An Interesting Ruling !

Culchie

Taken from Rounders123 very entertaining blog.

Is the ruling correct? I've never heard about this scenario before.


When we eventually started i had a Gerard Depardieu lookalike 3 to my left. Just before the tournament started he made a point of asking who the tournament director was so i chalked him up as potential trouble but he turned out to be a very easy going bloke. It wasnt long before i was in the thick of it. Our dealer was very young and inexperienced and was making a few minor mistakes but nothing major he just wasnt controlling the table verbally. I doubled up early when i called in the SB with J7 and flopped 2 pair on a J 10 7 flop. Depardieu holding AJ paid me off big on every street and he was left with a 100 chip when i was finished with him. He still had his double chance chips to take but didnt opt for them just yet instead waited for a few hands and then this hapenned.
Blinds 50/100 and UTG Gerard goes all in for his last 100, i call in the SB and BB calls. I flopped 2 pair bet it and the BB calls. I bet the turn the BB folds, i lost concentraton and forgot about Gerard being all in and it having to be a showdown and mucked my hand waiting for the dealer to give me the chips. The dealer swiped my cards into the muck and the table reminded me it was a showdown because of Gerard. I couldnt believe i forgot about Depardieu and the TD came over and explained that i lose the whole pot to Depardieu because my cards had been taken away in the muck. The young dealer was horrified and apologised over and over but as far as i was concerned it was 100% my fault. I could have done without that but i wasnt thrown even though i needlessly donated Gerard about 700 chips that he should never have had. It really was a combination of my lack of concentration and inexperience playing live.

My question is should 700 go to Depardieu despite just having 100 in himself?

ntlbell

So did you throw your cards into the muck or did the dealer take them into the muck?

If it was the dealer took them what happens then? anyone know?

Waylander

I did not think he could win the 700, would have thought he took down the 300 and the rest would go to the last player with live cards, ie Rounders123. It does not really matter how they get in the muck as far as I am aware the ruling is the same.

Marq

"Gerard" should get his portion of the pot. Rounders should get the rest. This is 101 stuff - I wouldn't play in a tournament where a mistake could be made in as simple an issue as this.

RoundTower

Culchie wrote:

Taken from Rounders123 very entertaining blog.

Is the ruling correct? I've never heard about this scenario before.


When we eventually started i had a Gerard Depardieu lookalike 3 to my left. Just before the tournament started he made a point of asking who the tournament director was so i chalked him up as potential trouble but he turned out to be a very easy going bloke. It wasnt long before i was in the thick of it. Our dealer was very young and inexperienced and was making a few minor mistakes but nothing major he just wasnt controlling the table verbally. I doubled up early when i called in the SB with J7 and flopped 2 pair on a J 10 7 flop. Depardieu holding AJ paid me off big on every street and he was left with a 100 chip when i was finished with him. He still had his double chance chips to take but didnt opt for them just yet instead waited for a few hands and then this hapenned.
Blinds 50/100 and UTG Gerard goes all in for his last 100, i call in the SB and BB calls. I flopped 2 pair bet it and the BB calls. I bet the turn the BB folds, i lost concentraton and forgot about Gerard being all in and it having to be a showdown and mucked my hand waiting for the dealer to give me the chips. The dealer swiped my cards into the muck and the table reminded me it was a showdown because of Gerard. I couldnt believe i forgot about Depardieu and the TD came over and explained that i lose the whole pot to Depardieu because my cards had been taken away in the muck. The young dealer was horrified and apologised over and over but as far as i was concerned it was 100% my fault. I could have done without that but i wasnt thrown even though i needlessly donated Gerard about 700 chips that he should never have had. It really was a combination of my lack of concentration and inexperience playing live.

My question is should 700 go to Depardieu despite just having 100 in himself?

Something is funny here, at the point when the BB mucks you are the only player in contention for the side pot. The all in player cannot win the side pot under any circumstances.

davidgti

i think that was onfair but if the dealer had taken your cards away i think the pot should be split but its realy hard one to call if u ask me

The Troll

Is this question a joke? Was Timmy from Southpark dealing with Jimmy as the TD?

DeVore

Marq wrote:

"Gerard" should get his portion of the pot. Rounders should get the rest. This is 101 stuff - I wouldn't play in a tournament where a mistake could be made in as simple an issue as this.

What Marq said. This is appalingly bad and stinks of some bloke who plays with his mates not being aware of the basis for the rules and just making something up in order not to look dumb.

I don't really know how to comment on this ruling without sounding trite or condescending. I mean, the first thing everyone learns is "you can only win what you put in".

It shouldnt MATTER that rounders mucked his cards because the moment his third opponent mucked the side pot should have been pushed towards him. If he choose to surrender at that point, the only chips being contested is the 300 original pot.

This is another good example of why I wont play where the TD is some unknown muppet. Where did this happen?

DeV.

ollyk1

I don't think its a joke Troll it was in the SE as far as I know.

There is no question that Gerard should get 300 and the 400 should go to rounders. Its up to the player to protect his cards davidgti and if he forgets another player still has live cards and mucks thats his problem - Rounders123 accepted this and that is not Culchie's question here. His question is in respct of the 400 chips which Gerard had not called.

