Unusual situation - ruling opinions please

Lplate

Tournament. BB (not paying attention) folds thinking he is utg. Dealer tells him he is BB and must post anyway. Other cards have been mucked with his and he accepts the ruling immediately. Folded all the way to SB who throws his cards towards dealer and says "it's my pot". His cards lie in middle of table and haven't touched the muck. At this point BB says that as nobody called his bet he should be awarded the pot.

Anyone got any ideas?

fabsoul

BB should get the pot. as nobody called his bet i think.

mdwexford

small blinds pot imo

Flushdraw

mdwexford wrote:

small blinds pot imo

I agree. Its the same scenario as if the BB is away from the table and its folded around to the SB. he's the last player in the hand with live cards so wins the pot. BB cant claim the pot without cards

NickyOD

Technically the player in the SB does have to call the BB to win the pot before mucking his cards. Seriously though I would do whatever it takes NOT to award the pot to the player who was silly enough to fold in the BB before anyone acted, as he doesn't really deserve it, even though that would probably be the right ruling "technically".

For example, If you raise but your hand is then mucked someone still has to call your bet to claim the pot, even if they are the only player left with cards, the above situation is probably the same, but awarding the pot to the BB here would be persnickety and silly IMO.

Jesus Wept

I think the pot goes to the bb, cards or not, the sb folded to him.

All the sb has to is say raise or allin. It's not difficult.


If you were online, and the bb was disconnected, you wouldn't win the pot if you folded from the sb.

You shouldn't be able to win a pot when the only action you have taken is folding

NickyOD wrote:

Technically the player in the SB does have to call the BB to win the pot before mucking his cards. Seriously though I would do whatever it takes NOT to award the pot to the player who was silly enough to fold in the BB before anyone acted, as he doesn't really deserve it, even though that would probably be the right ruling "technically".

For example, If you raise but your hand is then mucked someone still has to call your bet to claim the pot, even if they are the only player left with cards, the above situation is probably the same, but awarding the pot to the BB here would be persnickety and silly IMO.

as silly a situation as it would be, I don't see why the big blind can't play the board. (wasn't this the possible scenario if Nicky Power's allin with no cards was called by DeWolfe?)

Which would bring up the silly scenario that the small blind could call, check the flop, check the turn, and bet the river

but by the sounds of the person in the small blind, he may just check it down, and it would be a split pot

padser

You don't need cards to win a pot (thats been pretty well established over the years in situaitons where someones cards are mucked by dealer and they put their hands over their 'cards' and no one knows. They raise and its folded.

Unless the SB raises the BB is still in the pot regardless of whether he has cards or not.

Consider the situation where the BB card's are mucked and its folded around to the SB who goes all in for 1001 (with BB 1000). The BB would be better off calling the raise of 1 with no cards and hoping the SB has to play the board and split the 2002 pot. Highly unlikely obviously - but nonetheless the BB throwing away his cards doesnt mean he couldn't play on.

bops

everybody should be just told to leave imo - what a group of nits & donkeys

tough one though - i'd lean towards the SB because he had the only/last live hand

jacQues

Lplate wrote:

Anyone got any ideas?

The SB gets the pot. There can be no discussion about it. The BB folded already and therefore can never, under any circumstance be awarded anything in this hand. The SB is the "last man standing" and does not need to call the BB in order to be awarded the pot.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

Mellor

Its not as if the SB folded to the BB, he mucked his hand while saying, its my pot, asking him to go through the motions and put in a raise is silly and timewasting. As in most of these situations common sense goes a long way. and people often make a mess of things when trying to stick rigidly to the rules

Marq

I would give the pot to the BB on the basis that his bet was the last standing, and nobody that has called the bet has live cards.
SB should have said "raise"
that wins automatically.

NickyOD

The-Rigger wrote:

I think the pot goes to the bb, cards or not, the sb folded to him.

All the sb has to is say raise or allin. It's not difficult.


If you were online, and the bb was disconnected, you wouldn't win the pot if you folded from the sb.

You shouldn't be able to win a pot when the only action you have taken is folding

as silly a situation as it would be, I don't see why the big blind can't play the board. (wasn't this the possible scenario if Nicky Power's allin with no cards was called by DeWolfe?)

