blonde poker forum

This one didn't seem right to me... thoughts....

Both stacks are playing about 25-30k and player 1 raises 3 x BB to 1800.   Player two comes over the top and makes it about 12000. 

Player 1 says all in and waves his hand forward, unfortunately the he's sat next to the dealer and the dealer does not hear the "all in" and takes hand wave to mean fold.  In a split second he pulls the cards and they touch the muck but can still be identified.

Obv player one starts doing his nut.  The ruling was that players 1s hand was dead as it had touched the muck... standard i guess if still not a little tough on Player1.

The 2nd element of the ruling was that player 1 had to give the extra 10.2k to player 2 with a dead hand as he declared all in before his cards were nicked (all be it a split second before) << This can't be right can it??

thats tough. i dunno.

Surely if his cards are dead, he's folded for the initial 1800?  Sounds wrong to me.

Thats just plain terrible

It's the players responsibility to look after their cards. It's harsh but it's the way it is. Them cards are dead and that's that.

I can't understand having to give the 10.2k over though.

If anything it should be the verbal all in that stands giving the oppo who still has cards the option to call.

Saying that, if the dealer didn't hear the all in declaration then the fold should stand. If he did hear it then he shouldn't have took the cards and is clearly a tool.

The 10.2k seems neither here nor there and is very strange.

I didn't understand this when I first read it, I assumed I'd read it wrong.   Surely if it's the dealer thinks it's a fold and mucks his cards then it's a fold - end of hand.  I don't know why he had to give up the 10K raise.  When someone raises and you voluntarily fold, you don't pay the raise, so why did he need to on this occasion?  And why in the Bellagio would he have lost all of it? 

if his hand is dead then he shouldn't be paying the bet thats alin wrong

I suppose the ruling is probably technically correct.

However, from a perspective of fairness and common sense the ideal would be that if the dealer has taken his actions to mean fold, and therefore mucked his cards, that his hand should proceed as folded - i.e. doesn't have to put any more chips in.

 Aspades   Hand is dead ...unfortunately.
But...if hand is dead and dealer took the players motion to be a pass as he  indicated then... the player has deemed to have passed his hand in which case he can only forfeit his original stake, and not the extra 10k odd raise.
It`s a little bizarre that the ruling was that the player had to forfeit the extra chips as by the dealers own admission the players hand was passed and therefore all subsequent action by that player is void .
It cant go "both ways"  has seems to have happened here.
A TD boo boo IMO

the KK player didnt put 10.2k in he put 1.8k in and waved his hand surely he didnt put in the 9.2k???

The last part seems contradictory to me. If the dealer took it as a fold, then why would he pay the extra? The "all-in" is either heard and taken into account, or it isn't. Can't be both.

If the guy had put him all in, and the initial raiser had announced "call" and waved his hands, but was deemed to have folded by the dealer, would he have to pay all his chips and just leave?

In instances like these, why doesn't a little bit of common sense prevail?

The player made a mistake by not protecting his hand and perhaps the dealer had a slight lapse in concentration to not hear the all-in declaration. However, it being clear to everyone else at the table that the player had announced all in, if he could declare his cards by rank and suit as the two the dealer had just let touch the muck then why could he not have his cards back and his bet stand?

I think this should be the case so long as the cards aren't fully mixed into the muck which allows potential angle shooting.

+1 
I thought just this when I first read it it on the update

Card protectors have a use.
(http://www.pokerguard.com/images/royalflush_poker_card_protector.jpg)

This x 1000, especially in seat 1 or 9.

No-ones disputing the fact that it is the players duty to protect their cards. It is the stupidness of him having to still pay the additional 10k after the dealer has mucked his cards.


Geo

i was sat near the table at the time, and apparently, if nirvana had said call then the guy would have to have matched nirvana's chips (30k ish) Thoughts?

If it had been the Bellagio, he'd have had to put his whole stack in...

Actually, link this onto the DTD news thread, I'm sure Simon will explain why the ruling was made.

I hate this rule. Yes it is your responibility to protect your cards.
Surely this is over ruled by the rule about fairness.
If its obvious dealer error and the cards can be identified, surely the fairest action is to return his cards.
Im sure ive seen this happen, probably at Gala/Circus not DTD.

What would the ruling be if I had a chip on my cards and the dealer swiped them?

