How would you rule here...

Flushdraw

This hand happened in the IO qualifier in the Fitz last night....

Blinds are 1500/3000 and theres about 16 players left...Player (not sure of his name) raises to 6k from the CO (he has about 14k behind). I fold, the SB folds then the dealer takes the SB and BB and passes it to the raiser, who in turn mucks his hand. The dealer messes the deck and then its realised that the player on the BB still has cards. It was Frank the restaurants owner in the BB and he has a habit of hiding his cards behind his chips or else under his hand. he has about 60k in chips at this stage.

Is the pot awarded to the BB every time here?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Flushdraw

Very messy one Lloyd. The player who raised was extremely gracious throughout the 10 min discussion that followed. Luke was called to make a ruling but just wondering if the spirit of the game could be taken into account or is it a case of rules are rules.

Glowingmind

I think once the pot's been awarded, there's very little recourse unfortunately.

Flushdraw

Glowingmind wrote:

I think once the pot's been awarded, there's very little recourse unfortunately.

The pot was awarded to the raiser but the BB hadnt yet acted to the raise and was the only person in the hand with live cards.

Glowingmind

The thing is, i think that unless Frank had actually pointed that out before the pot had been awarded, then he hasn't got a case. As far as i'm aware once the pot was awarded to the raiser, then there's no going back.
Had frank highlighted the issue, or if the dealer had noticed before the pot was awarded then the chips should have been given to Frank.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

TheRock

What was the ruling made by Luke?

smurph

Im sorry but I would have thought that as Frank is the last man standing with cards, he should get the pot. He turns over his cards, pot is awarded to him.

Flushdraw

TheRock wrote:

What was the ruling made by Luke?

I'm almost fit for bed..I'll post it before i go. I just want to see a few more views on it first. Ocallagh was at the table too but i'm guessing he has a bit more sense than me and is well tuked up in the leaba by now!

TheRock

If the pot has already been awarded to to raiser then that should stand.

If I'm the original raiser, I'm not losing chips because the the dealer made a mistake and the big blind wasn't following the action.:mad:

If the pot has not been awarded and the raiser muck his cards, then I see this as being different. In this case the pot would have to be awarded to the big blind as the last person with cards.

Lafortezza

LuckyLloyd wrote:

There is two things here:

1) If a player is hiding his cards in such a way that they are not fully visible I think it is a bad thing. Frank has a habit of doing this.

2) If a player is not following the action close enough to say "hold on a second!!" when a pot is being awarded before his turn to act that is also a bad thing.

I'd agree with this. If a player isn't paying enough attention to the game to see that the whole table considers the hand to be over and that the chips are being awarded to someone, then tough luck. It's up to each player to protect their action/chance to act.

It depends how far the action has gone, ie has the next hand begun or whatever. If the dealer has started washing the cards for the next hand then I'd say the next hand has technically started.

shoutman

I also agree, surely the pot has to be awarded to the raiser, the pot has already been awarded to him and therefor the hand is over and he can muck his cards, what if he had flipped over his cards, yet the deck was being washed what would happen then? Would the bb be allowed to play out the hand while knowing exactly what his opponent has, that would be ridiculous.

Ollieboy

First, I think different clubs would have a different rule for this, I know in the states its slightly different rule to here.

But, Frank must have his cards on clear display, as far as I know this is a rule, if he hides them and than declares them in play after the hand is over, thats tough.

Smurph, even do he as cards in his hand, the hand is over, hence the cards are dead.

The important point here is the pot as been reward, declaring all action over and all hands dead. I think Frank should learn from this mistake and take it on the chin. I'm guessing he had 910 or something and want to play it...lol

Flushdraw

Very interesing responses with the vast majority saying the pot should be awarded to the raiser.

Luke came up and said the ruling was that Frank could either say fold and award the pot to the raiser but if he says call, he wins the pot. No ifs, buts or maybes, no compromise about getting his BB back or splitting the pot etc...Call he wins, fold he loses.

