Cards mucked?
I'm curious what people think a fair ruling is in these cases:
#1. Players are told at the start of the tourney to not expose cards or their hand is mucked. Exception: heads up you can expose 1 card. 2nd biggest stack pushes all-in UTG, several folds then UTG exposes an Ace with SB considering a call. We are one spot away from the money. Is his hand mucked? Does he lose ALL his chips? If so and SB pushes and BB calls and wins, does SB finish out of the money?
#2. Down to 3 players. UTG folds. SB (2nd biggest stack by a wide margin) pushes. While the BB (big stack) ponders a call, dealer grabs SB's cards and puts them on top of the muck. Cards were protected but SB was beside dealer so the cards were close to the muck. Dealer immediately grabs cards off the muck and SB identifies them (privately) to the TD. Honest mistake by dealer? Any blame on player? Is this a muck? Does BB get ALL his chips? Does UTG move up a spot?
There are a lot of implications to the decisions in each case, especially with changes in payout as players go out. How about rules vs fairness?
#1. Players are told at the start of the tourney to not expose cards or their hand is mucked. Exception: heads up you can expose 1 card. 2nd biggest stack pushes all-in UTG, several folds then UTG exposes an Ace with SB considering a call. We are one spot away from the money. Is his hand mucked? Does he lose ALL his chips? If so and SB pushes and BB calls and wins, does SB finish out of the money?
#2. Down to 3 players. UTG folds. SB (2nd biggest stack by a wide margin) pushes. While the BB (big stack) ponders a call, dealer grabs SB's cards and puts them on top of the muck. Cards were protected but SB was beside dealer so the cards were close to the muck. Dealer immediately grabs cards off the muck and SB identifies them (privately) to the TD. Honest mistake by dealer? Any blame on player? Is this a muck? Does BB get ALL his chips? Does UTG move up a spot?
There are a lot of implications to the decisions in each case, especially with changes in payout as players go out. How about rules vs fairness?
Comments
Why an exception? Either the hand is mucked for showing or its permitted. Why would being headsup matter at all? Personally, I would call it dead.
Dealer error, confirmed by the TD..PLAY ON!
I was there at this game and was one of the dealers. Care to tell me who you are? Also you haven't told the whole truth here, and I was not the dealer who mucked the hand.
Brent
Prophet :2h :2s
Exposed cards should not be mucked, the better thing to do is impose a penalty, IMHO.
Heads-up can be considered a different situation; the risk of collusion is negated. However, showing one card or showing both makes no difference. If the rule is heads-up you can show, then I don't think it matters if you show one or both.
In your example, if it happened at NFCR, UTG would either a) be warned about prematurley exposing his cards with action left behind him (if it is 1st offense you can always assume it was unintentional) or b) be given a penalty that would require him to sit out for x amount of hands where x=the number of players at the table, including UTG. The hand would not be dead.
From the TDA: Rule #31. Exposing Cards- A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand
The TDA rules covers this scenario: Rule #28. Unprotected Hands- If a dealer kills an unprotected hand the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets. However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player.
You say the cards "were protected"....how so?
IMHO, cards in the muck should NEVER come out of the muck.
Any blame on the player?? Entirely!! It is 100% the responsibility of the player to protect his/her own cards.
It was simple clear cut instruction. TDA did not apply because the TD already anounced what the ruling would be, a muck - period.
There is no debate here. As a dealer who was at the table still shuffling cards for the other dealer, I said it was a muck.
Brent
Does the rule apply if there already 2 people ALL-IN and there are still 2 other big stacks in the hand? Can either of the big stacks expose their cards now?
Look, this tournament was not announced that it will go by TDA or even Robert's Rule. The TD said it would be a muck, and in your case it would be a muck unless the TD changed his mind.
To answer your question no, not until they call and are asked for the show down.
Brent
I thought the fair thing to do was something along the lines of ruling his hand dead (consistent with the rule) but only making him forfeit 1xBB (or even the biggest remaining stack that wanted to play) into the pot. We can argue the merits of the rule itself but there should be some discussion as to how to handle this situation if the rule is going to be in place.