You'd have to hope the dealer would not swipe your cards in this situation, but you'll find the ruling would be more in your favour in this instance as you've done all you can reasonably do to fulfill your protecting cards obligation.

I'd assume that the floor were called and ai player told them that he declared ai. in that case it is the correct ruling that he was ai and his cards were mucked so he's only entitled to any unmatched part of his ai, ie anything above the other players raise. harsh but them's the rules

if both players were ai then we have a showdown and the cards could and should be retrieved from the muck if identifiable, as there was no showdown here so they should stay mucked

Im going to use a staple gun to protect my cards in future.

was the dealer a regular dtd dealer?

I was the beneficiary in this hand. For accuracy it was min raised to 1200 UTG +1 - 3 limpers and I found QQ in the SB and made it 10.6K to go.

The guy (Kuljinder I think) very definitely said all in - the dealer wouldn't have seen his hand motion as he was looking the other way already.

Most of us on the table heard the all in and explained the action quite clearly - I offered to not take the 10K, naturally, as I'd just got a life - nothing doing from a ruling perspective.

I had about 50k at the time and I think I would have felted the chap if I'd called.

Strange one for sure - the only rationale I could think of for the ruling would to avoid a rather convoluted angle shoot along the lines:

Someone mutters a quiet all-in, audible only to the opponent, guages the reaction that the oppo will call and then mucks his cards instead. Even with this you'd need a very peculiar set of circumstances to get an angle like this through.

Would be interesting to know exactly why this is the ruling - Simon T was involved in the ruling too.

As an aside, after a minute or two of very restrained protest the victim in this took things with incredibly good grace - fair play to that man

That waving hand stuff is a bit cocky really. So mystical forces have entered the equation to teach the guy a lesson in humility. Waving all-in and at the same time allowing your cards to be mucked shows the player he isn't as daddy cool as he thought he was. However, in reality his cards aren't mucked because they touched some mystical void on the table. If his two cards are clearly identifiable they aren't dead. Dealers have the power to recreate boards etc...even when ALL the cards have been mucked. Can people stop thinking THE MUCK is a power from a different universe pls.

Tournament Director has to make anon the spot decision based on information given to him at the time. probably from several excited people and sometimes they dont get the all the  facts. on the face of it it would seem that to make him pay the £10 k is harsh - but he said all in everyone heard him so they were in and the cards mucked in error . the decision was good. Card protectors- £1 each available!!

however, the hand could be clearly identified I'd let him have it back and have the all in stand. There is a rule that allows cards to be retrieved from the muck in the interest of fairness. Although, I'm tempted to just say the player should use a card protecter...

what????????


The hand is dead harsh but fair. He should never of had to pay the extra.

The hand is dead harsh but fair.He should never of had to pay the extra.


This.

Oopps got the stack wrong but no matter.  Thought you were v sportsmanlike offering to give the chips back as well.   The 1st thing Simon T said was that the other chap was the TD and he would not 2nd guess his decision.  Can't help but feel once it was explained to him that he thought it was prob the wrong decision.   Crazy thing is if the chap had  not kicked up a fuss and changed his story and said actually I said pass he'd have saved 10k.

No it wasn't.  He was a dealer though and was helping them out as they were so short.  He was fine apart from this little mishap!

He was on my 1st table. Was excellent.

Felt a bit sorry for him TBH... think he was almost as gutted as the player

it doesnt matter if the dealer has slapped the player in the face and stole the cards out of their hands whilst they are dazed, if they get mucked they are mucked, no getting them back at all

why? he declared ai

if thts the rule surely he'd have to put his whole stack in.

because the dealer didn't take the all-in as the action, he mucked his cards and awarded the pot to the other bloke. Allow this and apply this ruling and you are opening the game up to all sorts of dealer /player collusion/ angle shooting.

Imagine you say all in heads up, the dealer takes your cards and then his mate still left in the pot is awarded all the pot and all your chips, its crazy.

no, if your hand is accidentally mucked while you're ai uncalled bets are returned to you so everything over the oppo's raise is returned. if oppo says call then the dealer mucks then the whole stack goes in

I was on this table too, and from memory the situation could have got worse. I think i'm right in saying that after the kk guy raised, two others players flat called (not me of course, i folded every hand on day one as usual!!) before Nirvana raised. After the all in verbal declaration was made, if any one of the two original flat callers had said "call" then he could have lost all his chips. Say one of them was playing AA they would be faced with giving up their chips to Nirvana or busting a guy with no cards to showdown.