Which would bring up the silly scenario that the small blind could call, check the flop, check the turn, and bet the river

but by the sounds of the person in the small blind, he may just check it down, and it would be a split pot

He doesn't have to say raise or all in. He just has to say call and the pot would be awarded to him without dealing a flop as he has the only live hand. He did say "It's my pot" so we can hardly say his intention was to fold and concede the pot to the BB can we?

nicnic's situation is different because he reraised preflop and De Wolfe didn't know that his cards had been mucked, but if he had said call of course he wins automatically.

In this scenario there is no raise and he knows he is the last player with cards. He's basically getting a walk and he knows it. I would just give him th pot and forget about playing silly buggers over a minor technicality.

Having said that I can't say I would disagree with a TD who awarded the pot to the BB but I would hate to see the player in the BB rewarded with a pot for folding out of turn.

earthworms

its the big blinds pot

jacQues

Everyone here saying BB should get the pot is very wrong. I'm amazed about the high number of people here that are wrong in this way.

Chips over the line are never any player's chips, but the pot's chips. Once over the line, the player lost them already and the only way to get them back is to win the pot.

The BB has the BB out, yes. But these aren't his/her chips anymore. They are the pot's chips. And because the BB as folded, (s)he can never ever be awarded any of them.

Anyone proclaiming that the BB should be awarded the pot is misinterpreting the rules or simply angle-shooting.

Think of it. If you thing that the BB should be awarded the pot, then a raise from the SB would logically mean that the BB has the option to call that raise and play the board. LOL No way!

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

earthworms

ok ok take it easy jack

NickyOD

jacQues wrote:

Everyone here saying BB should get the pot is very wrong. I'm amazed about the high number of people here that are wrong in this way.

Jesus Wept

jacQues wrote:

The SB gets the pot. There can be no discussion about it. The BB folded already and therefore can never, under any circumstance be awarded anything in this hand. The SB is the "last man standing" and does not need to call the BB in order to be awarded the pot.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

last man standing? You've played too much tribecca.

I always thought that 'last man standing' thing sounds ridiculous mentioned in relation to poker.

It's not WWE!

Mellor

Still, I reackon the Undertaker and Hulk Hogan heads up for house would be good

Jesus Wept

NickyOD wrote:

He doesn't have to say raise or all in. He just has to say call and the pot would be awarded to him without dealing a flop as he has the only live hand. He did say "It's my pot" so we can hardly say his intention was to fold and concede the pot to the BB can we?

By this logic, I could state 'it's my pot', and expect any pot to be pushed to me?

NickyOD wrote:

nicnic's situation is different because he reraised preflop and De Wolfe didn't know that his cards had been mucked, but if he had said call of course he wins automatically.

I believe that Nicky said (correct me if I am wrong, Nicky) that the ruling would of been that Nicky would of had to play the board (giving him some slim chance of a split).

NickyOD wrote:

In this scenario there is no raise and he knows he is the last player with cards. He's basically getting a walk and he knows it. I would just give him th pot and forget about playing silly buggers over a minor technicality.

Having said that I can't say I would disagree with a TD who awarded the pot to the BB but I would hate to see the player in the BB rewarded with a pot for folding out of turn.

The blinds are there for a reason, you can't fold to the big blind and expect to win it.

Marq

The-Rigger wrote:

The blinds are there for a reason, you can't fold to the big blind and expect to win it.

there we have it.

Mellor

The-Rigger wrote:

By this logic, I could state 'it's my pot', and expect any pot to be pushed to me?
Of course not, he isnt award the pot because he says that, he is awarded the pot because by saying that his intentions clear


The blinds are there for a reason, you can't fold to the big blind and expect to win it.
if the sb folded out straight then it would of been the BBs pot
but the sbs intentions were quite clear

.

Tar.Aldarion

jacQues wrote:

Everyone here saying BB should get the pot is very wrong. I'm amazed about the high number of people here that are wrong in this way.

Chips over the line are never any player's chips, but the pot's chips. Once over the line, the player lost them already and the only way to get them back is to win the pot.

The BB has the BB out, yes. But these aren't his/her chips anymore. They are the pot's chips. And because the BB as folded, (s)he can never ever be awarded any of them.

