All-In & Fold

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

Here is the so famous case:

A bets 2000
B raises at 5000 total
C folds
B think it's over and fold his hand deep into the muck himself
A is still there ...

Floor called: Hand of B is dead but B recover 3000 (the part not called) under TDA rule 48: Accidentally Killed / Fouled Hands (and WSOP decision). Players must protect their own hands at all times. If a dealer kills a hand by mistake, or a hand is fouled, the player will have no redress and is not entitled to a refund of bets. If the player initiated a bet or raise and hasn't been called, the uncalled bet or raise will be returned to the player.

This rule seems to be applied by WSOP and many tourneys.
But my question is: I thought the uncalled part was returned to the player ONLY IF THE HAND HAD BEEN KILLED BY ANOTHER ONE (dealer, other player ...)? I thought if a player kills his hand HIMSELF: he couldn't recover the uncalled part (if this part is covered by the stack of the player still in)?

Because this can favor easy angling:
I raise in bluff ... my opponent thinks ... I feel he's gonna call me ... I throw my hand away (if possible in the muck) saying "I won!" then trying to create the rule 48 situation to recover my uncalled bet ... !!!

Did I missed something?
GG

[K-Lo]

I have had to field questions on this a few times and it is a very contentious issue.   Here are some random thoughts I have on the issue...

First, I think It is difficult to make a distinction between what muck is a result of a dealer error and what is not.  Even if the player mucks himself by slinging the cards into the muck, the dealer still has some responsibility for preventing the out of turn muck and for protecting the muck.  So although the dealer is not completely at fault, there is still some element of fault there.  And so I think Rule 48 may still be relevant in these self-mucking cases.

That being said, players get really upset when the person who mucks because he isn't paying attention gets a break.  The natural reaction is that if the player has mucked, and it essentially is almost entirely his fault, he should pay for his mistake with all of his chips.  I have no doubt that the mucker should be penalized, but the question is: objectively, what is the appropriate penalty, and is it unfair that the penalty should be his whole stack when the other person has not yet had to risk any of their own chips by calling?  I am not sure whether the player who has not yet called should be the sole beneficiary of a windfall caused by the mucker's error.  That would essentially be a chip dump, or an "over-reward" as it were.  You would think that there should be some difference in penalty between the situation where the mucker's raise was actually called, and when it has not yet been called.

There are a number of possible alternatives that could be considered, beyond always returning the uncalled portion, or always penalizing the mucker for his entire stack,  Some would argue that a compromise penalty would be to hold the mucker to lose the amount of a min-raise (as opposed to just the amount of a call) and return the rest.  Others might argue that the uncalled portion of the raise will be returned (as per the rule) for a first offense, but the TD will rule that the entire stack is committed for subsequent offenses.  Still others will argue that the TD should have the right to look at the caller's hand to make a determination of whether the call was imminent, and if so, the TD could deem that the all-in was called, and if not, return the uncalled portion of the wager as per the rule.  You could even also argue that the called portion would go to the remaining player, while the uncalled portion would be removed from play by the TD, thus still eliminating the player but not giving the remaining player a windfall. 

Despite the possibility of the angle that you describe (which would be very dangerous to try because you can't guarantee that the TD will return any parts of the bet), I think returning the uncalled portion of the bet is most consistent with the current rule, even in these self-mucking situations.  Should the rule be changed though?  Perhaps.  I personally like the idea of giving the TD discretion to award the entire pot to the player who has not yet called if it appears that a call was more likely to be forthcoming than not, but that's only my preference.

[JasperToo]

Couldn't we return the uncalled portion of the bet to the player (I really don't like giving the other player such a windfall on what is almost always a mistake, and he never risked the chips himself) and then give him a round or two penalty for acting out of turn or some such to make him pay a set of blinds for the error??

Just my random thought....

[Guillaume Gleize]

And to K-LO: Why should the dealer prevent a player to muck out of turn while folding out of turn is bidding?

I will apply then the rule the way you all say it is now (returning the non called part of the pot to the self mucking players) while I still prefer the old rule (we applied for years) who used to responsabilise the players.

[K-Lo]

And to K-LO: Why should the dealer prevent a player to muck out of turn while folding out of turn is bidding?