I have seen a similar thing happen before in Vegas and the ruling was harsher. After the dealer mucked the all in guys cards the other player was told he could call and take all the other players chips or fold and give up the pot - he called! The reasoning is something like verbal bets are binding and it's up to the player to protect his hand.

With the DT (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/)D (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/) incident, I agree the guy took it really in his stride after his obvious frustration. He was a good player too.


As an aside, reallly enjoyed the tourney and went out in about 33rd in the end. The event was so well supported and despite being short of a dealer or too it was run really well. I also got a lift to DT (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/)D (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/) in the boybandmobile - highlight of my poker career to date! Cheers LeKnave, I owe you a beer!

irrelevant what the dealer took as action, he fucked up, that's why a ruling was needed. td now needs to reconstuct what happened which was- bet, raise, ai, dealer muck so the raise needs to be matched

so if the player was truly shrewd he wdve just said nothing and lose 1800.  well, if he was truly shrewd he'd have his hand holding his cards, but the next shrewdest would be to say nothing and act as if he did fold.

yeah, he should've just gone with what the dealer thought happened, not even any need to get the floor over then

I also got a lift to DTD in the boybandmobile - highlight of my poker career to date! Cheers LeKnave, I owe you a beer!

Did you travel in the actual boybandmobile or the taxi in front which they book to lead them they way.

haha M. np BigFella.

;applause;

+1

genius.

Another perspective...

From Tournament Directors Association Rules -

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.

At what point does he take his clothes off?

not so much another perspective, more exactly what I've been saying

so it would seem the ruling was harsh but correct then..... wp DTD td i guess  :)

I don't agree with the ruling because the cards are clearly identifiable and the verbal declaration is "all-in" not "pass". To shrug your shoulders and say the cards touched the MUCK so what can we do? is anal beyond belief. The guy declared all-in, his cards are clearly identifiable, the dealer can vouch for his cards and the error, the guy's oppo doesn't want the money cos he knows the score, all the other players know the score. But there's nothing that can be done cos his cards grazed the muck, and the power of the muck is so great it defeats all the above. C'mon.

This!

6. Cards thrown into the muck and mixed are ruled dead, if the cards remain clearly identifiable they may be retrieved by the (TD)

If we went along with D.T.D's ruling it would be clear that players sitting in seats 1 & 10 would be at a disavantage. And as players why would we want that to be the case? What if the muck is amassed in front of the player sitting in seat 10, then as the dealer tosses some mucked cards towards the muck they slide into players 10's space and touch his cards. Player 10 has his cards protected by a chip so his cards are clearly identifiable...but they have now touched the dreaded muck. His cards are dead now? Cos we can't do nothing now. Cos they've touched the muck. And the muck is more powerful than all of us put together. This is plain wrong.

RR's have under Dead Hands:

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

But it also has under irregularities:

2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.


So it comes down to this: his hand was not protected, therefore he has no basis to argue. If his hand was protected and the dealer still somehow managed to foul it, the rule about hands touching the muck being ruled live at the TDs discretion could be invoked.

TDA rules don't have a rule specifically about the muck but have:

1. Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person’s decision is final.

So, a dealer killing a protected hand could be considered unusual. A dealer killing an unprotected hand is not however.


Bottom line: always protect your cards.

Good post CF. I like this part....

Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.

I like that, but you can't quote that and say in the same breath that it's in the fairness of the game for this guy's hand to be dead and he should be handing over 10k. Cos I would say WTF!

This part...So, a dealer killing a protected hand could be considered unusual. A dealer killing an unprotected hand is not however., is not a quoted rule...it's just what you yourself consider constitutes unusual. I on the other hand would say a guy saying all-in, waving his hand, and having his cards snatched from under his nose is very unusual. If it is not unusual it is common, and that would not be a truth. The fairness of the game should take priority and what happened to this guy is unfair. The TD does not have to abide by the technical rule in the interests of fairness like you say and everyone at the table thought it was unfair. So what aspect of this does the TD think is in the interests of a fair game?