Anyone proclaiming that the BB should be awarded the pot is misinterpreting the rules or simply angle-shooting.

Think of it. If you thing that the BB should be awarded the pot, then a raise from the SB would logically mean that the BB has the option to call that raise and play the board. LOL No way!

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

Why can't he play the board?
It' his best five of seven that count.
I have seen players win hands with no cards before(ok just once), just pretending thay hadn't mucked em by accident and getting everybody to fold.
If the bb mucks, it is out of turn, and he is in the hand until it is his action. The sb folded before him, and was out of the hand first imo. If he had called the bb's action would stand.

jimmii

The BB should get it by the fact that despite being stupid and not paying attention the SB is being even more stupid.

In reality I think the ruling would be different in different places.

5starpool

I would be amazed if the BB got awarded the pot. If I was him I wouldn't be even trying to claim it. Talk about angle shooting. If the SB's cards are still not mucked he should grab them, shove a million chips in the pot and dare the BB to call him.

MickL

without a shadow of a doubt the SB gets the pot he is the last live hand in the pot and mucks his hand accordingly

its a no brainer to me

NickyOD

WTF is this play the board nonsense? I've heard it so many times. You cannot play the board with no cards, never, ever, ever.

MickL

in theory you can as what happened to nicnic in the open but they are they few cases which players think quick not to open there mouth that the ealer has mucked there hand if every1 can play the board an the nuts is on the board can i stick all in and get a split pot out of it

NO

as it was clearly stated the BB Folded his hand surendered his right of ever claiming the pot theres no 2 ways about it he has no chance of any Tournament director with an IQ higher than a hamster ever awarding him the pot

Flushdraw

Lplate wrote:

Folded all the way to SB who throws his cards towards dealer and says "it's my pot". His cards lie in middle of table and haven't touched the muck. At this point BB says that as nobody called his bet he should be awarded the pot.

Has the SB a right to reclaim his cards from behind the line, as he has not said fold, his cards havent touched the muck and are clearly visible, and the dealer has not messed the deck?

MickL

Flushdraw wrote:

Has the SB a right to reclaim his cards from behind the line, as he has not said fold, his cards havent touched the muck and are clearly visible, and the dealer has not messed the deck?

he is not folding here he is mucking the winning hand he has no need to ever reclaim his hand for any reason

Mellor

I think what FD meant was in relation to the fact that he never said raise or call, if people make an issue over this fact, could he not reclaim and go through the motions of sticking in a raise to take it down.

Marq

I'll ask luke what his ruling would be next time I'm in work.

Lplate

Marq wrote:

I'll ask luke what his ruling would be next time I'm in work.

Good idea. Be nice to know the opinion of a top TD.

Flushdraw

Mellor wrote:

I think what FD meant was in relation to the fact that he never said raise or call, if people make an issue over this fact, could he not reclaim and go through the motions of sticking in a raise to take it down.

.

DeVore

The SB hardly folded to the BB though. Also, since the SB's cards havent hit the muck, as with any attempt by a player to do something dumb it is the dealer duty to warn him and give him a fair shot at things. The dealer should push his cards back to him, explain his misunderstanding of the rules, wait for the SB to work it out in his (like uh... "raise?") and then award him the pot.

The act of putting your cards over the line doesnt automatically mean a fold... you'll notice dealers will often ask rather then swipe a hand thats lying over the line.

DeV.

MickL

DeVore wrote:

The SB hardly folded to the BB though. Also, since the SB's cards havent hit the muck, as with any attempt by a player to do something dumb it is the dealer duty to warn him and give him a fair shot at things. The dealer should push his cards back to him, explain his misunderstanding of the rules, wait for the SB to work it out in his (like uh... "raise?") and then award him the pot.

The act of putting your cards over the line doesnt automatically mean a fold... you'll notice dealers will often ask rather then swipe a hand thats lying over the line.

DeV.

its not the dealers duty to make sure a player is alert enough to pay attention to the game

Mellor

MickL wrote:

its not the dealers duty to make sure a player is alert enough to pay attention to the game

That post was refering to the SB not the BB, the SB was alert and paying attention, he said out loud, its my pot, as he he had the intention of claiming it.

