasoning!

Stu

MaxH

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2010, 02:00:06 PM »
Assuming the hands are able to be identified - let the cards speak!
IMHO, best hand wins is the only fair way to determine the winner.
Max

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2010, 04:05:11 PM »
I've never faced this exact situation but here's how I'd be inclined to proceed...

1) Under "normal" circumstances, as confirmed at the 2009 Summit, a player has the "right" to bet-muck or check-muck at showdown. In which case the dealer is to respect the action, not expose the cards, kill the hand, and award the pot to the other player who needs not show his hand. Under these circumstances, IMO the hand is not dead until it's been killed by the dealer... at which time the pot is awarded to the remaining player. Clearly if a sequence can be established where one player tosses his cards first and they are first killed by dealer, then even if the other player follows suit, that player should receive the pot because the first hand has already been killed. IMO we might run into micro-analysis of this subject when we have, say, identically timed tosses but sequenced dealer kills or when Player 1's hand is tossed first but Player 2's hand somehow is killed first... but without delving into those variations which may or may not result in a different ruling but definitely add layers of complexity....

.... lets assume in this hypothetical situation the hands are both tossed and killed so simultaneously that we cannot establish a sequence of anything ...

2) So, first off I'm sure I would try and retrieve the cards which may be difficult if not impossible here. I would need 100% certainty as to the card identity to use this method.

Lets assume the cards cannot be identified to 100% certainty.

THEN, in the unlikely but hypothetical situation where all the above has occured, I would reason that the pot should be split. Reasoning is that we would award the pot to one or the other if we knew the sequence, since we don't we award Player 1 half for Player 2's muck and Player 2 half for Player 1's muck.  Also, because these 2 players were the ones that took the risk and made the bets to get to the showdown, and because there's not a defective deck I don't like the idea of refunding to all players who have chips in the pot. I also don't like the idea of using an "order of showdown" rule here because bet/muck IMO supersedes order of showdown and makes it irrelevant... That's a way of saying that while I'm not excited about splitting the pot here, I like the alternatives even less.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2010, 11:07:10 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2010, 07:39:23 AM »
What a unique situation. I think the pot should be left in the center for the next deal. There is no mention of the two remaining players being the only contributors to the pot. If both hands were simultaneously and undeniably mucked by both players, IMO allowing the two players to split the pot would create too many angles for collusion. Imagine two players (working together) forcing players out of a hand, with huge bets and raises, and then having them split the pot after they muck their hands.

I would like to comment on what Mike said about a players right to bet-muck and check-muck at the showdown. Can you give examples?

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2010, 10:42:21 AM »
Bingo!

Exactly the ruing we came up with Nick. The RROP Rules (along with TDA rule #1) I could find to attribute to the situations are:

15. Splitting pots will not be allowed in any game. Chopping the big and small blind by taking them back when all other players have folded is allowed in button games

5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal.

6. If there is extra money in the pot on a deal as a result of forfeited money from the previous deal (as per rule #5), or some similar reason, only a player dealt in on the previous deal is entitled to a hand.

I can't see me splitting the pot as Mike's reply for the reasons Nick has stated, which only leaves the chips as forfeited and continued to the next hand.

Stu

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2010, 10:28:30 PM »
Exactly the ruing we came up with Nick. The RROP Rules (along with TDA rule #1) I could find to attribute to the situations are: 15. Splitting pots will not be allowed in any game. Chopping the big and small blind by taking them back when all other players have folded is allowed in button games 5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal. 6. If there is extra money in the pot on a deal as a result of forfeited money from the previous deal (as per rule #5), or some similar reason, only a player dealt in on the previous deal is entitled to a hand.