It's fair because they're following a rule made specifically for this scenario (namely you have no excuse for not protecting your hand).

The first rule can't really be invoked because as I say, nothing unsual has happened here - indeed, the quoted rule about failing to protect your hand covers exactly the ruling made here.

Now, whether you think the rule about unprotected hands is fair or not is a different question entirely. But whilst that rule is there it would be unfair to rule any other way - TDs can't just pick and choose which rules they like (unless they've got their own set of house rules).

But TD's CAN pick and choose if they think the scenario warrants it. That's the rule you quoted.

I've been playing regular live poker for 5 years and I have NEVER seen someone announce all-in only for the dealer to feel that gives him the cue to make a grab at the player's cards. That's well unusual. It comes down to the definition of "protected" in your opinion. So if this guy was using a card protector and the dealer still grabbed them that is different, that is now unusual, and the rule can be invoked? I would say the words all-in are pretty good protection in themselves.

You see once again it's the player's proximity to the dealer that put's him at a massive disadvantage and that is very very unfair for the game. The other 8 player's distance from the dealer gives them natural protection from this happening...so they aren't required to protect to the same degree. Also players 1 & 10 have less time to protest before the cards are mucked because it's right there in front of them. So they can't stop the dealer so readily. You just can't conduct a fair game of cards when you put someone at a disadvantage...and the truth is this could not possibly happen to a player in seat 4. That is plain unfair. If it happened to me, which it wouldn't, cos I don't get kings, my cards would not be mucked and that is the simple truth. I would pity the TD who tried to tell me otherwise.

Prop bet for boyband....

Next trip to DTD has to follow these rules....

1) No sat nav/follow the leader car to be used
2) No motorways allowed (only A and B roads to be used)
3) Old school maps are allowed with ONLY the front seat passenger giving directions

Could they manage it??

Just out of interest, does anyone know where the guys cards were?  The tables at DTD have a betting line and a wooden rail no?  Were they behind the line?  From all the laws that have been quoted it seems to me that there are laws to deal with this sort of incident, but TD's do have the authority to not apply the absolute letter of this law if common sense and fairness to everyone can offer a better solution.  Ultimately it's fairness that should be the priority not just blindly following rules. Rules are there after all to make the games run smoothly and fairly.

If the guys cards were behind the line and the dealer has reached for them to muck them, but they're still clearly identifiable by everyone and everyone knows what's happened, everyone knows it's an all-in, everyone knows it's the dealers mistake, and everyone knows which are his cards... then surely the TD can just say sod the absolute letter of the law..take your cards back, the bet is all-in and the action is on you whoever else is it still in the hand. 

do we know if the guy actually had KK?

i had a similar thing happen to me twice in blackpool in 2 days
when Danny was running it it was the same outcome bath times ,
since then i always put a chip on my cards.
i think it was a correct ruling ,because it is up to the player to protect there cards.
like a few others have said if the man with qq had said call there would have been a differant situation.

He just wanted to get you in the bath again. Once wasn't enough.

yeah they got flipped towards the end of the incident

I didn't mean it contradicted wht anyone has been saying... but that it is from a well respected (although, unfortunately, not universally followed), published set of rules.

Not the way I read it.

"However, if a player had raised" Yes, the all-in was a raise "and the raise had not yet been called," No, it had not been called at the time the cards were mucked "the raise will be returned to the player" No, it wasn't... all-in man was forced to forfiet his raise.

Therefore, under this rule the decision was incorrect.

i once saw a guy announce all in and push his chips over the line aswell as his cards! so his cards got were claased as being mucked and his chips were left in the middle for the remaining players to fight it out and he was knocked out

I think that the bottom line when it comes to the rules, which many people don't seem to grasp, is that they are there to protect the players from 'angle shooting' and outright cheating.

They are not [or should not be] there to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the game or to punish what are clearly mistakes, on whoever's part.

This why Rule 1 of the TDA rules exist... it is just unfortunate that it is rarely acted upon.

Good post.
Common sense in this situation says as long as the cards can be clearly identified, give them back and get on with the game.

My understanding is that the 'raise' was returned - the guy only had to pay to call the other players bet.

Correct

Correct.

The bet is currently 12,000.

Player 1 says all in. The 12,000 is matched and pulled into the middle. There's another 20,000 or so extra now sitting in front of Player 1 waiting to be called.

