Author Topic: Killing an All-In Hand  (Read 7055 times)

Thehux

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Killing an All-In Hand
« on: February 13, 2011, 08:41:48 PM »
Hello fellow TDA members.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Matt, Linda, Jan and Dave for all the hard work that they have put in to poker over the course of their careers. They are pioneers, and their guidance has certainly helped me in my quest to become a part of this great industry.

Secondly, I have a question I would like to discuss with everyone.

I recently took the TDA exam that they have online, (yes I passed), but felt that there was one particular question that could be interpreted in a different manner than that which it was.

While I am unable to remember the question verbatim, I do recall the basic principles of the question.

The question states that a player has moved all in, and her cards were now mucked. Either willingly or by the dealer, I don't believe it stated how. Either way, the players hand was retrievable from the muck and could be verified.

The question is, what is the status of that hand?

Are they entitled to the pot? Is the hand live?

From my standpoint, I like to say that you can never kill an ALL-IN hand. Reason being primarily to avoid any chance of collusion. Let's say for example that player A and player B are playing as a team. Player A has a big stack, and player B has a short stack. Player A is first to act in a multi-way pot with Player B being last to act. Player A moves All-In. Action folds around to Player B who then also moves All-In(Call). Player A now mucks his hand, and therefore dumps chips to Player B. Surely this is not possible, and this is also one of the primary reasons why all cards must be turned face up in any All-In and call situation, to avoid collusion.

I felt that in the question posed, because the hand was retrievable, then it had to be live. This was not the correct answer.

Please discuss.

Cheers from down under!

HUX



chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2011, 09:55:06 PM »
Welcome:

There are three different TDA rules that may apply to this situation:

"#9 - Face Up
  All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and betting action is complete."

"#10 - Killing Winning Hand
  Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled and was obviously the winning hand...."

"#39 - Unprotected Hands
  If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets...."

Based upon a strict interpretation of the current TDA rules, the hand is dead and whether it can be retrieved or reconstructed doesn't matter.  It is the players responsibility to protect his/her hole cards, PERIOD.  Perhaps a bit unfair, perhaps very harsh but that is the way it is.

The only way, under existing TDA rules to retrieve the cards/reconstruct the hand would be if the hand was tabled face up and was then erroneously mucked by the dealer.

In fact there was a televised tournament a couple of years ago where a player had pocket Aces which were erroneously mucked by the dealer (never tabled).  The ruling was the players hand was dead.

That said, there are some who would retrieve the cards/reconstruct the hand based upon TDA Rule #1.  However, that would not be in keeping with the 'official' TDA rules as I have stated.  Hence, the incorrect response.

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2011, 10:15:55 PM »
Hi Hux,

I hate to think our quiz was done under from down under. You might have us...either the hand was unprotected and mucked or it was retrieveable and live. I agree that the TDA quiz should see it as live and playable to conclusion once retrieved. Webmaster, can you shed some light on our test question? 

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2011, 01:17:04 AM »
Hi Hux.... At the risk of revealing one of the TDA test questions, I think this is the one you're asking about:

During a NLHE event a lady in seat 4 grabs her chips and pushes them forward, past her cards, and declares all-in. The dealer takes her cards and places them on top of the 4 card muck. The lady protests and gets her cards back and asks for a ruling ..The correct answer is: Give her bet back and rule her cards dead.

Perhaps the question wasn't worded as well as it could be, but in the question where it says "gets her cards back", it's meant that she herself snatches her cards back, not that the dealer identifies them and gives them to her as live cards...

SO.... we have a situation where a bet has been made, but the dealer has (in error) mucked her cards onto the muck pile. As the rules stand now, there is no redress for this because she had an unprotected hand... while we can guess which cards are hers, we can't know for certain, therefore the cards are not retrievable and must be considered dead. As regrettable as this error is, it just wouldn't be fair to remaining players to guess as to what her cards were... The only remaining question is what to do with her all-in bet. Since it has not yet been called by another player, it can and should be returned to her. Hence the answer "Give her bet back and rule her cards dead"....
Thanks alot for the question and congratulations on passing the exam !
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 02:22:24 AM by MikeB »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2011, 08:47:29 AM »
Wow, that is an incredibly badly written question if that is the answer you were looking for.  I would be curious if you guys have looked to see what the percentage of correct answers you have gotten with it.  Of course, as a previous instructor in an unrelated field I know it can take a lot of fine tuning to get good test questions.  Usually, right about the time you need to change them.