I guess it depends on what you think best protects all players in the tournament as a whole.  

Let's assume we are talking about a situation where the player throws in his cards in a folding action, not realizing that there is still pending action, but unlike the original post, the dealer still has a chance to prevent the cards from being irretrievably mucked.  If you take a hard line, you can always argue that the player should be paying attention and that it is his fault for mucking; if his hand gets killed, he only has himself to blame.  But I personally do not think that having the dealer intentionally kill a hand, that is most likely to have been folded accidentally, is good for the game or in the interest of fairness.  If the dealer is protecting the muck, I think the dealer has every right to say "it's not your turn yet" or "the action is here (pointing to the other player)", rather than killing the hand.  I believe that  this is part of the dealer's job in managing the table.  

If a player is responsible for some irregularity, warn or penalize the player if you wish, but I think in general that killing hands as a penalty for any infractions by players is no longer "in vogue".   Having the dealer or TD intervene by killing a hand that might otherwise be live should never be necessary -- I would suggest that you should always be able to assess the situation and find an appropriate penalty (from a warning to disqualification) that can be matched with the seriousness of the "offence".  In tournaments at least, I think a sound principle to follow is to try to always award the pot to the best hand where possible, and routinely killing hands goes against that principle.

I also think that the "accidental" self-mucking situations are different from a typical "fold out of turn" situation that the rule on Non-Standard Folds, for example, is meant to address.  The typical non-standard fold usually involves a person who actually intends to fold, but doesn't have enough courtesy or patience to wait until the action gets to him to do so.  In those cases, the fold out of turn is certainly binding and can be subject to penalty.  Here, we are talking about a situation where (1) it is very unlikely that the person intends to fold, and (2) he is already all-in so technically he has no further options at all at this point, and his only remaining obligation is to turn his cards over if the hand is called. At this point, fold is not an option.  For at least these reasons, I think the accidental self-mucking situations are different from the intentional folding out of turn situations that you mention.

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

K-Lo is correct, if you ask me. The dealer has an obligation to protect any player from an unintentional fold. There are other reasons for the dealer to protect players from mucking cards, for example; there are times when players are entitled to see an opponents hand. Hands my be killed in certain situations, by touching the surrendered hand to the muck, but the right to see the hand after the pot is awarded should be possible if requested.

Players are responsible to protect their own hand, that's true...but the dealer has responsibilities too. The unintentional fold you describe falls more in the category of a good dealer doing his or her job properly. Remember; fairness and the best interest of the game are the top priorities in the decision making process.

[MikeB]

GG: Strictly looking at the case facts in the original post, I feel the mucked hand is dead... and at the point those cards die, the hand is over b/c there is only one surviving player. We cannot know if the surviving player would have folded, called, or raised on the 3k uncalled raise...  I favor returning the "uncalled" bet portion (3K) to the bettor who mucked his cards.

As for inviting an angle shoot, this is your right and responsibility as TD to penalize if you think there was any intent on the part of the mucker, as this is highly unethical. If you're not 100% sure of the intent but suspect it's possible, then give a warning, otherwise give enough of a penalty to make an example of this player and discourage it in the future.

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY very much you all 3 and mostly K-LO for your very clear and clever arguments.

I'm somebody logical. So I usually don't like the "on your own feeling" rules. In the other hand I'm sometimes obliged (like us all) to apply a "feeling" rule in the best interest of the game. The MAN is sometime obliged to plug a HOLE IN THE RULES. But I try my best to stick to the texts the rest of the time also for the best interest of the poker business. I want the player to feel SAFE ... and they better feel safe with writen rules than with "feeling rules". Anyway now I understand better you logic with the argument that the dealer MUST protect the muck. Then everything behind makes a sense.

I will (change) and apply it the way you all do from now. I will also do it because the WSOP and many other tournaments are doing it this way now too.

I still prefer the old "texan" rule ... more clear, easy and responsabilizing those supposed rude & adult people playing poker. But my goal is not to apply the rules I LOVE but the rules YOU ALL LOVE (I'm so kind) ... so I will follow you all IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GAME.

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

Thanks for bringing this situation to the Forum.