The dealers in the SE are inexperienced and I suspect the problem may have arisen here in that the dealer may have gathered up rounders turn bet into the main pot following the BB fold, and therefore when the TD is asked for a ruling he may not have been told that there was a 400 sidepot consisting of rounders uncalled bet which Gerard could not win.

Rounders was probably caught up in the moment and didn't mention this.

Rounders123 is in the best postion to comment on this aspect and I don't think its right to shout down and condemn the SE and their games until he does.

The SE dealers are inexperienced but the tournament directors are experienced, however the player needs to be aware of the rules and raise the point to the TD or else how can they rule correctly? I was on another table myself and the dealer had trouble awarding a pot (it was a split pot but he was having trouble seeing it) This sort of thing may happen no matter what tournament you are playing or where you are playing I've seen plenty of inexperienced dealers in all the clubs around town and mistakes are made by all dealers at some stage it doesn't mean people are out to get you - but players need to be aware wherever they play.

I've even read/heard of mistakes in EPT games.

You also need to make sure the TD is told all the relevant information or the ruling may be wrong, an inexperienced dealer won't always know the correct info to tell a TD although the TD should ask.

Edit:

The TD is Duke Dev.

DeVore

I'd be surprised if Duke or Bernard made this mistake in the SE, though their dealers are a little green (as are some dealers in all the clubs).

I can absolutely assure you that there were mistakes made in the EPT, the difference is that all the players are very experienced and they all know the rules and they will just ignore the dealer if he insists on a dumb ruling and call Thomas Kremser.

DeV.

ollyk1

DeVore wrote:

I'd be surprised if Duke or Bernard made this mistake in the SE, though their dealers are a little green (as are some dealers in all the clubs).

I can absolutely assure you that there were mistakes made in the EPT, the difference is that all the players are very experienced and they all know the rules and they will just ignore the dealer if he insists on a dumb ruling and call Thomas Kremser.

DeV.

My point exactly. It was the SE on Wednesday night as per Rounders blog.

RoundTower

OK, here's one from the EPT.

Blinds are 300-600, ante 50. UTG player makes it 2500. Three players fold at which point it is discovered that an extra hand has been dealt. The hand has been dealt to someone's mobile phone and cigarettes, which would be the next player to act. No one has seen the extra hand.

What is the ruling and why?

DeVore

This is one that varies from club to club in my understanding. I have seen such things happen before. The official rule is that once "significant action" has taken place the hand continues as is. Luke once told me that he considered a raise and two folds as the minimum "significant action" but I cant be sure if that was his opinion or a generally accepted rule of thumb.

I'm in the club actually so I'll ask him if I see him

DeV.

ntlbell

RoundTower wrote:

OK, here's one from the EPT.

Blinds are 300-600, ante 50. UTG player makes it 2500. Three players fold at which point it is discovered that an extra hand has been dealt. The hand has been dealt to someone's mobile phone and cigarettes, which would be the next player to act. No one has seen the extra hand.

What is the ruling and why?

I would be guessing, but I magine because so many actions have taken place, blinds ante's posted, raise and 3 folds the hand must continue, I'm not sure what happens to the spare hand, mucked I assume! (Shot in the dark!) never seen this happen before.

JuliusFranco

well it's a mis deal
in practice, i suppose the utg player would take back his raise and there would be another deal but i don't know what "should" happen....if that makes sense

DeVore

Just ran into Luke who said its a borderline case but (as I thought) he'd rule that the hand continues as theres been a lot of action. The extra hand would be mucked (thats me saying that but like, what else could be done with it? The dealer plays it?! )

Rounders, who gave the ruling in the SE, I'm genuinely surprised about that as I've a lot of respect for Bernard and Duke.


DeV.

ntlbell

Just looking at a few websites and they all seem to say if the error hasn't been brought to the attention of the dealer before the second action (after the blinds) the hand continues

califano

DeVore wrote:

Rounders, who gave the ruling in the SE, I'm genuinely surprised about that as I've a lot of respect for Bernard and Duke.
DeV.

I dont know their names i didnt even look at them but 2 floor guys came over to give their input. I didnt really care what they were saying i was doing a dumb&dumber in my head as they spoke "[hands over ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA!"

ZZR1100

Here is an interesting 1 from the the celtic poker tour last night in killarney.didnt go myself but heard the story from another guy.
AK vs AQ board A7772.
Who wins they ask. 1 of the floor guys called over .Full house K kicker.ah ok damn.
they got 170 runners again. cant belive people are still supporting them.

kpnuts

ZZR1100 wrote:

AK vs AQ board A7772.
Who wins they ask. 1 of the floor guys called over .Full house K kicker.ah ok damn.

AQ player can't have been too happy! Will Connie be applying these, er, local rules in his new club?

Dub13

ZZR1100 wrote:

Here is an interesting 1 from the the celtic poker tour last night in killarney.didnt go myself but heard the story from another guy.
AK vs AQ board A7772.
Who wins they ask. 1 of the floor guys called over .Full house K kicker.ah ok damn.
they got 170 runners again. cant belive people are still supporting them.