Frank says he wanted to call and he might have raised, but he took about 5 mins to make his decision and he finally said call and was awarded the pot.

ianmc38

You're such a degenerate! Go to bed.

Bandana boy

The OR waited until he was awarded the pot before mucking his cards we cannot now punish him for doing everything 100% correct

I have seen these players who inadvertently hide there cards I think this should be discouraged by the dealer but if they do this and then let action get so far as the pot to be awarded to another player then Shame on them

How did Luke rule on this ?

Flushdraw

Bandana boy wrote:

The OR waited until he was awarded the pot before mucking his cards we cannot now punish him for doing everything 100% correct

I have seen these players who inadvertently hide there cards I think this should be discouraged by the dealer but if they do this and then let action get so far as the pot to be awarded to another player then Shame on them

How did Luke rule on this ?

See above how he ruled...

and to IanMc..takes one to know one..i cant go to bed, i'm on a roll!

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ollieboy

Flushdraw wrote:

Very interesing responses with the vast majority saying the pot should be awarded to the raiser.

Luke came up and said the ruling was that Frank could either say fold and award the pot to the raiser but if he says call, he wins the pot. No ifs, buts or maybes, no compromise about getting his BB back or splitting the pot etc...Call he wins, fold he loses.

Frank says he wanted to call and he might have raised, but he took about 5 mins to make his decision and he finally said call and was awarded the pot.

totally disagree with this ruling and wouldn't be a happy bunny. I think Frank should be punish here and not the button raiser who did everything correct. The problem here is the cards in full display

TheRock

Flushdraw wrote:

Very interesing responses with the vast majority saying the pot should be awarded to the raiser.

Luke came up and said the ruling was that Frank could either say fold and award the pot to the raiser but if he says call, he wins the pot. No ifs, buts or maybes, no compromise about getting his BB back or splitting the pot etc...Call he wins, fold he loses.

Frank says he wanted to call and he might have raised, but he took about 5 mins to make his decision and he finally said call and was awarded the pot.

Very very wrong ruling IMO.:eek:
If I was the original raiser id be furious:mad:

Flushdraw

Ollieboy wrote:

totally disagree with this ruling and wouldn't be a happy bunny. I think Frank should be punish here and not the button raiser who did everything correct. The problem here is the cards in full display

I didnt see the pot being awarded to the raiser because i was watching Frank the whole time and he clearly about to fold before he realised what had happened. All he had to do was to show his cards, if they were anyway decent then everyone would have understood the call of the minraise but he refused to show. It was definetly a strange and wrong decision in my book

Solksjaer

The raisers hand was essentially mucked, he cannot win the pot if there are live cards on the table. The fact that the dealer 'awarded the pot' to the raiser means nothing. He can't use dead cards to win a pot. Dealer mistake. I think the honourable thing would be to let the BB keep his chips and give the raiser the rest. Plus warn Frank to keep his cards on display at all times. I believe him though if he said he was going to call

I've had my BB mucked by the dealer on a final table once when it was folded around to the SB who called, I hadn't even looked at my cards at this stage 'but the dealer pulled them in..(ok I should have had a sack of spuds on them to protect) but the pot went to the SB. This was a final table and the blinds were huge. I had no argument other than FFS.


Just seen this was a MIN raise, Frank would have called this with anything. He always looks like he's gonna fold .

TheRock

Solksjaer wrote:

The raisers hand was essentially mucked, he cannot win the pot if there are live cards on the table. The fact that the dealer 'awarded the pot' to the raiser means nothing. He can't use dead cards to win a pot. Dealer mistake. I think the honourable thing would be to let the BB keep his chips and give the raiser the rest. Plus warn Frank to keep his cards on display at all times. I believe him though if he said he was going to call.

The fact that the pot was awarded means everything! This is the key to the ruling. If the pot is awarded then the hand and all action is over and there are no "live" cards on the table regardless of where the are.

