Rules Question
I got these questions from a friend and I've been looking up Robert's Rules of Poker for an answer and have found some conflicting comments...
First, the senarios... The game is a 2/4 ring game with play money.
#1
Yesterday, I raised all in, thought everyone folded, so I through my cards down and the dealer put them on the bottom of the deck before Bill protested.
I knew the 2 cards were on the bottom and could identify both of them........
Can you clarify what needs to happen in this situation? I suppose bill should have won everything by default?
#2
Today, the dumbarse that I am, go all in and scott and bill call but still have some remaining chips left. Like an arse, I reveal my cards (I was all in you know), and my winning cards had no value.
So besides that I'm a dumbarse, can you confirm that both of these situations mean that my cards are lost?
The relevant area of Robert's Rules is....
Thoughts?[/font][/font]
First, the senarios... The game is a 2/4 ring game with play money.
#1
Yesterday, I raised all in, thought everyone folded, so I through my cards down and the dealer put them on the bottom of the deck before Bill protested.
I knew the 2 cards were on the bottom and could identify both of them........
Can you clarify what needs to happen in this situation? I suppose bill should have won everything by default?
#2
Today, the dumbarse that I am, go all in and scott and bill call but still have some remaining chips left. Like an arse, I reveal my cards (I was all in you know), and my winning cards had no value.
So besides that I'm a dumbarse, can you confirm that both of these situations mean that my cards are lost?
The relevant area of Robert's Rules is....
DEAD HANDS
[font='Univers (W1)']1. Your hand is declared dead if:
[font='Univers (W1)'](a) You fold or announce that you are folding when facing a bet or a raise.
[font='Univers (W1)'] [/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'](b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).[/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'] [/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'](c) In stud, when facing a bet, you pick your upcards off the table, turn your upcards facedown, or mix your upcards and downcards together.[/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'] [/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'](d) The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game (except at stud a hand missing the final card may be ruled live, and at lowball and draw high a hand with too few cards before the draw is live). [See Section 16 - “Explanations,†discussion #4, for more information on the stud portion of this rule.][/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'](e) You act on a hand with a joker as a holecard in a game not using a joker. (A player who acts on a hand without looking at a card assumes the liability of finding an improper card, as given in Irregularities, rule #8.)[/font]
[font='Univers (W1)'](f) You have the clock on you when facing a bet or raise and exceed the specified time limit.[/font]
[font='Univers (W1)']2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player.[/font]
[font='Univers (W1)']3. Cards thrown into another player’s hand are dead, whether they are faceup or facedown.[/font]
Thoughts?[/font][/font]
Comments
These are both difficult decisions, and whoever is in charge of the game has to make the decision based on the context of the entire situation.
One way I like to think about rules in fuzzy situations is what advantage could a cheater gain from doing whatever has occurred. Note that I do *not* mean to say that you actually suspect whoever it is of actually cheating. You are just trying to size up the magnitude of the infraction.
More to come...
ScottyZ
Whatever I say here does not make the person who was running the game in question right or wrong. Indeed, by definition of running the game, their decision is the correct one. These are both cases where the rules are not universal (i.e. it's not clear cut matter like 3 of a kind beats 2 pair). These are house rules.
1. Whether all-in or not, it is the sole responsibility of the player to protect his cards. As soon as a player has thrown his cards away face down in a manner that suggests (in the dealer's judgement) folding, that hand is immediately dead. A player's cards (even if face up) touching the muck, burn cards, board cards, or another player's unprotected hole cards should also be considered dead.
I don't like using the "recover the mucked cards if possible" rule, except under very special circumstances. This will start more arguments than it solves, and opens the door to all kinds of angle shooting (particularly, fake folding).
Consider the all-in hand mucked and proceed with the hand (or in only one other player remains, award him the pot).
A huge exception to this is to be made here if the remaining active player is deemed to be obscuring the view of his hole cards (intentionally or not). If the hiding of a player's cards is thought to be intentional, that hand should be considered dead, and the pot awarded to the all-in player if the "card hider" is the only player remaining. Otherwise, attempt recovery of the all-in hole cards from the muck, and continue with the hand.