JoeB-

Not totally relevant but in a mag I picked up in the Fitz there's a piece on Nicky Powers' IO play with no cards!

From mag (Poker Europa, May, pg 15)
TD Austrian Thomas Kremser commented "The move is really clever but not legal. In order to claim a pot you must have two cards... if a player recognizes this and points it out to the dealer he will be out of the pot"

At the time the pot was awarded neither player had cards so the pot should have been split.
End mag quote...

So there you go. The mag also says the ALL IN bet was made BEFORE Nicky realized his cards were gone, is this correct? (Coz I had heard Nicky knew he had no cards when he went ALL IN, I was amazed, I LOL'd so much... amazingly brave, I couldn't believe it. I was telling everyone...)

Cheers

5starpool

JoeBallantine wrote:

So there you go. The mag also says the ALL IN bet was made BEFORE Nicky realized his cards were gone, is this correct? (Coz I had heard Nicky knew he had no cards when he went ALL IN, I was amazed, I LOL'd so much... amazingly brave, I couldn't believe it. I was telling everyone...)

Cheers

I believe Nicky went all in and then realised that his cards had been swiped. I am open to contradiction though.

Either way, balls of steel required.

mdwexford

Nicky is not that crazy to see he has no cards and then ship it, that would be -ev for sure

Jesus Wept

Mellor wrote:

That post was refering to the SB not the BB, the SB was alert and paying attention, he said out loud, its my pot, as he he had the intention of claiming it.

Saying 'It's my pot' is not enough to win a pot, for obvious reasons.

Sure it is a silly situation, it reminds me of that weird football situation where one team refused to play (international soccer, world cup qualifier?) for some reason (political I think) and the other team were required to tip off, and put the ball in the oppositions net (the opposition that weren't there).

Silly as it would of been, if they just sat there for 90 minutes and didn't bother to put the ball in the net, it would of been a draw.

This person in the small blind just has to make a raise.
Ok, if he is not aware of this, and in the interest of not rocking the boat, maybe the dealer should point this out to him and push his cards back, if thats allowed.

Just because it is obvious to everyone what he needs to do, and it's obvious that he will win the pot once he does raise, doesn't mean he doesn't have to go through the motion (which takes 1 second), imo.

I imagine the likely ruling from most TD's would favour the SB, but this would mostly be to 'not rock the boat', and they they may (and should) state that if it happens again, TO RAISE, and not try to fold your hand to the Big blind :rolleyes::eek::p.


I guess it also illustrates how varied the rules, rulings and interpretations on poker are, unfortunately.

5starpool

The-Rigger wrote:

Saying 'It's my pot' is not enough to win a pot, for obvious reasons.

Sure it is a silly situation, it reminds me of that weird football situation where one team refused to play (international soccer, world cup qualifier?) for some reason (political I think) and the other team were required to tip off, and put the ball in the oppositions net (the opposition that weren't there).

Silly as it would of been, if they just sat there for 90 minutes and didn't bother to put the ball in the net, it would of been a draw.

This person in the small blind just has to make a raise.
Ok, if he is not aware of this, and in the interest of not rocking the boat, maybe the dealer should point this out to him and push his cards back, if thats allowed.

Just because it is obvious to everyone what he needs to do, and it's obvious that he will win the pot once he does raise, doesn't mean he doesn't have to go through the motion (which takes 1 second), imo.

I imagine the likely ruling from most TD's would favour the SB, but this would mostly be to 'not rock the boat', and they they may (and should) state that if it happens again, TO RAISE, and not try to fold your hand to the Big blind :rolleyes::eek::p.


I guess it also illustrates how varied the rules, rulings and interpretations on poker are, unfortunately.

In that match, Scotland vs Estonia I think, Scotland kicked off, and the ref immediately blew the whistle to adandon the game and Scotland were awarded a 3-0 win as the opposition did not show up if I recall correctly.

It would be playing semantics a little too much if anyone except the SB got the pot here.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

NickyOD wrote:

WTF is this play the board nonsense? I've heard it so many times. You cannot play the board with no cards, never, ever, ever.

Nicky is 100% on this

Players must have cards to claim any pot , I spoke to Liam Flood after The NICNICNIC incident and he should have not been awarded the pot in his opinion as his hand was dead but he got away with it ....