I agree with Mike, and Ken, in the original post the hand is irretrievably mucked (dead), and only the uncalled portion should, or could be returned to the owner of the mucked hand.

My interest almost always relates to the dealers in these situations. This incident, like so many others, could have been avoided by the action of an alert dealer

[K-Lo]

I've been listening and reading about player reactions to the WSOP incident that I think was the impetus for the original post (see e.g. http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/07/2012-wsop-a-look-at-the-biggest-poker-hands-main-event-12929.htm), and it seems that many players -- especially pros -- have been very vocal (and angry) insisting that the mucker should have lost it all. The reaction is understandable (although I wonder if the tables were reversed... if it was one of the remaining women who claims to have made an innocent mistake, and the player in line to benefit from the error was not a fan favorite, would the reaction have been the same)?  To be honest, it saddens me to see such a divide between the perception of these players, and those who considered the ruling to be fair (even though perhaps not ideal).  It is also hard to educate these players because so many of them seem to see things as "black-and-white":  the player made a mistake, he should be punished to the maximum, no exceptions. 

But in reality, most of us know that there are so many factors that a competent TD could potentially consider:  Was the bet actually called or not? Would the opponent have called or not? Did the dealer contribute to the error or not? Did the opponent contribute to the error (e.g. by hiding his cards) or not?  Is there a possibility of chip dumping or not?  Was it more likely an angle, or less likely to be so? 

And to what extent should the punishment be different depending on the factors of the specific situation?  I, for one, think that these scenarios are not black-and-white.  We are talking about something that is very situational, and you'd think that poker players of all people could appreciate that.  It is not as simple as "he made the mistake, he should lose it all", nor should it be.

For example, let's consider a situation like this:

Blinds are posted. The BB in seat 2 has 1000 chips behind.
The SB in seat 1 has 50000 chips behind, and is the second chip leader.
Action folds around to the SB, who looks at the BB's small stack, and announces all-in.  The BB folds.  The dealer is in the progress of pushing the pot towards the SB, who then throws his cards on the muck.  At this point, the button in seat 10, who happens to be the chip leader interrupts "hey, I called".  The dealer forgot that the button had called and the SB did not see that the button had cards or had put out a call, partially because his view was obstructed by the Dealer and because the dealer only announces raises, not calls or folds.  So what would you rule?

I, for one, would have a very hard time here applying a hard-and-fast rule, to give the chip leader a windfall of the SB's entire stack because of the SB's error. 

I know that this is a completely different situation from what happened at the WSOP, but that really is my point... every situation is different and the TD should take all relevant factors into account before deciding what ruling is "fair".  Without being there, I certainly think the TD's ruling was justifiable, and simply saying that the player who made the mistake should "pay for his mistake with his whole stack" is not, without some other good reason, persuasive. I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but I had to get this off my chest. Thanks for listening. 

[Nick C]

I see nothing wrong with the call that was made at the WSOP.

I do, however notice that almost every situation, (real or hypethetical) involves poor judgement from players, compounded by an unatentive dealer.

Ken, I'm glad you got it off your chest! I would like to add, that when you talk, everyone should be listening.

[Guillaume Gleize]

I agree with thoses situations who where called "GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING" and use to rule them witih human solutions.
I fell there is also a gross misunderstanding on my way of ruling: I'm not a robot of the texts.
I agree that everything must be adapt to the best interest of the game.

I will apply the rules of the majority ... I will follow them with respect ... But don't ask me to love them: sorry no!
Frankly: Don't tell me you love ALL the rules you apply? I won't believe you unless you are the author of all of them (lol)!

Another point: The girl had KK and was obviously going to call (to be said).
OK in another hand the player would had been eliminated and, like you, I don't like to eliminate a player from my tournaments this way!
But before taking this kind of decision (I think also of the future similar cases) I would really ask many questions about the TIMING of the action: Did the player stared at the girl and spent time thinking before folding or not etc.
...
OK I will change my texts and apply it this way in general but be sure of one think: I WILL BE SERIOUSLY HUNTING FOR ANY ANGLING ACTION if this kind of situation happens again in my tournaments (and they will for sure)!

