Ruling!!!!!

mdwexford

4 players left in a tournament.

Blinds 3k-6k

Button (playing 100k) makes it 20k, SB folds, BB (playing 33k) dwells up and eventually announces call and flips over his cards, the button then flips over his cards, both have chips behind....What happens next???

RoundTower

it's a mess, I'd probably make them check it down.

RoundTower

even though this goes against my dislike of the "rule" that if you show your cards you can only call bets and not bet or raise.

tipp86

Think richie made the correct decision,i didnt realise the bb was playing 33000 i had him down for arouind 25000 so when he threw the cards over i just assumed i must have had him covered i didnt even think twice.What would you have done if the decision was on you?

mdwexford

Ah you're the button then.

I would have ran it out the way Richie did it and RT suggested, all that could be done really i suppose. Id never seen that happen before though.

Mellor

There is no other option to check it down, other than a chop, and that completely out of the question.

tipp86

ya it was the only decision really neither of us could complain.Fatigue played a part to me not noticing my bet hadnt him covered along with him throwing over the hand.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

mdwexford wrote:

4 players left in a tournament.

Blinds 3k-6k

Button (playing 100k) makes it 20k, SB folds, BB (playing 33k) dwells up and eventually announces call and flips over his cards, the button then flips over his cards, both have chips behind....What happens next???

The betting is finished players must check it down , The only difference is if one player exposes cards then the other can bet but the player with exposed cards can only cal and cannot raise

mdwexford

Ok then how about this one then

7 handed in a tournament FT, details dont really matter. There is a standard line around the table and the TD annouces before the game that once chips go over the line they are a bet and once cards go over the line they are dead etc etc.

Player A raises
Player B calls
Player C ships his really short stack (not much more)
both players call.

Player A bets the flop
Player B calls

Player A bets the turn
Player B calls

Player A ships the river
Player B folds

Now Player A forgets about the all in Player C and places his cards over the line towards the dealer, then he realises and grabs them and turns them over before they have touched the muck, he has trip Aces. Another player who was not even involved in the hand starts shouting that his hand is dead and the all in player who has 9 high should be awarded the main pot.
Ruling??

DeVore

My advice to the TD in that situation:

Give the trip aces the pot.
Slap the guy who is shouting its dead.
Read up on the dealers role of protecting the game, even if the player you are protecting them from is themselves.

DeV.

RoundTower

DeVore wrote:

My advice to the TD in that situation:

Give the trip aces the pot.
Slap the guy who is shouting its dead.
Read up on the dealers role of protecting the game, even if the player you are protecting them from is themselves.

DeV.

yeah

tricky D

Yup, dealers need to be extra protective of the muck in critical situations.

In the original case, for the good of the game, a bad situation shouldn't allowed top get worse. Imagine if, for example, on the turn the nut flush draw decides to bet against trips - it's just got uglier, unnecessarily imo.

Or considering it different way, neither of the mistake makers deserves the opportunity to get any more from the pot.

Was this in CHL's or put another way, was this another Richie who made the ruling? I don't recall doing this lately.

mdwexford

DeVore wrote:

My advice to the TD in that situation:

Give the trip aces the pot.
Slap the guy who is shouting its dead.
Read up on the dealers role of protecting the game, even if the player you are protecting them from is themselves.

DeV.

I agre with the first two sentences, dont know what you mean by the third??

mdwexford

tricky D wrote:

Yup, dealers need to be extra protective of the muck in critical situations.

In the original case, for the good of the game, a bad situation shouldn't allowed top get worse. Imagine if, for example, on the turn the nut flush draw decides to bet against trips - it's just got uglier, unnecessarily imo.

Or considering it different way, neither of the mistake makers deserves the opportunity to get any more from the pot.

Was this in CHL's or put another way, was this another Richie who made the ruling? I don't recall doing this lately.

What do you mean dealers need to be protective of the muck, where does that apply to the above??

No it was not in CHL's.

tricky D

I was referring to Dev's 3rd piece of advice as TD to the dealer

It might apply to your example, but where player A tries to actually muck his hand as opposed to just placing them over the line, before realising player C is still live. The dealer either holds the muck in their hand or blocks any potential mucking with the hand until the dealer is happy that all is ship-shape.

However, imagine this. If he does actually muck so that there is only the short stacked, player C, all-in is with cards. Side gets split between A and B, and main goes to C. Or what if they're still indentifiable? Some rooms will unmuck the cards! Thoughts??

mdwexford

The dealer did have the muck blocked off with his hands. The guys cards went nowhere near it. The dealer was obviously aware of the all-in player and knew a showdown was required.

Personally in the example you give if the cards have hit the muck they are dead but if they have not i would say they are still live.

DeVore

No player should, imho, be able to muck a hand. They should be able to surrender a hand for mucking, but not actually muck a hand.

There is only one place a hand can go that it cannot be retrieved and thats the muck, the dealer should protect the muck because a player shouldnt have the right to muck their hand (see above!).

Two reasons:
1. The player may have been asked to expose their hand and trying to angle-shoot by mucking it.

2. The player may be mucking in error, an error the dealer can (and SHOULD) intervene to prevent.

my 2c.

DeV.

DeVore

Sorry MD... we got a little off topic.

The TD has announced that a hand over the line is dead.

He should stick to his rules, the hand is dead.

His rules are dumb.

DeV.

mdwexford

Yes i agree with you 100%, maybe i worded it wrong then, the player did indeed surrender his cards for mucking, the dealer did have the muck protected, when the player placed his cards over the line the dealer told him there was a showdown required to claim the main pot. The player straight away grabbed them and turned them over.

Personally i thought the cards should still have been live but the ruling given was the hand was dead. In fairness the TD was under pressure with the other guy and the all in short stack complaining that the rules said the hand was dead.

jem

the td had very little choice, silly rule but when it was a clearly stated rule prior to the tourney had started it has to be stuck to.