Strange 1. Ruling please??

youcantseeme

3 players in a pot,
player 3 flat calls
player 1sb calls
player 2BB raises wot ever,
Player3 calls
Player1 folds
Dealer takes in the pot and mucks player 2cards by mistake. Nobody notices this except for the player (who decides to keep shut coz he's gonna lose anyway) He holds his hand over were his cards would be.
The flop comes down X X X.
Player 2 goes all in(with no cards!!)
Player 3 folds.
Who wins?? is he entitled to win if he was already mucked?? If not the other guy is mucked now aswell!!??

connie147

youcantseeme wrote:

3 players in a pot,
player 3 flat calls
player 1sb calls
player 2BB raises wot ever,
Player3 calls
Player1 folds
Dealer takes in the pot and mucks player 2cards by mistake. Nobody notices this except for the player (who decides to keep shut coz he's gonna lose anyway) He holds his hand over were his cards would be.
The flop comes down X X X.
Player 2 goes all in(with no cards!!)
Player 3 folds.
Who wins?? is he entitled to win if he was already mucked?? If not the other guy is mucked now aswell!!??

imho,player 3 wins the pot but only the amount of money that was in pre flop. player 2 should get his all-in raise back but should be repremanded for his outragous attempt to cheat player 3 out of the pot because no matter what way you dress it up, thats exactly what it is.It was player 2's own fault that he didnt protect his cards and as far as id be concerned, he then set out to cheat his opponent out of the pot.

ntlbell

I think this happened in the fitz cash game and from what I heard the guy who went all in with no cards and won was entitled to do so...

Once you've paid to be in a pot you don't need cards e.g. your playing the board.

Wouldn't bet my morgtage on it tho!

padser

As far as i know that happened in a big pro event a while back. cant remember the players, think i read about it one of Slansky's books (think it was his one on tounrament poker). One guy was looking at his cards, and the dealer mucked the others by accident. (I think it was after he had gone all in though). The player with the mucked cards just kept his hands over his 'cards' and the other player eventually folded. I think the moral of the story was to keep an eye on whats happening at the table.

IMHO the last player without mucked cards would win, however i guess if he put in a bet, it was uncalled then maybe he could take the pot with the board cards???

ollyk1

I can't comment on the ruling but for sheer balls alone i'd be inclined to award it to player 2!

Mmmm_Lemony

This guy MUST have grey hair! Your heart would be using your tonsils as a punch bag with a ballsy move like that!

Pokerevents

No ruling needed. Player # is awarded pot. This happened to well known Irish player Padraig Parkinson in the Collosus (about 15years ago), during a sizeable cash game. There is no other move for player 2.

Pokerevents

Pokerevents wrote:

No ruling needed. Player # is awarded pot. This happened to well known Irish player Padraig Parkinson in the Collosus (about 15years ago), during a sizeable cash game. There is no other move for player 2.

Player# 2

roryc

Its good if you got away with it but surely everyone woould notice when you don't muck any cards at the end?


Player 2: What did you have?

Player 1: Nothing

Player 2: No really, what did you have?

Player 1: NOTHING! I didn't even have cards!

ntlbell

roryc wrote:

Its good if you got away with it but surely everyone woould notice when you don't muck any cards at the end?


Player 2: What did you have?

Player 1: Nothing

Player 2: No really, what did you have?

Player 1: NOTHING! I didn't even have cards!

they would notice but what does it matter

youcantseeme

Id say the decision would be up tp the TD. Lets just say id hate to be that dealer.

BrendanB

It may well have been mentioned elsewhere, but Cloutier describes himself doing it in championship no-limit holdem. I'd be inclined to think (Colossus practice 15 years ago notwithstanding), that the hand is over once the cards were mucked, and the pot as it stood then should be awarded. Apart from anything else, you are pretty much forbidden to hide your cards anyway, it's equivalent to taking them off the table, and deliberately pretending to do it to mislead shouldn't be a benefit - there's no real distinction between mucking your cards and not preventing the dealer doing it.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

No, according to just about every casino regulation, the hand is not over - the player has paid to be in the pot and so is entitled to stay in it.

I remember being in a tournament and a player had mucked one of his cards by accident. Just me and him in the pot and the preflop betting was over. Flop came - i didn't even look at it; just threw in my chips. He called as he'd hit with his one remaining card and knocked me out. Fair play on him - served me right for being cheeky...in fact, everyone including myself applauded

5starpool

Reminds me of the Joe O'Neill story:

Joe showed an ace after claiming a pot uncontested. Opponent asks what his kicker was.
Joe: I dunno, I only got dealt one card.

youcantseeme

5starpool wrote:

Reminds me of the Joe O'Neill story:

Joe showed an ace after claiming a pot uncontested. Opponent asks what his kicker was.
Joe: I dunno, I only got dealt one card.

Thats joe if he ever **** up just to realise he only had 1 card he'd be ok.
Funny thing is he raised pre-flop on 1 card (he didnt even notice himself).

Funkyzeit

Thats Mad Ted.....!

youcantseeme

Y does it block out shut

amp

I'd agree with player 2 being the winner, unless his/her cards weren't protected. If the other player had called however, well that's a bit trickier.

jacQues

Roundtower2 wrote:

No, according to just about every casino regulation, the hand is not over - the player has paid to be in the pot and so is entitled to stay in it.

I remember being in a tournament and a player had mucked one of his cards by accident. Just me and him in the pot and the preflop betting was over. Flop came - i didn't even look at it; just threw in my chips. He called as he'd hit with his one remaining card and knocked me out. Fair play on him - served me right for being cheeky...in fact, everyone including myself applauded

That is funny and really weird to me. IMHO (for poker rules as I know them) a legal pokerhand must contain both pocket cards (for Texas hold'em anyways). If you have 1 or 0 cards your hand simply isn't legal. Also, for this reason, a called hand must show both cards, even if the 'other' card doesn't matter, in order to claim a pot.

In the original example. Player 3 folded, leaving player 2 as the last man standing. Even with no legal hand, player 2 wins. Simply because at that stage he didn't need a legal hand (as the last man standing).

jacQues

BigDragon

jacQues wrote:

That is funny and really weird to me. IMHO (for poker rules as I know them) a legal pokerhand must contain both pocket cards (for Texas hold'em anyways). If you have 1 or 0 cards your hand simply isn't legal. Also, for this reason, a called hand must show both cards, even if the 'other' card doesn't matter, in order to claim a pot.

In the original example. Player 3 folded, leaving player 2 as the last man standing. Even with no legal hand, player 2 wins. Simply because at that stage he didn't need a legal hand (as the last man standing).

jacQues

Sorry m8 you are wrong. At all times in Texas holde'm its the best 5 card hand that wins. If that means you use the 5 on the board then thats it (...a split pot btw if the player is to 'not lose' a showdown).

In Omaha you HAVE to use 2 cards.

jacQues

BigDragon wrote:

Sorry m8 you are wrong. At all times in Texas holde'm its the best 5 card hand that wins. If that means you use the 5 on the board then thats it (...a split pot btw).

In Omaha you HAVE to use 2 cards.

Hmmm...I didn't word it very well, very badly actually.

What I meant was that both your pocket cards are needed to make the hand legal, regardless of what 5-card poker hand you construct from the 7 available cards. In other words, if you create a 5-card poker hand out of anything else than 7 cards in total, it is not a legal hand. (That is, this is my understanding about advanced poker rules.)

jacQues