The correct procedure for hole card recovery is for the player to name the hole cards (not a violation of the "can't talk about your hole cards" rule), and for the recovered hole cards to be exposed to the table. If there is no match, the hand is declared dead and unrecoverable. If there is a match, expose the cards to all players and continue with the hand.
2. There isn't much to be done about this one, except that the dealer should do his best to ensure that the non-all-in players do not throw their hands away prematurely since they are still eligible to play for the side pot(s). An all-in player exposing his hand early automatically puts himself at a disadvantage, as long as it does not induce one of the opponents to fold inferior hands when there are cards to come and/or a side pot upon seeing they are beat by the all-in.
Simply be sure that all the remaining active players see the exposed cards, and continue with the hand.
ScottyZ
The NL case is somewhat different, but somewhat the same. To allow a player to make a huge all-in bet and then muck his cards with some possibility of getting his hole cards (or some other two cards) back later is leaving the door far too wide open for both angle shooting and dealer-player collusion. Sure, a legitimate error is going to cost you a lot, but allowing this kind of sloppy play in your game is going to cause real headaches and cheating opportunities.
ScottyZ
The order of the remaining players was Ian, Me (Bill) then Chris. Chris called all-in, Ian hymed and hawed for a minute then folded. With my cards on the table (not obstructed in any way) I leaned back, put my hands behind my head and was starting to think about what I should do (I had a straight I was just trying to figure out if Chris had a straight or better).
With the action on me Chris jumped the gun, tossed his cards to the dealer (who in turn picked them up and put them on the bottom of the discard pile) and assumed he was the only player left.
The game being played was a friendly lunch time game that we play everyday. We had also had something similar to this happen before. As with the previous situation I thought it best that we compromise. These games are supposed to be fun and I didn't want anyone being upset (Chris especially) as the general feeling was that he had mucked his hand. We decided that Chris would pull his all-in back and we would play for what was on the table.
Right or wrong that's what the group decided what was fair. As I said, it was supposed to be a friendly game where we could have fun at lunch.
Cheers
P.S. I guess this is also my "Hi, I'm new and a Taurus (sign, not the car)" post. So, "Hi".
Let's suppose (as I have been) that this takes place in a serious home game, for real money.
IMO, the (major) disadvnatage to Bill is that there is no way of knowing that the mucker gets his original cards back. Even a dealer mechanic of relatively low skill can ensure that the mucker exchanges his pure trash hand for at least one Ace.
Of course, Dave says *if* the cards are easily identifiable. The situation might be a lot different if the cards were simply face down a few inches away from the mucker, never being near the muck. Maybe even placing the mucked cards on the top of the deck makes the hole cards a little easier to track.
However, the hole cards (apparently) hitting the muck (already enough to make them unrecoverable IMO) at the *bottom* would really worry me if I was Bill, and would similarly worry me if I happened to be the one in charge of trying to run a fair game.
The real key here I think is:
Again, *if* this was a serious game for money, a player not paying attention to the action is not IMO entitled to any recourse from the "attempt to recover the hand" rule, especially after the hand hits the muck.
Yes, the penalty for the mistake is extremely harsh, especially in no-limit. However, mucking a live hand with opponents yet to act (as long as there is no attempt at deception or hand hiding from the opponent) is a brutal mistake to make in a serious money game.
I know that a lot of people agree (as do I, in many cases) with Dave's general point of view in terms of trying to preserve the integrity of a hand when a player makes what appears to be an honest mistake. But the specific details here (specifically, hitting the bottom of the muck) put up the red flag in my head, and turned it into a case where I like the ruling which favours the player who could be subject to a (hopefully rare) cheat, rather than the player who made the error in procedure.
Peeling cards off the bottom of the muck is just a little over the edge in terms of being too sloppy with the rules IMO.
However, in a fun game it sounds like what you decided on, or Dave's solution, would be fine I think.
ScottyZ