I can't see me splitting the pot as Mike's reply for the reasons Nick has stated, which only leaves the chips as forfeited and continued to the next hand
Hi Stu... obviously we're not going to find a rule that addresses this exact rare hypothetical situation so we have to extrapolate existing general rules and search for what seems to be the most equitable solution A) Per TDA "in the interest of fairness" and B) Per Roberts "in the spirit of fairness"....... Re Roberts Rule 15) This rule, IMO, applies to an AGREEMENT to split the pot, which of course is not ever allowed. Robert expounds on this in Section 10, rule 7 "Splitting pots is determined only by the cards, and not by agreement among players..."  We don't have an attempt to form an agreement to split the pot so this prohibition against splitting doesn't apply here IMO, further the card situation of the two players is identical... Re Rule 5) This rule addresses what happens when a defective deck is discovered and a player has attempted to benefit from it... The chips remaining in the pot pursuant to Rule 5 are not ALL the chips from all the players, only the chips of the player who tried to cover up the sitatuion and benefit from it.. the chips of the other players in the hand are split and returned to them according to how much they had in the pot when the deck was discovered to be defective... again in this hypothetical situation the deck isn't defective and no player is being nefarious and trying to benefit from anything so I can't really stretch this rule to apply to the hypothetical situation at hand.... If you want to use the defective deck regulations as a basis for remedy here then I feel returning the monies to all players who had money in the pot would be more analagous, given that no player has committed an ethical violation here... the reason I don't like this as a first solution is that there's no defective deck in they hypo situation.... Again, while I'm not excited about awarding half the pot to each remaining player here, I feel that's alot more equitable than allowing their at-risk money to find itself into the pot of the next hand where it may enrich a player who had little or no risk on this hand. That seems to me far more inequitable than a split between the remaining players who had their money at risk on this hand. We split pots all the time between two players who have identical hands and who are not guilty of any ethical violation. These two players are in identical situations and neither has acted in an unethical manner... that's not entirely analagous to what we have here, but nothing is... I think we just have to each come to a ruling that we feel is fair and defensible in these situations.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 11:34:28 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2010, 07:09:37 AM »
Mike,
 How can you assume that these players did not act in an unethical manner? Players are obligated to protect their own hand. Why does a player muck their hand. 1.) They are beaten by a better hand...2.) They have no interest in the pot, because they missed their monster draw on the river......or 3.) They think they have a winner because they think all opposing players have folded, but there is a player still in the hand. By tossing their cards into the muck, they have no interest in, or right to the pot. The situation that was described by Stuart, was two players that simaltaniouly mucked their hands. This is very suspicious and would raise a "red flag" as a clear indication of collusion, especially if the players knew that they would split the pot.

 How would you like to be eliminated from the hand, after being forced out by two players that had you "in the middle," only to watch them split your money at the end, when they both muck their hands.

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2010, 08:39:11 AM »
Wait a second..
maybe what everybody missed in the discussion is that the are not at showdown.
Quote
"the river card goes down and both players muck their cards at the same time (say for example they have both missed their draws)"
which means that player first to act just folded without check to go to the showdown.
So, we can award pot to player2 because:
1) if player first to act, folded, then the second player can muck his cards.
2) if they both mucked together, we can still assign pot to player2 cause he acted after player1.

This is my opinion about this type of hand
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2010, 09:55:21 AM »
Linker Split,
 Okay, so what you are saying is; we should award the pot to the player that is last in order of showdown, even though he did not wait for the bettor in front of him to act first, (remember, they mucked their hands together). This is based on your theory, (in our hypothetical situation) that the first player to act at the showdown is the automatic loser. Okay, so you write up your house rule like that and when I play in your casino I will abide by it. That is the way it should be. It kind of reminds me of a line of a great actor (Yul Brynner) in a classic movie (The Ten Commandments)........."So, let it be said....so let it be written......so let it be done!"

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2010, 10:08:28 AM »
no wait what I'm trying to say is that we are not at showdown: the players mucked their hands after the dealer turned the river.
Player1 just folded that's all.
So in this situation i will give the pot to player2.

but, if the question was "at SHOWDOWN who wins the pot?" I would try to find a solution.
my solution was for a non-showdown betting round (the river)
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2010, 10:34:23 AM »
very valid point linker - however bear in mind statement 2 of my original post:

2) No-one won the pot as the last man standing, A folded in turn and B folded out of turn (at the same time as A)

I like your reasoning and it was one I had thought of originally also, however technically he has folded out of turn and at the same time as player A.  To establish a last man standing there has to be a key sequence of events which leads to one player having the only 'live' hand remaining on the table, at which point that player should (in most circumstances) receive the pot.

Best regards and thanks for the input!

Mike - thanks for the input once again, certainly got plenty of people thinking! - IMO both players have irrevocably forefeited the pot and whilst RROP has no real coverage it does say "or some similar reason" which IMO I would view as both players surrendering claim to the pot by irrevocably mucking their cards, therefore if both players have surrendered claim it would be only fair in the best interests of the game that all players at the table have a claim to those chips on the next deal.  I get what you mention about other players not contributing much to that pot however for the above reasons and Nick's interpretation of opening the door to collusion between players I am very fond of making the pot during that hand unclaimed.

Stu
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 06:44:19 AM by Stuart Murray »

The Hitman

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Hypothetical Situation
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2010, 03:09:13 AM »
Hi everybody,

Maybe I'm gonna say something idiot but in this case:
I think it's the dealer's responsibility not to kill the hands, if he's aware of the action he must let both hands to be identified by the floor manager in order to make a showdown.
I know players must protect their hands, but in this case, common sense must be applied to decide who wins the pot.
I think our job is also to protect the player.

Maybe I'm wrong but for me it seems logical.

See you!