The raiser made no mistake. He mucked after being awarded the pot, he is not using dead cards to win a pot he was awarded the pot when his hand was live.

I agree that perhaps the honourable thing would be to let the BB keep his chips and give the raiser the rest. Common sense has to be prevail at times.

Flushdraw

TheRock wrote:

I agree that perhaps the honourable thing would be to let the BB keep his chips and give the raiser the rest. Common sense has to be prevail at times.

The whole table agreed to this but there was no way in the world Luke would agree.

Lafortezza

After the chips had been pushed to the raiser, and the dealer was washing the deck, what exactly happened with Frank realising he still had cards? Was he watching what was going on at all? Was he turned away watching another table? When did the raiser muck his hand?

It's a tough call for a TD because there's the exact rules, and there's also "in the spirit of the rules". Case by case basis would be the best way to go but the way it's been described in this scenario it sounds like the raiser got effed in the A.

Solksjaer

The reason this ruling is correct is -> The dealer made an honest mistake here. However, what if some dealer elsewhere
made a dishonest ruling in favour of someone.:eek: ..Live cards are live cards. It's up to the dealer to make sure players are showing their cards. If Frank was consistantly hiding them the dealer should have pointed this out. It's not fair but I think it's the correct ruling. IMO.

Solksjaer

Flushdraw wrote:

The whole table agreed to this but there was no way in the world Luke would agree.

The Whole table? Looks like Frank didn't agree.

Flushdraw

Solksjaer wrote:

The Whole table? Looks like Frank didn't agree.

No Willie, Frank also agred to this..

Flushdraw

lafortezza wrote:

After the chips had been pushed to the raiser, and the dealer was washing the deck, what exactly happened with Frank realising he still had cards? Was he watching what was going on at all? Was he turned away watching another table? When did the raiser muck his hand?

It's a tough call for a TD because there's the exact rules, and there's also "in the spirit of the rules". Case by case basis would be the best way to go but the way it's been described in this scenario it sounds like the raiser got effed in the A.

I didnt see exactly what happened because i was watching Frank and Frank didnt see the dealer pushing the pot to the raiser either because he was looking at his chips. From what i gathered, the dealer took in the blinds, pushed the pot to the raiser who then folded his cards. He began washing the deck and somebody said wait, Frank has cards. Maybe ocallagh saw someting different because i was in seat 1 and he was in seat 6.

Anyway i'm off to bed for a couple of hours and i'll be interested to read the rest of the posts later

Solksjaer

Flushdraw wrote:

No Willie, Frank also agred to this..

Then I'm confused as to why a ruling was needed. If Frank agreed play on.
In the spirit of things Frank should have folded though, but he is an honest guy.

Enjoy your sleep !

Clareman

My understanding would be that the play was with the BB, BB had to make a decision of whether to play or not, dealer assumed that he was not going to play so finished the hand, dealer error.

Surely the dealer should have been keeping an eye on people mucking their cards, the action was to the BB who obvisiously didn't do anything.

I think another point would be did the raiser muck his cards or did the dealer request them? If the dealer requested them then the raiser would have some recourse.

All in all, there is a number of ways of ruling this but in the spirt that the game seems to have been played in the BB should have said, listen I have X X, I would have played, sorry for not keeping and eye on the game, lets get to the next hand.

jacQues

Flushdraw wrote:

This hand happened in the IO qualifier in the Fitz last night....
Is the pot awarded to the BB every time here?

My understanding of the rules is that when the dealer is shuffling the next hand, nothing can be changed about the previous hand. (exception: in case of cheating)

However, in this case Frank still had his last hand... So it must be a dealer error, since (s)he was shuffling 50 cards and not 52. Therefore I don't think that there is a straightforward answer here. In other words: the TD should make a decision per case. If the player deliberately hid his/her cards and is angle-shooting, the raiser wins the pot and a warning is issued to the BB. Otherwise, its unfair to punish the BB for it. Unfortunately, this may mean that the raiser may be punished. The question is whether the raiser should be aware that the BB didn't fold yet. If yes, the pot goes to the BB. In this case this was not clear, so Luke's solution wasn't bad. The "surrender" solution does tend to make more sense, but when at the table decision-making doesn't allow for long deep thoughts about the situation.

