Dude where's your cards? Ruling

VEGAS NIGHTS

Pre-flop:
seat 3 Raises 50% of stack
Seat 8 calls
everyone else has folded. (two players)

Post lop:
check
check

Turn:
seat 3 moves all in
seat 8 folds

Dealer mucks seat 8's cards and board cards.

Dealer then asks seat 3, "Dude where's your cards"?

Seat 3 says, "you took them before the flop".

Who gets the pot???

I've heard of something simillar happening but that time the board cards were still out- player 3 was playing the board. But here there is no board and neither player have cards???

I'm of the opinion that seat 8 conceeded the hand by folding and therefor seat 3 wins the pot.

Anyone???

cardshark202

VEGAS NIGHTS wrote:

I'm of the opinion that seat 8 conceeded the hand by folding and therefor seat 8 wins the pot.

I assume you meant seat 3 wins the pot? I think this is correct then.

charlesanto

surely seat 8 take the pot as the last live hand !

Dub13

I heard something like this happened at the WSOP and you can win a hand if you have no cards.It was just a story I heard so I am not sure if it is true.

Mmmm_Lemony

It's not live as he folded it. I think seat 8 loses. As seat three was obviously paying more attention to the hand. (Or lack of one).

Somebody mentioned here before, a guy taking down a pot with only one card dealt to him, an Ace, and it was enough.

marius

Think you probably have to split the pot.

Seat 3 pushed all-in knowing he had already had his cards mucked by the dealer - it cant be considered a legitimate bet. Dealer fked up - either a re-deal or split the pot.

my 2 cents

VEGAS NIGHTS

Dub13 wrote:

I heard something like this happened at the WSOP and you can win a hand if you have no cards.It was just a story I heard so I am not sure if it is true.

I heard that too. But in that case the last player was playing the board cards as the winning hand. In this case there are no cards left.

Mmmm_Lemony

Definately not a split pot. Seat 3 wins. Seat 8 folded.

Seat 3 is last player standing. Best hand or last player standing wins, regardless of what cards you are dealt except if more than 2.

marius

Mmmm_Lemony wrote:

Definately not a split pot. Seat 3 wins. Seat 8 folded.

Seat 3 is last player standing. Best hand or last player standing wins, regardless of what cards you are dealt except if more than 2.

seat 8 is last player standing - seat 3 had his cards mucked before seat 8.

Dr_Colossus

Seat 3 wins the pot as he bet seat 8 out of the hand. Seat 8 folded and even if seat 3 still had cards he does not need to show since he is the uncontested victor.
This happened to TJ Cloutier and is described in his book "Championship No Limit & Pot Limit Hold'em"

Shortstack

Seat 3 wins. Seat 8 should have paid more attention.

BigDragon

Mmmm_Lemony wrote:

Definately not a split pot. Seat 3 wins. Seat 8 folded.

Seat 3 is last player standing. Best hand or last player standing wins, regardless of what cards you are dealt except if more than 2.

100% correct.

Nick, we discussed this on my table on Sunday. Player three is playing 5 of the 7 cards ie the board. Player 8 folded an all-in raise. The pot is Player 3's. End of....next hand.

BigDragon

Assuming this is Texas as the ruling is different in Omaha;)

marius

What happens if seat 3's all-in is called by seat 8 - is he still playing the board?

Shortstack

marius wrote:

What happens if seat 3's all-in is called by seat 8 - is he still playing the board?

Yes.

5starpool

marius wrote:

What happens if seat 3's all-in is called by seat 8 - is he still playing the board?

Yes. In this case the best seat 3 can do is split the pot. If seat 8 can beat the board he would win.

Since he folded though he forfeited any right to the pot and seat 3 wins, regardless of whether he has cards or not as stated before.

Some brass neck on seat 3 though to continue without bollocking the dealer if he knew they were taken.

I noticed someone playing one night after the dealer had mistakenly taken his *unprotected* cards, and someone else noticed and told him when he was about to call an allin bet. The look on his face was priceless.

mewso

Interesting question but what I'm wondering is surely Seat 3's first action was to fold (when cards were mucked by dealer). Does the first action by a player not stand then?

gerire

musician wrote:

Interesting question but what I'm wondering is surely Seat 3's first action was to fold (when cards were mucked by dealer). Does the first action by a player not stand then?