Player 1's cards are mucked.

Player 2 wins the pot as he's the only player with cards remaining. The pot at this point only contains 24,000ish. The uncalled bet of 20,000 gets returned to Player 1.

Hence Player 1 was required to match the 12,000.

the line has nothing to do with it. as you say in your post it's a betting line, it's there to determine whether chips are in a pot or in a players stack, the position of cards in relation to it means nothing

This very thing happened to me when I was sat in seat 10 in the WSOP last year and the ruling was that my hand was dead. I had raised UTG with AA!!! ;-( I had been re-raised and I declared all-in when the player in seat 4 threw his cards into the centre of the table, they hit the dealers fist, landed on my cards that had a card protector on them, the dealer retreived them into the muck, then the lad in seat 8 who had re-raised me kicked off that my hand was dead, rule by the td was that my hand was infact dead and I had to match the re-raise!!!

In a seperate incident at the Venetian I was also involved in a hand where I was all-in on my BB, my cards were protected, I was at the table when both cards were dealt and there was action between other players. I went over to the next table and put my name on another sit and go and came back to my original table , the hand was still in progress but the dealer had mucked my cards and left my card protector where I was sat, The td was called and the ruling was that it was a dealer error and I was given a sb back!!!

Can anyone explain the old offside rule?

So it appears that (some) TDs don't care if you've made an effort to protect your cards or not - if they come into contact with mucked cards - they're mucked?

I wonder if I can market these as card protectors?
(http://images.surlatable.com/surlatable/images/en_US/local/products/detail/8093.jpg)

Splash, in the DTD incident, did the player have a card protector, or were his cards just sitting there exposed? (apologies if this was mentioned earlier)

Just ZOMG LOL!!!

Good posts from Rio and ripple highlighting the common sense rule.

But now I am well confused about the chain of events....

The bet is currently 12,000.

Player 1 says all in. The 12,000 is matched and pulled into the middle. There's another 20,000 or so extra now sitting in front of Player 1 waiting to be called.

Player 1's cards are mucked.

How can the 12k be matched and pulled in and then the dealer mucks his cards?? If the 12k is taken from the stack before the mucking how can his cards be mucked. You can't call/raise and fold all in one action.

I think Homer or Snoops came up with the butter dish card protector idea a while ago. This is surely FTW. When you buy in you get your butter dish and your cards must be under the butter dish to be protected. No need for interpretation anymore, and everyone looks equally titty at the table.

Wow. avillain how ridic. Refering back to Rio's post we can see that the fairness rule must take priority in a poker tournament because the technical rules can be open to angle-shooting and the fairness rule cannot. The guy who did this is just a cheat...and he's using the rules to cheat. That's why sticking to the rules 100% of the time is just a lol stance for any TD to take.

This isn't exactly what happened in this situation - but it's what should have happened, step by step. Hence why after the fact Player 1 was required to put in the 12,000.

It was me.  I think it might they might be the essential poker item for 2009 if you're ever sitting in seats 1 or 9/10.

My argument to the td was that my cards were still in front of me with my card protector on them, the cards that had landed on my protector had not infact been mucked at that point as they had not touched the muck, his ruling was that the line constituted the muck line and once they had touched my cards wether there was a protector there or not meant that my hand was dead. Perhaps it was because I was a brit and the player in seat 8 was a yank.

I have since seen this happen in poker after dark and nothing happened on that occasion as the two cards that touched the other players cards were just simply mucked, comonsense prevailed.

No card protector

The wsop story is sick. Did you not want to put your chair through the American's face?

Different ruling if your name was Negreanu or Hellmuth methinks

What really pissed me off was that the tosser in seat 8, once he had the ruling in his favour, (even though I still had my AA in front of me with the card protector on them) showed me AK. The td said that he was sorry but that was the rule!!! like you say, imagine Hellmuth accepting that rule without the whole of the room or the whole of Nevada knowing about it, lol - joke

To be honest, the last two years of playing the circut has taught me a lot. I have seen well established pro's pulling stunts at the tables, probably against players who dont really know the rules or more importantly "the moves", I dont mind these "moves" if they are legal but a few of them have been nothing more than "cheating" and I'm catching on fast to the "movers" and the "cheaters"

What kind of moves / stunts?

