difficult ruling decision. Player with 3 cards.....

NickyOD

A strange one that happened at the club. I'll tell you what I did later. I'm not certain I was correct but I think I was. Don't ask me how the hell this happened. If you knew the player involved you may understand.

6 players limp into a pot in a 1/2 PLHE cash game. A card is burned as normal and the flop is dealt out. I believe there was a bet and a atleast one call.

It came back around to the small blind. He has 3 cards! Remember he has called preflop, checked the flop and waits until now to inform the dealer.

What do I do? The first burned card is one of the 3 cards in the idiots hand, the flop is not as it should be and there has been action on the flop!!

RoundTower

Kill the hand, the flop stays as it is. Burn and turn for the turn and river as if you never noticed the extra card.

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote:

Kill the hand, the flop stays as it is. Burn and turn for the turn and river as if you never noticed the extra card.

Ok that's one option. The problem is I have no idea if the Villain has recieved his cards in the correct order. i.e. if he was given 2 cards at once then everyone's hand is not as it should be.

RoundTower

Too bad, there has been too much action to change people's hands or the flop now. You can't put the SB in a position where he can choose to have the hand or part of it redealt simply by speaking up, this would be horribly open to abuse.

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote:

Too bad, there has been too much action to change people's hands or the flop now. You can't put the SB in a position where he can choose to have the hand or part of it redealt simply by speaking up, this would be horribly open to abuse.

Of Course. Allowing the SB to stay in the hand never even entered my head.

My real dillemma here is that every hand could potentially have been misdealt as well as the flop. Is the action that has taken place enough to justify allowing the hand to continue at all?

RoundTower

Yes, definitely. People get the wrong cards all the time, usually through mistakes like this.

Also, the SB doesn't have to stay in the hand to be able to abuse his position. For example, let's say the rule in the club is that if someone is found with too many cards the hand should be redealt from the start. On the turn the SB's friend makes a big bet and is raised all in. He clearly doesn't want to call. SB announces "oops, just noticed I have 3 cards". While if the friend is going to win the pot, SB just folds his hand in turn and no one is ever any wiser.

NickyOD

RoundTower wrote:

Yes, definitely. People get the wrong cards all the time, usually through mistakes like this.

Also, the SB doesn't have to stay in the hand to be able to abuse his position. For example, let's say the rule in the club is that if someone is found with too many cards the hand should be redealt from the start. On the turn the SB's friend makes a big bet and is raised all in. He clearly doesn't want to call. SB announces "oops, just noticed I have 3 cards". While if the friend is going to win the pot, SB just folds his hand in turn and no one is ever any wiser.

Hmmm. In that case I made a mistake in calling a misdeal and voiding the hand. My problem with the situation is not only the fact that the flop is wrong but the fact that everyone in the hand possibly shouldn't have been dealt the cards they'd gotten. I also felt that this would please most of the players since there may be complaints that someone won a pot with cards he should never have gotten. But I will bow to your greater knowledge.

kpnuts

once "significant action" has taken place (usually 1 or 2 players having acted even pre-flop suffices), this overrides all other concerns, afaik. Agree with RoundTower

5starpool

Yep, I agree witrh RT too, and this is the only ruling I have ever seen given in this situation.

Poker & Pints

decision. All in Vegas casinos. The hand is a misdeal no matter how much action! The reason is that hand was never right from the start. My experience was: once just before the flop, once after the flop.

Now since there are no formal rules written on this it is a definite conundrum. But I think you would cause a heck of a lot more grief if someone went on to win a huge pot with "false" cards. I think you could defer to a vote at the table(unanimous) then you could play on.

NickyOD

Poker & Pints wrote:

decision. All in Vegas casinos. The hand is a misdeal no matter how much action! The reason is that hand was never right from the start. My experience was: once just before the flop, once after the flop.

Now since there are no formal rules written on this it is a definite conundrum. But I think you would cause a heck of a lot more grief if someone went on to win a huge pot with "false" cards. I think you could defer to a vote at the table(unanimous) then you could play on.

Defering to a vote is absolutely crazy when there's been action on the hand. Everyone with no hand votes no, Players with big hands vote yet. Completely pointless.

Is it really true that no formal rules have been written on this type of situaiton?

fuzzbox

I like RTs plan.

It doesnt matter if ppl get the "wrong" cards, as long as they are still random ... which they are.