Thats exactly what I was thinking. If his hand is gone he has no right to be betting atall. He cant use the board cards as he is out of the hand

biteme

The only problem I have with ruling the player whose cards were mucked won the hand is what would of been the ruling if he had been called. Would you have ruled that he had no cards and shouldn't have been allowed to bet? and therefor give him back his chips? I think the ruling is correct btw, but just that you need to be careful that if the player with no cards is called he has to lose his chips. Unless its a split with the other player playing the board.

SandyVN

Seat 3 for def as i think we had this befor n i checked it out.
Sure didnt Joe O'Neil win a hand if the Fitz with just 1 card.

Jaden

Just a thought (I do think the pot is seat 3's in this example).

If seat 8 called, doesn't a player have to show both cards to claim a pot? Seat 3 cannot do this, therefore can they claim even half the pot?

RoundTower

biteme wrote:

The only problem I have with ruling the player whose cards were mucked won the hand is what would of been the ruling if he had been called. Would you have ruled that he had no cards and shouldn't have been allowed to bet? and therefor give him back his chips? I think the ruling is correct btw, but just that you need to be careful that if the player with no cards is called he has to lose his chips. Unless its a split with the other player playing the board.

This is important, whatever way you decide to go you have to be consistent here.

If player 8 had called, I think it is easy to give him the pot. For all you know player 3 quietly mucked his cards on the river or dropped them on the floor, you definitely can't give him his bet back.

mewso

More I think of it the more I think Seat 8 should win the pot. The Joe O'Neil incident is different because he didn't fold. In this case Seat 3 folded before the flop. Hand over.

gerire

Jeese Muso you're always today just a step ahead of me was just goin to point out the fact that joe's hand was still live in his situation.

I do agree with you his hand was dead first and shouldnt have been alowed bet. If it was the case if a house came on the board sure everyone who had folded would bet/call as they were live at one stage....

Ollieboy

was it not up to player 3 to protect his own cards?

If he had notice as the dealer took them and they were already in the muck, than his hand would be dead, so is the situation not the same here?

ie is hand is dead.

But, he played the hand, got player 8 to fold and the chips were push in his direction, hence he wins the pot. Once the chips are push, the play stands. The key move here, is the pushing of the chips not player 8 mucking his hand and not player 3 having no cards.

Not sure, but I think this would be the reasons he wins the hand..

Interesting question, but I would always trust Dave, he's a rock for the rules.....

BigDragon

Ollieboy wrote:

Interesting question, but I would always trust Dave, he's a rock for the rules.....

Thx Ollie :rolleyes: The real key here is that the action has taken place.....move on to the next hand.

VEGAS NIGHTS

Sticking to the origional post-

Key Points:

1) Seat 3's hand was mucked before seat 8 folded. Does this mean seat 3played out the hand illeagly??

2) Seat 8 did conceed by folding. But was he the last player in the hand if seat 3 was in the hand illeagly??

3) Before the pot is pushed neither player have cards in hand. Also the board cards have been mucked so neither player can use the board cards as their hand.

4) The pot hasn't been pushed yet.

**********************************************************

I think the first decision is weather or not seat 3 was in the hand illeagly.

If it's decided that player 3 was allowed to be in this hand then He must be declaired the last player in the hand, thus- the winner.
If decided he was in the hand illeagly is it a split-pot because seat 8 conceeded the pot by folding. Or is seat 8 the winner as the last leagal player in the hand.

A major factor here is that there is no evidence to show seat 3's cards were accidently mucked by the dealer.......it's possible that seat 3 left his cards accross the betting line which is why the dealer inctinctivly mucked them...it is the players responsibillity to protect his hand. If this is the case then the hand is dead and not playable. How can you give this guy the chips????

Ollieboy

VEGAS NIGHTS wrote:

Sticking to the origional post-

Key Points:

1) Seat 3's hand was mucked before seat 8 folded. Does this mean seat 3played out the hand illeagly??

2) Seat 8 did conceed by folding. But was he the last player in the hand if seat 3 was in the hand illeagly??

3) Before the pot is pushed neither player have cards in hand. Also the board cards have been mucked so neither player can use the board cards as their hand.

4) The pot hasn't been pushed yet.