Not saying the ruling is or isn't fair, but it's definitely a lesson to be heeded.  Especially, if you're in seated next to the dealer.

It was Dewi's idea, surely?

I am not going to mention any names but these are some of the stunts

Betting 25k on the river even though they only had 14k in front of them (seat 10 v seat 1 player) seat one had about 24k left and mucked instantly!!!

Holding hole cards about 6 inches above the line, "saying go on then - take it" to which his opponent said "good pass" and mucked, then the player holding the cards said "hang on mate, I aint folded yet" and took the pot!!

Sitting with arms in front of their chips, re-raising a bet and declaring "all of them" and putting a stack into the middle- pre-flop, I asked for a count and called, the dealer said "on yer backs" to which I exposed my cards when the other player said " Woe, I still got chips here" and moved his arms revealing another stack of several thousand chips. I had pocket tens and the rule was that I could not instigate any betting for the round, I could only call, needless to say that he put me all in on a jack high flop - and No, I didnt call. The other player sat there with a shitty smirk on his face.

Ceasers Palace, I'm sitting with pocket kings and there's been action on every street and this player is just trying to get me out of the pot J 8 7 2 rainbow board when he re-raise me on the turn to which I go all-in, the all-in bet is about a 2000 more for him to call, his re-raise was 12k and there was about 32k in the middle, The dealer counts the difference, tells him it's another 2k, he says to the dealer "go on then" and puts his cards face up on the table to reveal A 8 the dealer turns the river card which is a blank and asks this bloke for the extra 2k, he says "I never said call" a ruling was sought and the td gave me the pot but because he never said the words call he didnt have to pay me, I asked if the ace had come would he have claimed the pot?

Doubt this player would be too difficult to spot - he'll be the guy who has had all his teeth knocked out.


Surely a decent dealer would realise this was a stroke and declare that he took 'all of them' as a verbal declaration of all-in?


I've seen the same thing at Caesars - such a stupid rule.

If I was kings man in this example and the TD ruled my hand was dead by saying "I am abiding by the technicalities of the rulebook", even though the spirit of the game suffers, you know what I'd do? I would ruin the game. And that would be very easy to do. I would take my full 2 minutes over EVERY decision. I would timebank every hand and the clock would have to be called on me every five minutes. I would call the TD for a ruling over any and every technicality. I would amass all the small denomination chips and refuse to give change. In doing these things the table would be playing only a few hands an hour. When the TD asked me for my reason I would say "I am abiding by the technicalities of the rulebook", even though the spirit of the game suffers. Cos like Bobby Brown said...two can play that game.

Anyone at my table who supported the TD's ruling about the Kings, which is very easy to do when it doesn't affect YOU, would suddenly drop that line like a hot potato. We are adults and the decision we should all support is the one that helps the 10 of us enjoy a fair game of poker.

'We are adults'....................    so when we don't get our own way, we cry and stamp our little feet until we do.

That's your prerogative.

I wouldn't cry I don't think. I think I would see myself as a crusader for what is right and be kinda proud. Like a modern day William Wallace type character. Although I don't imagine I'd scream FREEDOMMMM, or anything like that cos that would be a bit irrelevant really. You could tag any form of protest as a childish reaction to not getting your own way if you so desired. I choose not to see it that way.

Also....
Absolute LOL!!!

I'm gonna start a protest about mantis's protest. 2 can play that game

child!

Everyone else at the table agreed in open that it was out and out cheating, the player who cheated just sat there with a CGF attitude, obviously he had pulled this stroke before.

I remember when I was 14 a friend of mine was caught masturbating by his Mum. Everyone was completely aghast when he told us. It was really weird as well the way it happened cos apparently he got home from school and nobody was in so he spread ALL his porn over the floor, got naked, and went to work. When finished he turned around to find a steaming hot cup of tea on his bedside table. Then he heard his Mum doing the washing-up downstairs. I believe he did not speak a word to her for 3 days and got a paper round so he could get out the house before she woke up. This is surely the absolute worst of horrors for any youngster. But when he told us one kid called Andy Hill said it wouldn't bother him at all. So you see, sometimes you just can't explain wtf goes on in somebody's head. I believe he is now an accountant.