I for one disagree on the "chips are awarded and over the line" point-of-view. Common sense should always prevail. It happened more than once, both in my favour and not in my favour, that the dealer read the board wrong and awarded the pot to the wrong player. Correct and continue, no angle-shooting because cards speak, that's my opinion.

jacQues

ocallagh

I saw this last night and was surprised at the ruling. The raiser was definitely awarded the pot. He was stacking his chips when we all realised Frank had cards. I hadn't been looking at Frank so I don't know what his intention was. The button had put in a min raise to 6k leaving him with about 12k, and said he wanted a call and I believe him! He's a very good player and declared he had a high pair. Anyway, I don't know if Frank was going to call the additional 3k. He had over 60k. There were jokes around the table that Frank always calls a min raise which I thought gave Frank a much easier decision to make. Frank thought for about 5 minutes, declaring he just wanted to give the raiser his money back and him to take his BB back. I was sure he was going to pass but eventually after a few people said no pressure etc he called.. In fact it was the original raiser who said he was happy with whatever outcome and took the pressue off somewhat. I don't agree with the ruling, however in Luke's defence maybe he didn't have all the facts. I was tired and cannot remember who described the situation

5 hands later the same thing happened! I pushed UTG. Frank didn't spot I was all-in and announced call from the SB and put in the 1500 to make up the BB. Paul folded and when Frank realised I was all-in he folded too. The pot was awarded to me. I mucked my hand.... and THEN the dealer asked me if I wanted Frank to call because he had declared it. I was in shock! Clearly not dealer, because my QJo is stuck in the middle of the muck! Frank had folded but had just put his cards to the side. The dealer seemed insistent on getting a ruling (as if to be fair to me)! The whole table calmed the dealer down and thank god we weren't left in the same situation..... From that hand my cards are going nowhere near the muck until I'm positive eveyone else is gone from the hand

sendic

jacQues wrote:

My understanding of the rules is that when the dealer is shuffling the next hand, nothing can be changed about the previous hand. (exception: in case of cheating)

in the Fitz, the next hand is said to have started from when the dealer riffles the cards for the first time. If the dealer was only at the washing part of the shuffle maybe this was the reason Luke deemed the hand to still be in play.

jacQues wrote:

I for one disagree on the "chips are awarded and over the line" point-of-view. Common sense should always prevail.

I agree with this. eg, say two players flip their cards at showdown, one with a straight and one with a flush. the dealer awards the pot to the flush when someone points out the other guy has a straight flush. should the pot now be awarded to the straight flush? i think so. its a dealer error but so long as its recognised in time and can be rectified there shouldn't be a problem
(of course the dealer should have mucked the losing hand before awarding the pot in this case, but its just an example)

kakak1

This is certainly a strange one but the more I think of it the more I am inclined to agree with Lukes ruling.

Firstly we must remember that the TD has to be totally impartial and must stick by the rules even if that is not in the spirit of the game at that precise time. If he doesn't you can be sure a situation will arise on another occasion where this incident will be quoted as a precedent, except the spirit might be a little changed then.

No one seems to lay any blame on the Raiser here. Was he not watching the game. Was he not looking at what the BB was doing. We are always reminded our cards are our responsibility to protect and yet everyone is blamimg the BB for over protecting his cards. If the dealer was having a difficulty with the placement of the BB cards he should have been advised earlier of this fact.

The error here was with the Dealer and this then induced the raiser to muck. The BB did nothing wrong, in fact it appears the BB did nothing.

Lukes ruling here has to be correct, albeit not in the spirit of the moment.

DeVore

Yeah I think Luke's ruling is correct but its an awful position to have to rule in. I have heard that ruling before too, so he's not just making it up on the spot.