**********************************************************

I think the first decision is weather or not seat 3 was in the hand illeagly.

If it's decided that player 3 was allowed to be in this hand then He must be declaired the last player in the hand, thus- the winner.
If decided he was in the hand illeagly is it a split-pot because seat 8 conceeded the pot by folding. Or is seat 8 the winner as the last leagal player in the hand.

A major factor here is that there is no evidence to show seat 3's cards were accidently mucked by the dealer.......it's possible that seat 3 left his cards accross the betting line which is why the dealer inctinctivly mucked them...it is the players responsibillity to protect his hand. If this is the case then the hand is dead and not playable. How can you give this guy the chips????

Because he was in the action, he played the board, hence wins the hand, but I would like a full answer for this, but I would trust Dave.

But I know there was a hand involving Doyle similiar to this and it was declare a split pot, because the cards were muck, but that was more to do with local rules

RoundTower

Ollieboy wrote:

Once the chips are push, the play stands. The key move here, is the pushing of the chips not player 8 mucking his hand and not player 3 having no cards.

This is definitely not the important thing here. The dealer can push the pot to one player and then after a ruling it can end up with someone else.

The answer to the original question really isn't black and white. Even in a room with a big rulebook you could rule in several different ways. Suppose when the dealer asked Player 3 "Where are your cards?" he said "They're there in the muck, the other player mucked his so I mucked mine." Then there would be no question that the pot should go to player 3. So I would rule in his favour here.

gerire

Someone ring Luke Ivory

ocallagh

I have to agree with Muso here. Are you saying there is a way to get back into the action after you have folded?

eg: If I fold pre-flop on the BB by mistake, and by the river(no betting has taken place) the board is TJQKAr, is it possible for me to split the pot with the remaining players?

The fact that the table don't know if you fold or not is irrelevant

Shortstack

Seat 3 did not fold he raised preflop for 50% of his chips and was called. His cards disappeared before the flop. At no point did he say fold or throw his cards into the muck, he just checked it down and moved all in on the river.

Had seat 8 or anyone of the other unobservant people noticed that he was missing his cards before he moved all in then he would have lost the hand at that point for not protecting his cards. If it was noticed afterwards then he plays the board and most likely loses. Once Seat 8 folds then there is no debate.

Fair play to seat 3.

Back to observation school for evryone else.

mewso

Eh Mike if thats the case then when the dealer accidentally mucks my cards I am not folded?

Shortstack

musician wrote:

Eh Mike if thats the case then when the dealer accidentally mucks my cards I am not folded?

I am sure that on many occasions pots have been won in this way. I am going to forward this on to Joe Beevers for the Hendon Mob's 'ask the tournament director' section and we will find out from Thomas Kremser, Jack Mcllelleand, Matt Savage and co what the correct ruling is.

Hyzepher

I looks like seat 3 raised before his cards were taken so that bet should make up part of the pot. However, since his cards were mucked and he falsely represented to be still in the hand, the pot should go to seat 8 but not include seat 3's all-in bet.

The key here is that seat 3 ceased to be in the hand once his cards were mucked - regardless of how they got there. Seat 8 mucking is irrevelant. The dealer should of noticed that seat 3 had no cards and not allowed him to bet. The fact that the dealer missed this is also irrevelant - since there was no action after seat 3's mucking

Hyzepher

nikorami

1a. If a live hand touches the muck, it will immediately be ruled dead.

1b. If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to his money back. An exception would be if a player raised and his raise had not been called yet, he would be entitled to receive his raise back.

The scenario was that a player made a raise and "jokingly" the button said allin and started shoving his chips and the first player tossed his cards straight in the muck. The button did not win the hand, as a matter of fact he was warned and just about kicked out.

Player 8 should win the pot. There were no "LIVE" hands except his. PERIOD

jem

nikorami wrote:

1a. If a live hand touches the muck, it will immediately be ruled dead.

1b. If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to his money back. An exception would be if a player raised and his raise had not been called yet, he would be entitled to receive his raise back.

The scenario was that a player made a raise and "jokingly" the button said allin and started shoving his chips and the first player tossed his cards straight in the muck. The button did not win the hand, as a matter of fact he was warned and just about kicked out.

Player 8 should win the pot. There were no "LIVE" hands except his. PERIOD

I agree,