WOW, thats fucking amazing................ Not wishing to hijack this thread.
I worked for a firm of office equipment suppliers in Cannock and there was an Andy Hill there who was the accountant. The firm went into liquidation after £1.5 million disappeared into a black hole and apparently that Andy Hill admitted some wrong doings!!!! 26 people lost their jobs because of it ;-(

Bit of a sticky subject if u ask me.

No, unless I am missing something from op (BELOW)


Both stacks are playing about 25-30k and player 1 raises 3 x BB to 1800.   Player two comes over the top and makes it about 12000.  

Player 1 says all in and waves his hand forward, unfortunately the he's sat next to the dealer and the dealer does not hear the "all in" and takes hand wave to mean fold.  In a split second he pulls the cards and they touch the muck but can still be identified.

Now player 1 is facing the re-raise of 12k total, he has said all in BUT the dealer has taken it as a fold.  How can he be made to call the additional in anyway ? He has FOLDED/MUCKED/PASSED/GIVEN UP, due to the dealer error the action is fold, not call or all-in in any way shape or form. So he can't be expected to call any further bet.

Was Simon not around when this rule was made or something.. Surely commonsense would have said that he shouldn't have had to call the extra 10.2k...

BTW, who can you call for a ruling if you think (know) the td's got it wrong?

Ghostbusters

:D

(Bobby Brown link again)

No one... The td's desicision is final, they are always right even when wrong, and any club that allows them to be over ruled has a problem, I remember walking out of a casino because the poker manager over ruled me on a cash table, when my ruling was correct for the published rules but she wanted no arguments.

So I guess that makes them GOD then?.
 
I always thought Dena was a goddess when she was just a dealer, now she's td for the GUKPT must be a superior goddess now?

This was my understanding of events as reported .The dealer has accepted a "fold" thus no further chips to be added to pot.

I'm running out of ways to say this. the dealer thought it was a fold but was wrong. what actually happened is there was an all in followed by an incorrect muck.

if all decisions were based on the dealer's opinions then there would be no need for floor staff or rulings. the ruling in this case reflected what actually happened

Why is the dealer taking a hand signal as a fold?  The signal could mean anything, fold, all in, get that fly out of my face.

Having read this thread you have to say that this is an appalling ruling.

If there had been action after the all in / mucking of cards then I could understand the loss of the 10k in chips.

However as there has been no action the commonsense approach is either

a) the player loses his 1,800 (his fault for not protecting his hand) - harsh but fair
b) players cards are returned to him as they are clearly recoverable and his all in stands.

I think someone stated the player made restrained protests - personally I would have to be restrained!

I only normally play the £25 tournament and I would have gone ballistic in that let along the £300 one.

IF he'd just said "yeah I meant to fold" that would have been the case.  1,800 lost.

BUT, he insisted that he'd gone "all-in", and then subsequently the cards were mucked.  So he's lucky that the call wasn't made and all his chips would then have had to go in.

Gatso is right.  Yes, it's true.

I'm sure the player had a couple more hand signals for the dealer that didn't mean fold.

Everyone that has said "his fault for not protecting his cards", if the dealer is aking his hand signal as an intent to fold and is reaching over and mucking the cards for the player, would the precense of a card protector have made any difference?  Surely the dealer would still act the same and take the cards from under the protector and muck them.

When I am dealing in self dealt games, if someone makes some sort of hand gesture for fold that isnt entirely clear, I will reach for the cards but confirm with the player that they want to fold before actually mucking them and the same for an unclear check gesture, I will confirm their intention to check before moving the action.  Surely its common sense for all dealers to be doing this?

I don't get how come when the player was so handy at waving his arms about he failed to bring them down very sharply when the dealer reached for his kings. I swear to God if I was in this situation i'd turbo karate chop that dealers humerus before he got those kings off me; I would prob shoot him actually. However, it is well known that people can be struck by this rabbit in the headlights brainfuck situation when they find themselves in situations of extreme terror and freeze. Your kings heading for the muck here prob qualifies.

Wow...


that is all.

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DtD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

It is. It's why it can make the correct ruling here where 90% of other establishments would not.

Do you work there?

lol no

It never was the correct ruling:

Dealer took action as being a fold and mucked cards, regardless of what action the player made, the dealer has determined this to be a fold..............raise should never have been made up.