With much respect,
GG

[Guillaume Gleize]

Another point for K-LO (with respect): do you remember this answer you gave to me from a post I recently did named "7 short cases":

Quote

Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!

K-Lo: Agreed. If the hand is irretrievably mucked, he can't win!  However, I don't understand why the dealer would kill the hand... the dealer should not have mucked the hand in the first place as both all-in hands must be shown.  Also, if I suspected "chip dumping", I may not permit the pot to be awarded, give the pot back to the player who tried to muck and then disqualify him.

... Well quite similar right?

[K-Lo]

Hi GG:

I fell there is also a gross misunderstanding on my way of ruling: I'm not a robot of the texts.

Sorry... I did not mean to suggest this about you at all!  We are all trying to do our best to improve on the rules we don't like (and yes, there are several rules I follow but don't love   ), and it's good to have this healthy discussion.  No disrespect intended GG!

My frustration in the earlier post really was directed towards those players who don't take the time to read and understand the rules themselves, but who will routinely criticize the rules and TD's decisions, especially those who use their "celebrity" status to stir up controversy.  Yes, some rules can be improved upon (it is a continuous Work In Progress), the level of experience of TDs can vary widely, and TDs can make wrong or questionable decisions (we are human after all), but I don't think it's very professional or productive when players simply set out to bash TDs every time they disagree with a decision (I personally don't like the "players vs TDs" mentality of some players, although I know that dealing with that is part of the job).

Another point: The girl had KK and was obviously going to call (to be said).

I wasn't there, and am unclear whether she actually showed the table or the TD that she had KK, or whether she just said that she had it, but didn't actually show.  

But this relates to a point in my earlier post:  I personally, do not have a problem with asking to see the player's hand and trying to objectively assess if she would have called.  If there is no doubt that she is calling, I would deem it a call, and award her the pot.  Otherwise, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the bet would be called, then one could fall back on the rule that returns the uncalled portion.  However, I suspect many TDs would not be comfortable with doing this since it requires a judgment call (and some would argue that we will never know what she actually would have done) but IMO I think it's one factor that should be considered in order to try to come up with the fairest decision.  

But before taking this kind of decision (I think also of the future similar cases) I would really ask many questions about the TIMING of the action: Did the player stared at the girl and spent time thinking before folding or not etc.

Agreed. If the player is sitting there, waiting to see if the opponent is going to call, and then gets "cold feet" and tries to muck a few moments later to get a refund before he is called, then the angle is much more apparent in this case because we know that he knows there is action pending. (It helps though if the dealer protects the muck here.)  But the fact remains that the bet has not yet been called, and if there is doubt, IMO, I think it would be better to return the uncalled portion and disqualify the player (so the chips are removed from play) for what would appear to others as an obvious chip-dump, then to simply award the pot to the player who has not yet risked his or her chips to call.

Another point for K-LO (with respect): do you remember this answer you gave to me from a post I recently did named "7 short cases":

Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!

K-Lo: Agreed. If the hand is irretrievably mucked, he can't win!  However, I don't understand why the dealer would kill the hand... the dealer should not have mucked the hand in the first place as both all-in hands must be shown.  Also, if I suspected "chip dumping", I may not permit the pot to be awarded, give the pot back to the player who tried to muck and then disqualify him.

... Well quite similar right?

Very similar!  But aside from the dealer error, the difference here is that the player who went all-in and mucked did so after the opponent who had a larger stack already bet.  Therefore, since the all-in was the shorter stack, there is no "uncalled portion" to be returned, so he'd be out, even according to the existing rule.  

[Guillaume Gleize]

First thank you very much K-Lo for the time spent with my questions and your clever answers.

About your very last answer on my old case: I really don't understand:

You said:

Very similar!  But aside from the dealer error, the difference here is that the player who went all-in and mucked did so after the opponent who had a larger stack already bet.  Therefore, since the all-in was the shorter stack, there is no "uncalled portion" to be returned, so he'd be out, even according to the existing rule.  

But ... The short stack goes all-in but his bet is OVER the first bet of his opponent ... So THERE IS ACTUALY AN UNCALLED PORTION ... just before he strangely and accidentally muck his hand ... !

Am I missing something?