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Flushdraw wrote:

Has the SB a right to reclaim his cards from behind the line, as he has not said fold, his cards havent touched the muck and are clearly visible, and the dealer has not messed the deck?

Yes once the House rules state that the line is for chips only , If his cards have not touched the muck they are live and may be retrieved

Shadowless

The pot should of been awarded to the button when he raised 4x the BB with ATC.

jacQues

The-Rigger wrote:

Saying 'It's my pot' is not enough to win a pot, for obvious reasons.

No, you're wrong. A good dealer wouldn't even wait for the SB to act and award the pot to the SB immediately after the button folds.

The BB folded already. Out of turn maybe but a fold is a fold and after that there can be no claim on anything in the pot. Action has taken place between the BB's fold and the SB's action (other folds, in this case). There can be no "unfold" done by the BB; never ever! The SB is the last man standing and wins the pot. The fact that the pot is three times his/her SB doesn't matter. The fact that the BB normally acts after the SB doesn't matter.

Also, poker isn't football.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

Jesus Wept

5starpool wrote:

In that match, Scotland vs Estonia I think, Scotland kicked off, and the ref immediately blew the whistle to adandon the game and Scotland were awarded a 3-0 win as the opposition did not show up if I recall correctly.

It would be playing semantics a little too much if anyone except the SB got the pot here.

hmmm, I'm thinking of a good few years ago, I think a team from the middle east were involved, and they stuck the ball in the net.

I agree its semantics though, curse the sb, just raise and save the hassle.

jacQues wrote:

Also, poker isn't football.

Now you're been silly, I never claimed it was.



However....

jacQues wrote:

The SB is the last man standing and wins the pot.

Seriously though, it's not WWE!!!

'This last man standing' stuff has to be taken out of your vocab!

I think Tribecca are the main suspect for infecting you with this jargon!




The Rigger

Marq

jacQues wrote:

A good dealer wouldn't even wait for the SB to act and award the pot to the SB immediately after the button folds.

I mustn't be a good dealer so, and obviously that can't be right. the SB has to raise. As the dealer I would tell him that. If he threw his cards in the way he did in this situation I would call for a ruling.

Tar.Aldarion

Ok, so the BB can never unfold, but he legally has not acted yet right?
He has acted out of turn. Although his action will stand when the action is to him, the action has not reached as far as him if the sb folds and he wins before his action can be done.
I would jusge that if the sb calls or raises, the pot is his.

jacQues

Marq wrote:

the SB has to raise

That is where I disagree. Please (re-)read my posts to know why I disagree.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Ok, so the BB can never unfold, but he legally has not acted yet right? He has acted out of turn.

The BB has acted, just out of turn. So yes, the fold stands. The BB does not get any action after the SB because (s)he already took the action. Out of turn or not doesn't matter since the action in question is a fold.

Remember that out of turn actions count when they are "done" and not when its that player's turn. For example, if I announce "call" in the SB and then UTG raises to 3 BBs. I didn't call the 3 BBs, I called the 1 BB. So when it comes back around to me, I have to put the 1 BB in and then get the option to call 2 more BBs or fold. Since I already took my action (being call) I cannot raise here. If your logic were to apply and I still had my action then I would either have to call UTG's raise or be able to raise here. Both of these would be wrong.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

Flushdraw

Just as a matter of interest. Say the SB and the BB are away from the table and its folded around to the button. Does he win the blinds as he is the last player in the pot with live cards? If he was stupid enough to fold, does the BB win the pot?

jacQues

Flushdraw wrote:

Just as a matter of interest. Say the SB and the BB are away from the table and its folded around to the button. Does he win the blinds as he is the last player in the pot with live cards? If he was stupid enough to fold, does the BB win the pot?

It depends on the away rule.

Some places have the rule that the BB check/folds. In that case yes, the BB wins the pot if the button folds. The button must raise to win.

Normally though, with the rule that sitouts fold, the button wins by default. This is because the SB/BB were not there when the cards were dealt and therefore automatically fold before UTG takes action. So in that case even if the button folds (s)he will get the pot (as the last player with live cards).

jacQues
(ruling hamster)