Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How would you rule here...

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Clareman
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 24,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    jacQues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 628 ✭✭✭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


  • #34
    ocallagh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,141 ✭✭✭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


  • #35
    sendic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 330 ✭✭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)


  • #36
    kakak1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,390 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #39
    NickyOD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    ocallagh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,141 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Wreck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    NickyOD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Goodluck2me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    MickL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭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!!


  • #46
    biteme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭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.


  • #47
    Flushdraw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,187 ✭✭✭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


  • #48
    connie147
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,836 ✭✭✭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?


  • #49
    BIG-SLICK-POKER
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,418 ✭✭✭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 .......


  • #50
    a147pro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 585 ✭✭✭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?


  • #51
    The Clamper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    hatedajacks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭hatedajacks


    The same situation happened in SE last week. Geoff was called over and agreed with what Luke has done but asked if in goodwill both players were happy to split the pot. They both agreed. Could this have been done here?


  • #53
    Flushdraw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,187 ✭✭✭Flushdraw


    The Clamper wrote:
    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

    It took about 3 seconds for the dealer to pull in the blinds and push it to the raiser.


Advertisement