Poker & Pints

NickyOD wrote:

Defering to a vote is absolutely crazy when there's been action on the hand. Everyone with no hand votes no, Players with big hands vote yet. Completely pointless.

Is it really true that no formal rules have been written on this type of situaiton?

Yes a vote may be crazy: But at least democratic. Anyways just a suggestion.

If there is a formal rule I have never seen it and I try reading everyones rules out there...but like I said the Stardust and the Luxor made the call of dead hand, return money...No one was overly upset in either case.

JuliusFranco

now that's what i call a sticky situation

it's really should be up to the punter to make sure they a)have cards and b)they have the right number...

yes the people had the wrong cards from the start but action did take place. It's only fair to the other people still in the hand that the person with the 3 cards has his hand mucked.

basically, i think the fairest way of dealing with things like this is to punish the idiot (with no of cards<>2). If action has taken place, the punters who have been playing by the correct rules should not be punished.

the only time i've seen a split pot after this much action is when the dealer kills the deck before he's finished dealing every street (as in he thinks the hand is finished until someone who is hiding their cards under their huge paws says "what about me?"...what an idiot dealer... !

PS: voting or anything like that is a NO!
Punters are dumb and should not be given a choice to do anything other than play their cards and stop whinging...and make them wash their hands! I should point out that these are my views only

Fatboydim

I think the whole hand is dead. As the extra card was dealt to the small blind therefore it is a missdeal. I think the overriding concern here would be cheating. How in a game when you receive two cards could you not notice a third? A missdeal gives everyone an equal chance... But play the hand on and it's making a rod for your own back. As someone is not going to be happy. At least this way no one loses money.

Bandana boy

By declaring a mis deal then you give a chance to win no chance to lose to the player with 3 cards
eg
I raise all in you fold we all muck i take the pot
you call i go sorry 3 cards lets all take our money back and start again

As i have seen it 3 card boy is out loses any money he puts in pot and remaining players continue on

I am pretty sure i have seen this ruling in either Merrion or Macau

NickyOD

Fatboydim wrote:

I think the whole hand is dead. As the extra card was dealt to the small blind therefore it is a missdeal. I think the overriding concern here would be cheating. How in a game when you receive two cards could you not notice a third? A missdeal gives everyone an equal chance... But play the hand on and it's making a rod for your own back. As someone is not going to be happy. At least this way no one loses money.

I agree with you Len. This was exactly my thinking. Someone will be put out if the hand continutes and they lose money with cards they possibly shouldn't have been dealt, and a flop that shouldn't have been. A misdeal is what I felt the table would be happiest with. I'm not happy with just saying "Action has taken place, carry on!"

However I don't want to just go with my own opinion here. If there is an official ruling for this situation then I want to go with that. I'm not going to go with what the fitz, merrion, do just because they have taken it upon themselves to do it that way when there is no ruling in black and white. If they use this ruling because there is official text to back it up then I'd be happy with that but I can't take what they to be the written-in-stone rules of poker. BTW the manager of the Macau happened to be in the club at the time and agreed with me but was pretty shocked that some clown went this far in the hand with 3 cards. It's a pertty rare situation.

JuliusFranco

i see your side of the coin Nicky/FBD but i just can't help but feel that your way leaves far to much scope for cheating (suppose i kept a card up my selve, knowing that i could use this on 3rd/4th street when i felt that i could lose a big pot etc) and it's generally unfair to the other players

players must have 2 cards before the first round of betting. if a player has more or less before betting starts then it's a mis deal. However, the starting of any betting action changes things completly!

i fully accept your view that when the deck in finally cut, everyones future cards is set in stone. however, this is not always the case. for example, say, the dealer exposes 4th or 5th street before betting on that round has finished, there's a reshuffle of the live deck.

the point is,
a) when action has taken place, it must be ensured that "randomness" in the cards dealt is maintained.
b) people cannot have any scope to cheat
c) rullings have to be fair to everyone.

if the above hand was declared a mis deal it is not fair to the people still in the pot! it worked out ok here because maybe no one had a monster.
Say you had someone holding the nuts and the pot was much bigger...

i'm waffling...i could maybe get the EPT rules and see if this is adressed but again that would only be their take. the only way really to solve this is to contact the IPF

the most important this is to be consistant

DeVore

afaik, the correct ruling is the one RT outlines.

I think some of you might be misunderstanding the subtley of this ruling. Had there not been significant action (defined as two actions that are not folds) the hand would be ruled dead.