You definitely need to include "unprotected" in that question.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2011, 04:41:16 PM »
You definitely need to include "unprotected" in that question.
  As the rules stand right now, there's not concensus that I'm aware of regarding a distinction between unprotected and protected... the redress is the same, the player can have any uncalled bet returned to them.  Many people consider the fact that the dealer was able to scoop the cards up to be prima facie evidence that the cards were unprotected in the first place.

We tried to work last year on coming up with some sort of language that would clearly delineate a solution for protected vs. unprotected but we couldn't even get as far as to agree on what those are, let alone a different solution for each.  Perhaps this subject should be re-visited at the next Summit, but I'd personally be surprised if a concensus can be achieved.... One reason is I think some TD's fear that if we start allowing some sort of redress beyond return of uncalled bet for "protected" situations, then more of the unprotected players are going to start complaining that they didn't get the same treatment, and in many situations it would come down to a judgement call as to whether the hand was or wasn't protected, so to avoid all that they just considered any hand that was in a position to be snatched to be unprotected by definition....

Regarding the test, the following language is closer to the intent of the question: "During a NLHE event a lady in seat 4 grabs her chips and pushes them forward, past her cards, and declares all-in. The dealer takes her cards and places them on top of the 4 card muck. Protesting the dealer action, the lady reaches over, pulls her cards back, and asks for a ruling ..."
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 04:49:08 PM by MikeB »

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2011, 05:49:42 PM »
To quote a fellow cardroom manager when asked how you define protected "If the dealer can swipe your cards then they ain't protected"

I think that covered the subject nicely.

Stu

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2011, 11:34:58 PM »

Mike, putting 'unprotected hand' into our test question should clarify enough to lead our readers' to the correct answer as you stated it.

Stuart,
To quote a fellow cardroom manager when asked how you define protected "If the dealer can swipe your cards then they ain't protected"
I think our question, "What is a protected hand?', may be as simple and as harsh as your definition above.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2011, 06:44:26 PM »
..., but the dealer has (in error) mucked her cards onto the muck pile. As the rules stand now, there is no redress for this because she had an unprotected hand... while we can guess which cards are hers, we can't know for certain, therefore the cards are not retrievable and must be considered dead. As regrettable as this error is, it just wouldn't be fair to remaining players to guess as to what her cards were... The only remaining question is what to do with her all-in bet.

Mike you seem to be saying a couple of different things in your explanation of the correct answer/question.  On the one hand you say that the dealer IN ERROR mucks her cards.  If they are unprotected then is it an error?  Yes, as he shouldn't be killing an all in hand.  then you say that the cards are not identifiable and should be declared dead.  But the question clearly states that the dealer placed them on top of the 4 card muck which leads me to believe that are actually very easily identified.  EXCEPT that it was the player and not the dealer or floor that retrieved them so who knows for CERTAIN that she grabbed the proper two. 

So for me, I am getting this one wrong if I take the test because the question is a little too vague to illicit the correct response.  However, I think the lynch pin should be that SHE grabbed them and not the dealer but I still think I miss it.  However, if I can figure out that the cards should be ruled dead then I definitely give her chips back...

pokerfish

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • cardplayercruises.com
Re: Killing an All-In Hand
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2011, 01:18:08 AM »
Hux,
Thanks for the nice comments towards the BOD. With that in tow, we'll arrange a Summit for 2011 ok? Dates to be announced soon. As for the test questions, we all admit some of them are pretty lame. If you guys would like to submit some better questions than we have now, we'd be pleased to replace the bad ones we have. This one we're discussing here is making a good point but is badly written. That said, there are some that are so lame - we'd love to improve the exam but coming up with the questions quickly (as we had to do at the time) got a less than stellar result. Please submit good test questions and we'll make a better exam!
Jan Fisher
Jan Fisher
TDA - Board of Directors
http://www.cardplayercruises.com