The key point is not the awarding of the pot but the start of the next hand which begins with the first card dealt...before then errors can be rolled back.

Also, it sounds like the dealer wasnt very experienced given Niall's problem a few hands later...

DeV.

Mellor

Thats the last ruling I'd expect.
If thats the ruling the TD made I would at least like to see him tell Frank he has to show his hand if he is claiming the pot. Player folded, last players shos his hand. If he was claiming the pot without a geniune calling hand I think its not in the spirt of the game etc

NickyOD

Wow, What a mess. I don't like the ruling but I can certainly understand how you can make the ruling in certain circumstances. A lot of the time when you're brought to the table to make a ruling you're not given all the info or the scenario is explained to you in such a way that you interpret what happened differently.

IMO the pot should have been awarded to the raiser. The riffle shuffle indicates the beginning of a hand and the "wash" or "scramble" signifies the end of the hand as it only happens after the pot has been awarded. Therefore the hand was over. For any player to have recourse they must make that clear before the end of the hand. Since that didn't happen because Frank wasn't paying attention the hand is over and the pot has to stay where it is.

DeVore

If you make that ruling then a bent dealer can simply push the pot towards his mate, dump the deck and claim the hand is over....

DeV.

ocallagh

DeVore wrote:

If you make that ruling then a bent dealer can simply push the pot towards his mate, dump the deck and claim the hand is over....

DeV.

actually, now that I think of it Luke pointed out that last night while giving his ruling. The more I think about it the more I think he was correct.

Wreck

Was playing in the last SE monthly 200 game and a similar situation developed, except it was post flop. Two limpers preflop and BB checks. BB bets on flop and first limper mucks. Dealer pushes pot to BB who then mucks his hand, only for the MP limper to announce he is still to act. TD decison was to award pot to MP limper as he was the only one who still had cards. Thought it was a bit harsh on the BB as it was a dealer mistake, but in fairness I think its still the correct ruling.

NickyOD

DeVore wrote:

If you make that ruling then a bent dealer can simply push the pot towards his mate, dump the deck and claim the hand is over....

DeV.

A bent dealer? Are there many bent dealers out there? I would say they are one in a zillion and there are a lot less obvious ways for a dealer to to help out a buddy.

It's completely unfair for the raiser to lose the pot here when he did nothing wrong.

You can look at it the other way. It's possible to exploit this rule any time you see the dealer awarding a pot prematurely. Just hold onto your cards, wait for guy to muck his hand and then reveal yours.

Goodluck2me

ocallagh wrote:

actually, now that I think of it Luke pointed out that last night while giving his ruling. The more I think about it the more I think he was correct.

Yeah i think this was the correct ruling, i also dont think that the BB should have to show his cards - as it is not anyone else business what he has. he wouldnt have to show if he was calling the OR then he would have had to. also its a very difficult situation for luke and i dont think any ruling benefits all parties all of the time but this is as close as possible imo.

MickL

NickyOD wrote:

A bent dealer? Are there many bent dealers out there? I would say they are one in a zillion and there are a lot less obvious ways for a dealer to to help out a buddy.

It's completely unfair for the raiser to lose the pot here when he did nothing wrong.

You can look at it the other way. It's possible to exploit this rule any time you see the dealer awarding a pot prematurely. Just hold onto your cards, wait for guy to muck his hand and then reveal yours.

there is a possibilty that the dealers mate might be sitted at d table and that he might decide to help him out!! im not crazy about the rulling but i can see where it comes from and its a tough spot for a TD to be in!!! i think the ettiqute thing frank could of done was fold!! but thats just my opinion!!

biteme

I tend to agree with this ruling.

Everyone is saying that it's the BB fault for not paying attention to the hand. Surely blame must also fall on raiser for not realising that the BB has not made an action. Mainly it is a dealer error however for awarding the pot prematurely. I think it is unfair to punish the BB as they have done nothing wrong. Yes the raiser hasn't done anything wrong, however they have mucked their hand while there is still a live hand out.