Once action has occured the hand must be played on to completion, this applies not only to this foobar but also to many others. One ruling will be given if there is S.A. and another if there isnt.

The reason for this is that you cannot abandon a hand because of player action or misaction. Suppose we have the situation where two players are in cahoots (player A and and player C is unaware. B nods to his partner and shows him three cards (or worse, slips in a third). A raises, to steal a big pot, C reraises allin. The lads realise they have walked into a rock with the nuts but have a majical Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card... literally. B declares the misdeal and everyone gets their money back. This is far worse then a few superstitious people having their noses out of joint.

The other over riding consideration of a TD is to be fair to ALL players equally. In this case the player with 3 cards has been derelict in his duty (he is OBLIGED to tell the dealer immediately he realises there is a misdeal). Each player got a random hand, that none else was privy to. Noone has been unfairly affected.

I understand you desire to keep players happy but the rules are there for a reason. I wouldnt get bent out of shape but if I didnt know the players I'd be unhappy with any other ruling.

DeV.

RoundTower

NickyOD wrote:

However I don't want to just go with my own opinion here. If there is an official ruling for this situation then I want to go with that. I'm not going to go with what the fitz, merrion, do just because they have taken it upon themselves to do it that way when there is no ruling in black and white. If they use this ruling because there is official text to back it up then I'd be happy with that but I can't take what they to be the written-in-stone rules of poker.

There aren't really "written-in-stone rules of poker", they are slightly different everywhere. The two most standard rulebooks available online IMO are Ciaffone and Caro & Cooke. These should be added to the FAQ if they aren't already, using these would be a lot better than looking stuff up on Google.

Here are the relevant passages from those two books:

Ciaffone, Section 3 General Poker Rules wrote:

2. Once action occurs, a misdeal can no longer be declared. The hand will be played to conclusion, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button game, action is considered to occur when two players after the blind have acted on their hands.

Caro & Cooke 14.20 MISDEALS wrote:

Misdeals may be called for any irregularity in the initial dealing round, until substantial action has taken place. Once substantial action has taken place, the hand must proceed.

They both go into further detail on what exactly does constitute a misdeal. Poker & Pints, what cardrooms made these rulings? I would be shocked if any experienced Vegas floorman declared a misdeal in the second situation (the one before the flop might be different).

NickyOD

Thanks Dev and RT for the input. I obviously made a mistake with my ruling.

At the time the pot was quite small so I have to question what constitues "substantial action" Should I make it a rule of thumb that "substantial action" consitutes any player making even a minimum bet or raise? A lot of the time I am just as conscerned with putting players noses out of joint as I am with making the correct ruling. Let's say I let the hand continue and a big pot develops. The player who loses the pot complains that he got trapped in a hand that shouldn't have been because the third card on the flop was an Ace when it should have been the second burned card. Obviously that's something I just have to accept will happen.

Thanks again.

N.

DeVore

You didnt make a terrible ruling, technically its incorrect but if it isnt happening every week I wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

If a player got "trapped" in a hand he only has himself to blame. It has nothing to do with the deal and its just a bad player looking for someone or something to blame. Random cards are random cards, if they werent complaining about that they'd be complaining about the coffee. Besides, anyone who thinks like that isnt going to be a long term customer

DeV.

RoundTower

NickyOD wrote:

At the time the pot was quite small so I have to question what constitues "substantial action" Should I make it a rule of thumb that "substantial action" consitutes any player making even a minimum bet or raise?

I think this is a good place for making your own rules so long as they are reasonable. I think I mentioned the rule of having 2 players acting after the blinds (including folds) above. I don't know exactly what Luke uses but I think a raise and a fold is enough, but two folds isn't. And I posted a thread some way back where a raise and two folds wasnt enough for Thomas Kremser.

The_Flyer

can i thicken the plot a little....

Say the idiot with 3 cards happened to bet his opponents out of a substantial pot and when the dealer is awarding him his chips only then notices his mistake? What's the ruling here? Does he get to keep the pot?

DeVore

No his hand is dead, he forfeits the pot to the other player. He should also be at least warned if not ejected. He cant have "just noticed" his mistake, noone would make such a mistake. Its his duty to inform the dealer of a misdeal and he chose to try and steal it instead. I'd leave him his last (uncalled) bet and award the rest to the last player in the pot.

RT, I think Luke uses the same criteria you outlined there, 2 folds not being enough. I think he may require two non-fold actions though. Personally I would agree with you that one raise/call and one fold is enough.

DeV.