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 !