Flushdraw

kakak1 wrote:

No one seems to lay any blame on the Raiser here. Was he not watching the game. Was he not looking at what the BB was doing. We are always reminded our cards are our responsibility to protect and yet everyone is blamimg the BB for over protecting his cards.

The raiser was in seat 10 and Frank was in seat 2. We all know its almost impossible to be watching the players from these positions. I dont think Frank intentionally hid his cards because he does it all the time

connie147

I was TD at a charity poker game last night and I came across this very situation, but not having been on boards for 2 days, it was completely new to me and I was gonna post today to see if my ruling was ok.

Player 2 (utg) raised 2k (blinds 300-600), folded all round but dealer missed a player, when sb and bb folded the dealer awarded the pot to the raiser. The raiser mucked but as the dealer was shoving him the chips, the player in the cut-off said "stop, I havent acted yet" and to his horrer, the dealer saw 2 cards in front of said player.
I was called for a ruling, and after hearing the story from the dealer ( and knowing both players I'd know there was no skullduggery going on), I ruled in the spirit of the game that the raiser gets his raise back and the player with the cards gets the rest of the pot.

Its just amazing when I logged on to ask about it, I find this thread.

Anyone think my ruling was ok?

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Im afraid i rule the Same as Luke Here and i know it annoys the raiser .. But to be fair he is also not paying attention if he mucks his hand with the other player Still to act.. I agree with it but i would also sanction with a warning about cards being visible at all times and if it carried on he would be given a penalty ..

Cards speak in this siuation im afraid and as he is the last player on the Table if he calls he wins with cards in front other than that then pot belongs to the raiser .. As the other players hand has been mucked if the other player has not mucked then we would still have a small problem of the mucked cards being in the Deck in this situation i would freeze the betting and check it down .. As other players could easily influence the betting on this .....

Its a tough spot as a Td But Luke is very exprienced and i have to Fully agree here .......

a147pro

What happens again if Frank folds? Do all chips go back to their original owners?

If not why not? Each hand is as dead as the others.

If Frank can win the chips by merely calling then the raisers hand is as dead as the SB or Frank's if he folds, no?

Think it was prob the right ruling, even though a fairer one would be to give Frank back his blind. Incidentally could the raiser (or Frank) do this, ie give chips to another player? I presume not?

The Clamper

I have come accross this before and ruled the same way as Luke on it

i did however suggest to the other players and the dealer, that they should be vigilant and i cautioned the player involved that he should keep his cards in plain view at all times

about 30 minutes later the same guy was involved in something similar where his cards were not clearly in plain view and someone called and then he wanted to raise even though the caller was after him at the table

i allowed him to call and check the hand down, he could only call any bet but couldnt raise it, once the hand was over, I took him away the table for a good 15 minute chat about being seen as a smart alec etc, he was blinded away for this period, then moved him to another table with a severe caution about being involved in a similar situation again during the tourney, which meant i would have expelled him from the tourney and any future tourney in which i was TD.

this type of behaviour is 1 of 2 things
1, it could be complete lack of concentration and one has to wonder where their head is at
or
2. deliberate smart alecness with one intention

i generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have made an error, repeating the event starts the hair on the back of my neck to stand up, thrice is unforgivable

Luke is probably the most experienced TD i know and he has seen it all many times over. the one amazing and exceptional thing about Luke, is that he makes the same decisions every time, he doesnt change with the wind like some TD's i could mention (but wont) he may be wrong in your view on any particular decision, but at least he remains constant and you may be assured that if a similar decision has to be made next week or next year, it will be the same every time. right or wrong.

and remember, the TD is allways right, even if you think he isnt, even if he is

what amazes me about this particular story is this, that not a single player at the table, saw that there were other cards yet to be mucked. sound like nobody was paying attention. not even Frank

ps, was that Frank Hunt ? brother of that famous phone call prankster, Mike