Geo

lol, this is the thread that keeps on giving

Tournament Directors Association New Poker Rules, Feb 23, 2007

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.

I understand now..

Player 1 raised to 1800

player 2 re-raised to 12000

player 1 re-raised all-in (hand motion) the dealer took this to be a fold and mucked his cards (dealer error) but the verbal stands

player 2 is only one left with a live hand and therefore player 1 has to match the 12000 bet.

What would have happened if player 2 had called the all-in, would they have given player 1 his cards back or would player 2 have been deemed the winner and player one would have had to match player 2 chips?

Like it or not ---- it is the correct rule

Hopefully everyone is now agreed that this is the correct ruling (even if you don't agree with it).

This comment provides an interesting spin on the situation:


The way I see it, there's 2 orders this can happen:

1)
Player 1 goes all in
Dealer mucks cards
Player 2 calls

2)
Player 1 goes all in
Player 2 calls
Dealer mucks cards

I would rule in situation 1) the ruling is the same as the one given here. Once player 1's hand is mucked the hand is over, and player 2 wins by being the only player left with cards. As the hand is over he obviously can't call, so player 1 simply matches the 12k and retains the rest of his chips.

In situation 2) I would retrieve player 1's cards. In an all in showdown the all in player's cards must be tabled. This obviously though runs into trouble if the cards aren't identifiable, in which case player 1 is probably losing all his chips.

apparently the rules if player 2 would have called then player 1 would have had to match the bet.

Player 2 would have had to have called before the dealer mucks player 1 hand - once the hand is mucked there can be no more action (thats my understanding)

yeah i make you right, that info was from player 2 himself. maybe he misunderstood it?

People use hand signals all the time for folding, checking or god knows what. Some people slam their cards down and refuse to utter a single syllable in response to your queries, leaving you to reach for the cards in trepidation, whether said player has left them behind the line or in front of it. Others will fling them towards you, at you, with words or without. So yes, there's a lot of assumption in it. I can't speak for the reasoning of the dealer in just madly swiping for the cards but I don't really feel sorry for the player. It really pisses me off when people can't bring themself to say "I am all in." "Check. Okay. Carry on." "I raise." "I pass." and instead just sit there silent and sullen. A lot of the players on the GUKPT circuit will make a point of making eye contact with the dealer and announcing their action. Guess what? They don't have their all in moves interpreted as a fold.

Moral of the story? If you keep the dealer informed of what you're doing, he's less likely to misinterpret and do something that creates as large a furore as this has.

I give up, its not a all in, because at no point did the dealer accept the all in so it was not a binding bet, bollocks to the table hearing it, its the dealer that runs the table and he folded the player not accepted the all in then mucked em.  So the first action the dealer accepted was fold.

It seems to imply that simon disagreed with ruling but would not (and rightly so) go against the TD for that tournie. Did anyone else get this feeling ?

This...it seems very obvious to me. The only reason the guy was made to call was because the players heard him say something..but the dealer didn't..dealer counts..end off.

yeah, you 2 are right. but only if we

a) ignore the rules
b) ignore the fact that the player announced allin
c) ignore the fact that he told the td that he announced allin when he came to make the ruling

yes please.

Surely the dealer / tournament director have totally ignored rule 1 from the TDA regarding fairness.


DTD's actual ruling is appalling.

The rules are there for a reason, DT (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/)D (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/) have made the correct ruling in this case (LIKE IT OR NOT)..

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. (This rule clearly covers the offence that was committed of an unprotected hand and has been interpreted correctly - well done to DT (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/)D (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/))

1   Floor People   Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.  Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.  The floor person’s decision is final.

However unusual the circumstances were on this occasion, dealer error or not, the infringement wouldn't have happened had the hand been protected. The floor persons decision is final and I applaud the player for accepting the rule that was made.

DT (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/)D (http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/) have 100% got it right and I wish other floor supervisors and td's would take heed as one of my hates is the inconsistency in casinos as you go up and down the country, I've seen rules being misinterpreted to favour the home player in ambiguous situations.

The other problem is that some casino's also have their own house rules that are sometimes conflicting with the TDA, it's up to each individual player to check the rules that are in play before they shuffle up and deal.

I'd rather play somewhere that I know they will abide by the rules to the letter of the law - even if we think the rulings are wrong.