I was surprised when the SB (who was the previous week's winner and on a short stack) folded against the BB (who had been playing very tight on a shortish stack) when I was sure she would fold to his push. His reasoning was if he was beat, he would finish out of the money. Seems terribly weak to me. As a result, the BB 'walked' into a big stack on that hand. Crazy I say.
I know it is unlikely there is a 'rule' that covers this but I'm curious how people see the fairness aspects of this situation.
#2. I was curious if there is a specific rule that covers this situation. This occurred after #1 and it seemed strange to me that an arbitrary rule would be applied in that situation but in this one 'fairness' seemed to be the guide. This player ended up chopping the tourney but would have been out in 3rd, virtually guaranteeing 1st to the other player had the hand been ruled mucked. Hell of a way to get eliminated with AK.
Robert's rule is: When there is a specific rule, it should be applied. When there isn't, the TD needs to use their judgement to make a fair ruling. If this tourney had a rule for #1 and no rule for #2, it makes perfect sense for #1 to be arbitrary and #2 to be discretionary.
Bottom line, find out the rules of the tourney before you start playing. If you don't like the rules, don't play. If you choose to play, don't cry if the rules are actually enforced when you break them.
Listen, I run tournaments, I have been a TD, and West Side Poker Club used to use this same rule. We have always gone by TDA and after the 2007 Summit the penalty became the rule, we immediately put it into action. I have had been forced to muck a hand after exposing cards as much as I had to do it, but the players new the rules. The fact that the guy was drunks had nothing to do with his hand being muck. It simple had to do with enforcing the rule that was given at the start of the tournament.
If the TD let the hand stand then what would have happened? The TD had to rule this way otherwise who knows what would have happened.
I always announce specific rules and then say we operate on the TDA rules of poker, not Robert's rules.
The dealer mucking the players cards is another story. Players are 100% responsible for there cards.
Prophet :2h :2s
West Side Poker
Brent
p.s. I didn't see any blondes but there were a few fish.
my memory says she had him she had some blue chips and he didn't have any. although after the ruling came down he did leave the table and the and thus a forfeit of his chips.
I am dying to know who you are though.
Brent
Is this the Georgetown game I keep hearing about?
yes this happened at the Georgetown game. the muck rule has been in place for quite some time and players have always been told this before the start of ever tournament
Is this you Steve? lol
I probably shouldn't say this..but for precisely that reason combined with my general forum boredom of late...I'm gonna:
This sounds like a rinky-dink b.s. game. From what I've heard rake is 5% no cap on the cash game and the Tournament doesn't follow any standard. I'll come to be corrected in a week or two, but until that time...I call shenanigans on Georgetown. (can someone confirm or deny the rake..I msg'd the guy like two weeks ago and have not heard back yet)
[I lol'd while typing 'rinky-dink']
I have said my peace about the tournament side and the situation that arose. So I will leave that for now, if you want to talk in person, we can do that on Saturday.
I will confirm the rake rule in the cash game. Again not my rules, I just do as I am told. Most players don't seem to have a problem with it as he gets 3 games going after the tournament and 2 before the tournament.
Brent
ARE YOU KIDDING?? This is some of the most exciting posting I've seen here in awhile.
Welcome to the forum -ev!
I only went to this tournament because Jeff and Dr. Larry invited me. I then became a dealer in the tournaments. I don't know MattyKies but have been following the thread.
What can I say, people have the right to play where they want. Some will play at MattyKies and some will go to Georgetown. Others can comment on their views on the cash game. I take a 100.00 and in 2.5 hours I have 400.00 total at a 1/2 game. I don't really know what I paid in rake, but I do know I have to work 5, 10 hour days to take home that same 400.00.
Brent
As for the rake on the cash game, at least at 1/2 its not as bad as it seems.
In Niagara or Seneca it's 10% up to max of $5. Therefore in a $100. pot which I would think would be about a little high from my experience the rake would be the same, ie $5. Under a $100. pot and it's cheaper than the casino, over $100. and it's more. If you don't like it, don't go. Drive to Niagara. Simple.
agreed..but that's the whole bit that bugs me. I was TRYING to find out and hadn't gotten a response! I can't intuit such a bizarre rake..I'm only a little gypsy.
Brent, I agree with what I think you are trying to say. If you don't like it, don't go, (Both Georgetown and Matty's event) but for the doubters and pessimists on here quit mindlessly slamming something for the sake of..