Author Topic: Final Table Muck  (Read 6908 times)

TCargile

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Final Table Muck
« on: February 21, 2011, 03:41:18 PM »
I ran a tournament this past Saturday and this situation occurred.  Player A was on the button and he only had 8 chips left.  Player B was the small blind and his only chip covered the small blind.  Player C was the big blind and a massive chip leader.   Player A was first to act and he folded.  Player B was all in so he couldn't act.  Player C pulled back his 2nd chip used to complete the big blind and now Player B & Player C each had just one chip in play.  Before the flop, Player C mucked his cards.  Player A was outraged.  No one at the table asked me to rule on the incident.  So, the dealer took Player C's one chip and gave it to Player B, since Player B was the only one left with a live hand.  On the very next hand, Player B was knocked out of the tournament.  Then, on the hand after that Player A was knocked out.    Afterwards, Player C asked me why his fold created such a stir.  I told him that it could have been construed as collusion against Player A.  In essence, he gave Player B a free chip with no risk of losing the hand, which benefitted Player B.  This could have caused Player A to get knocked out in 3rd place by giving Player B the free ride.  He said that he folded because he had 2-3 off-suit and was embarrased to even be in the hand.  His defense was that the hand before this one he won a really big pot and he wasn't thinking clearly during that hand.
I told him that if I had been called on to rule on his muck, I probably would've let the fold stand and awarded the one extra chip to Player B with a strong warning to Player C to not do that again.  
What would have been the correct call?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:35:19 PM by MikeB »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2011, 04:22:39 PM »
I see nothing incorrect with what you did.  By the time you would have been called, the hand was over and cannot be recreated.  I also agree with what you would have done UNLESS you could retrieve his cards.  If you could retrieve his cards, the correct process would be to let the hand play out under TDA rule #9.  His line of thought regarding the poor hole cards is not material in this situation where you are: 1)  In a tournament and, 2) heads-up and 3) one player is all-in. 

I have seen poor hands in this type situation win pots many, many times. 

Hope this helps!

pokerfish

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • cardplayercruises.com
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2011, 09:28:44 PM »
Adding to Chet's correct assessment of the situation, I would have given a penalty if I suspected collusion. Regardless, even after the fact a very stern warning. This double up by the all-in player could have affected the outcome of the event.... likely it did. Any two cards can win, as we all know. The player on the button had a right to be pissed but also should have spoken up sooner.... result will be the same as the hand can't be recreated.
Jan
Jan Fisher
TDA - Board of Directors
http://www.cardplayercruises.com

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2011, 10:55:17 PM »
  Afterwards, Player C asked me why his fold created such a stir.  I told him that it could have been construed as collusion against Player A.  What would have been the correct call?
 As all the respondents have indicated, there is nothing proper about the BB's play here. Even if you didn't suspect collusion, you certainly have unmistakable soft play which is also specifically prohibited by TDA Rule 40.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 12:05:34 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3304
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2011, 08:22:07 AM »
Mike,
 Can you ellaborate a little further on your assesment of unmistakable soft play?  How is it soft play if the SB was all-in? I like what you defined on an earlier post as not being collusion because; this could be one-sided and collusion requires at least two players. Like Jan said, "The player on the button had a right to be pissed but also should have spoken up sooner.... result will be the same as the hand can't be recreated.'
 Chet mentions TDA rule #9. I question why the dealer did not stop Player C from mucking his hand. The floor should have been called immediately, and Player C's cards should never have hit the muck. Tournament rules do not allow Player C to fold in that situation. I have discussed this on many other posts; If the cards must be tabled, then allow anyone to turn them over, especially Player A. The hand was over because there was no more betting, therefore any player at the table had the right to see that called hand.
 Tcargile, afterwards you stated the following;  "I told him that if I had been called on to rule on his muck, I probably would've let the fold stand and awarded the one extra chip to Player B with a strong warning to Player C to not do that again. "
What would have been the correct call? The correct call would have been to retrieve the mucked cards (2-3) and finish out the hand. He probably would have lost anyway and the results would have been the same. With only three players in the hand it would have been easy enough to satisfy Player A about what cards were folded by Player C. Bottom line; Player C could not fold. Period. It is against all rules of tournament poker.
 Unless I'm not understanding the situation. That's how I see it.
 