Thats one of the funnest/saddest things I have heard in a while.

bmc

Hey,

I was on the table for Rounders123's hand. The mucked hand was ruled on correctly, i.e. it was dead. Unfortunately nobody at the table, myself included and the young dealer included, noticed the side pot issue.

I think it was genuinely just overlooked.

Bernard ruled on it, but since nobody pointed out to him that there was a side pot involved, he understandably didn't notice.

califano

bmc wrote:

Hey,

I was on the table for Rounders123's hand. The mucked hand was ruled on correctly, i.e. it was dead. Unfortunately nobody at the table, myself included and the young dealer included, noticed the side pot issue.

I think it was genuinely just overlooked.

Bernard ruled on it, but since nobody pointed out to him that there was a side pot involved, he understandably didn't notice.

Yeah im pretty sure this was the case bmc. I must mention i didnt call for a ruling, somebody just appeared and gave a ruling. I wasnt at the time or am i now sore about it.

bmc

Nope, it was all very polite and well taken I have to say.

A lot of people find it a hard one to swallow when they discover that it's their own responsibility to guard their cards.

The Troll

ZZR1100 wrote:

Here is an interesting 1 from the the celtic poker tour last night in killarney.didnt go myself but heard the story from another guy.
AK vs AQ board A7772.
Who wins they ask. 1 of the floor guys called over .Full house K kicker.ah ok damn.
they got 170 runners again. cant belive people are still supporting them.

Thats not interesting, thats the type of ruling that would make me turn violent. I would actually have punched the TD square in the nose if he ever made a ruling that bad. I'd then come back the next night, punch him in the face again and give him some print outs of poker rules.

Marq

It's unlikely that you would be allowed in the next night

Dub13

Marq wrote:

It's unlikely that you would be allowed in the next night

ZZR1100

kpnuts wrote:

AQ player can't have been too happy! Will Connie be applying these, er, local rules in his new club?

Only If connie has the AK

connie147

kpnuts wrote:

AQ player can't have been too happy! Will Connie be applying these, er, local rules in his new club?

well ken, these are not LOCAL rules.these are the rules of the celtic poker tour. In my club, we'll take your money fairly and squarely.by the way, one of my locals went out about 10.00pm to have a look,even though it was well past the time for last entries he was allowed to enter(had his card stamped so they could say he was moving table), and the nice guys in charge allowed him a double top up at the break as he hadnt enough time to use his buy backs!!!!. i joke you not.

RoundTower

DeVore wrote:

Just ran into Luke who said its a borderline case but (as I thought) he'd rule that the hand continues as theres been a lot of action. The extra hand would be mucked (thats me saying that but like, what else could be done with it? The dealer plays it?! )

Rounders, who gave the ruling in the SE, I'm genuinely surprised about that as I've a lot of respect for Bernard and Duke.


DeV.

Thomas Kremser was called and ruled that sufficient action had not taken place, and the hand was a misdeal. I kept quiet about it (I was the UTG player with AK) but the French player to my right was quite upset, and inisted the hand should continue. I agree with him: I think there has been sufficient action -- otherwise what do you take? A raise and four folds? A raise and three folds and an all in? Three limps, a raise, three folds and a reraise?

A player from the far end of the table told me I was very lucky the hand hadn't gone ahead. I showed the A and he said "No. you need two." "You had two aces?" I asked. He nodded, and I was thankful. Two days later I was in a cash game with the French player. "Do you remember that incident in the tourney when Kremser declared a misdeal?" I told him I did. "You were very lucky," he said. "I had a pair of aces."

careca

Last three in the Fitz Friday tournie, long time ago when I last cashed.
Blinds 10000,20000. Flop comes down and one player bets 10000. I was hoping to see the turn for cheap/free so this suited me but I was honest and asked the dealer if the min bet had to be 20000. The (what I would call very experienced) dealer informed me that no the bet was fine. I didn't want to make an issue of it so I played the hand and then by chance Luke arrived at the table. I asked him and when he said the min bet had to be the BB the dealer was a bit embarrassed to say the least .

Culchie

Wow, I would have thought that one was a very very basic one.

padser

If the blinds are 100/200 and you put in 3 '50' chips. You dont say either call or raise. Are you bound to
a)put in another 50 chip to make it the min raise
b)take out one 50 chip to make it a call
c)do you have choice?

(i know if you have said 'raise' obviously you will be bound to min raise but my question arises because putting in for example a 500 chip will be treated as a call if you say nothing)

bmc

padser wrote:

If the blinds are 100/200 and you put in 3 '50' chips. You dont say either call or raise. Are you bound to
a)put in another 50 chip to make it the min raise
b)take out one 50 chip to make it a call
c)do you have choice?

(i know if you have said 'raise' obviously you will be bound to min raise but my question arises because putting in for example a 500 chip will be treated as a call if you say nothing)

Your question is missing some info.

Has somebody bet before you?

100 can never be a call if the blinds are 100/200. Nobody can bet 100 for you to call it.

If there has been no action and you throw in three 50s then it must be a minimum bet, i.e. 200.

No you never have a choice!