 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 08:52:25 AM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2011, 11:49:11 AM »
I agree that given the fact the hand would have been over by the time TD was called that the ruling was correct and warnings and explanations for why it was bad are in order.  However, I have to agree with NickC that the dealer should never have allowed the cards to hit the muck.  The dealer should have just turned the cards face up as one player was all in and it was then technically heads up preflop after Player A folded.

Hey Nick,
 Consider this: One sided collusion is the very definition of soft play !?!...and this situation fits soft play easily because the player folded out allowing player b to live.

TCargile

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2011, 12:24:58 PM »
Thanks to everyone for their input.  The dealer should've immediately turned over all cards in play, since there wouldn't be any additional betting involved.  Player C shouldn't have been allowed to muck.
This discussion forum is great because I can get fast answers from people who know what they're talking about. 

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2011, 04:24:20 PM »
Mike,
 Can you ellaborate a little further on your assesment of unmistakable soft play?  How is it soft play if the SB was all-in? I like what you defined on an earlier post as not being collusion because; this could be one-sided and collusion requires at least two players.  
 Soft play is left undefined in the TDA Rules because there are so many different situations where it might apply. From my POV there's nothing softer than just handing someone a pot before you've even seen your cards, after you've called their bet , and without even trying to compete for it.  That's even softer than not raising when you're last to act and have the nuts.  Like you say, the reason I can't be sure there's collusion here is that I have no specific reason to believe the SB is in on the chip gift, more likely he was as surprised as everyone else at the BB's fold.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 05:24:25 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3304
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2011, 07:58:54 PM »
Thanks Mike. I want TCargile to know that I am not in favor of the dealer turning the hand over, until they make it a rule. I do believe that the floor could have told the dealer to table the hand, if they were called to the table when the incident occurred. Remember, tournament rules say that all cards should be turned face-up when there is no more betting. We need to consider allowing the dealer, or any player, for that matter, the right to table a called hand. Delicate situation.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3304
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2011, 02:06:49 AM »
I have looked over the question again. I'm sorry but, I would never put this in a category of "soft play." It was a violation of tournament rules that never should have been allowed. The BB had no option to fold his hand. Period. It's a heck of a lot closer to collusion than soft play. Another poor job by the dealer.

That's how I see it.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3304
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2011, 01:53:30 PM »
This was posted a short time ago and for some reason it fell off the radar screen. I feel that it is worth further discussion. If not, then it will just go away.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2011, 09:58:52 PM »
I have looked over the question again. I'm sorry but, I would never put this in a category of "soft play." It was a violation of tournament rules that never should have been allowed. The BB had no option to fold his hand. Period. It's a heck of a lot closer to collusion than soft play.Another poor job by the dealer.
That's how I see it.

Oddly enough we've had issues with exactly the opposite. We teach our dealers to always muck hands that come in face down. We've had a lot of trouble with players seeming to have folded their cards then reach back and open them before the dealer can muck them. Maybe that's "Another poor job by the dealer"
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 10:00:07 PM by Spencer Wood »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3304
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Final Table Muck
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2011, 01:16:00 AM »
Spencer Wood,
 It is not my intention to have you change the method in which you train your dealers. You are correct, they should "muck" immediately except in the situation described above. A good dealer will know the difference. In the original question, the BB was not allowed to fold his hand, therefore the dealer should have stopped it from hitting the muck and actually prevent anyone from touching it. The proper dealer procedure would be: Call the floor and tell them what transpired and let the floorperson make the call. I want to add something to this that has been a topic of discussion for quite some time on this forum; The only time a dealer should table a hand in this situation is if he instructed to do so by the floor. Please, don't change the way you are training your dealers, that's the way it is supposed to be done.