blonde poker forum

Hi, so here we go. I will try to describe all situation as detailed as possible. Opinions from all the members who can stay impartial are very welcome.

Pre hand history: Jamie Holland came to table as chip leader, after few levels his stack went down from something like 300k to 50k or so with most of that coming my way. Later he recovered to 135k ish. We played many hands against each other last 2 levels. In last level he clearly play3ed for double up or bust, few huge overbets in hands leading to the last one.

Dealer: Although until that dealer came to the table, level of dealers has been excellent all night, this particular dealer looked 'disinterested and fed up' with his job role at  best. I believe he dealt last 2 levels at least and more or less every single hand had isomeking of iissues - cards has been sticking to his fingers, they had been pushed to wrong people, misdealt etc.

Effective stacks: Mine 240k ish, Jamie's 135k ish. 5 minutes before end of play.
Hand: Preflop, flop, turn actions ARE NOT IMPORTANT. 2 way pot on the river. Board reads I believe 67735(in no particular order), rainbow (although there was flush draw possible on the turn). Pot is relatively small, about 50k on 2000/4000 blinds. I check, Jamie again pushes all in. I assume i have Q4 for straight/missed flush and more than confident I am ahead due to previous way Jamie played. After some deliberation I call Jamie's all in of 126k and almost instantly got congratulated on good call. Even now I have no idea what he had as I am not sure if his hand even had been revealed.

After hand: I flip Q4 as any other hand. After minute or so dealer wakes up from his dreaming/sleep mode and starts counting Jamie's chips or pushing put etc. Then from somewhere comes a cry that my hand has 3 cards. TD is called.

TD (Daniel). Comes to table, and after so God knows 60 secs calls that lovely 'you not gonna like this.....' decision. No single player had been consulted or his opinion taken into consideration whatsoever.

Players' on the table opinion. Please feel free to correct me but to best of my knowledge every player including Jamie agreed that:
A. I played Q4
B. That pot should be split

My personal position. At now any stage I saw 3rd card in my hand until after it was flipped over and somebody noticed that. My line of play really cannot represent nothing else than Q4 of diamonds. Any sugestion otherwise would be really improbable - i would need to be mentally retarded to call 126k bet after investing 20k in the pot whilst knowing I had 3 cards. Although not many of you saw me recently at DTD, but I am not novice in poker.
Now TD decision. As far as I know the main line then making decision should be: 'Decision should be made the best possible way in fairness of the game'. Further I think about all this situation it is getting harder and harder to notice any fairness in decision whatsoever.

It looks my first deepstack will stay in memory for a while. As some famous people love to say: #LoveTheGame.

Finding it hard to believe you didn't know u had 3 cards tbh, but I would say your hand is dead.

You're not gonna like this.....

Your hand is dead.

Sorry.

It's a very simple clear ruling

Three cards, your hand is dead

I know its unfortunate that you only discover at the end of the hand, and it always stings in an importnat pot, but the TD is totally right

Your hand is dead.

Hope all three opinions so far have been impartial enough for you.

Hand is dead

Any other option leaves the door open to people trying to cheat when they get dealt 3 hole cards

Dead as a dead thing from Deadwood.

My previous job was cardroom supervisor and its very clear your hand is dead regardless of ill intent or whether you knew you had 3 cards or not.

Hand is sess all chips you put in are lost

fold pre

Sadly, there are similarities between your hand, and Monty Python's parrot.

really simple decision and td is 100% right

the suggestion that the pot should be split is laughable and is the reason he didn't take players' opinions into consideration

Yeah hand is dead unfortunately.

A few years ago at Gala in Nottingham I moved all in with what I thought was AQ, and was called by 1 player.

It turned out I actually had AQ7, my hand was deemed dead, and other player automatically won my chips :(

Yup hand is Deffo dead

Haven't read op, but your hand is most certainly dead.

Should the other player win the pot though?

If his cards had been mucked and not presented in view to the rest of the table, is his hand not dead also?

Hand is dead. Dealer error unfortunatly. Sorry mate

Everyone is right in saying its dead.

The rules state that is your job to indentify that you have the correct amount of cards in your hand. Now I know this sounds retarded, but you'd know straight away if you have 1 card, therefore you should know straight away if you have 3 or more.

Its unfortunate that this has happened to you in your first deepstack, but unfortunately its the correct ruling

very unfortunate for you. the two cards were clearly stuck perfectly together. and like you say you played  Qd 4d. jamie's very lucky to be in the position he is now having basically bluffed all his chips off

Yep hands dead simple as and as to the other players hand not being turned to win the chips it's a default pot win as the 3 card hand never happened and over two moves had happened so the bord is live. Ul m8 but it's a players job to look after there hand and to know how many cards they have

Having three cards would clearly give you an unfair advantage, so the hand should be declared dead...

How do we know the other player only had two cards if he chucked them in the muck?

As no hand was declared, i.e. one mucked and one invalid, I think the whole hand was dead and everyone's chips should be returned as near as possible obs.

Well if that's the way you see it then cool but I can only call from what I have read hear and put it use I would from what I have Sean happen in the past thats all

I think where rulings are concerned, as a general rule, players involved find it difficult to look at the situation completely impartially, logically and more importantly, from the point of view of the TD.

Almost everything in your OP is irrelevant to the situation.

"Pre hand history: Jamie Holland came to table as chip leader, after few levels his stack went down from something like 300k to 50k or so with most of that coming my way. Later he recovered to 135k ish. We played many hands against each other last 2 levels. In last level he clearly play3ed for double up or bust, few huge overbets in hands leading to the last one.

Dealer: Although until that dealer came to the table, level of dealers has been excellent all night, this particular dealer looked 'disinterested and fed up' with his job role at  best. I believe he dealt last 2 levels at least and more or less every single hand had isomeking of iissues - cards has been sticking to his fingers, they had been pushed to wrong people, misdealt etc.

Effective stacks: Mine 240k ish, Jamie's 135k ish. 5 minutes before end of play.
Hand: Preflop, flop, turn actions ARE NOT IMPORTANT. 2 way pot on the river. Board reads I believe 67735(in no particular order), rainbow (although there was flush draw possible on the turn). Pot is relatively small, about 50k on 2000/4000 blinds. I check, Jamie again pushes all in. I assume i have Q4 for straight/missed flush and more than confident I am ahead due to previous way Jamie played. After some deliberation I call Jamie's all in of 126k and almost instantly got congratulated on good call. Even now I have no idea what he had as I am not sure if his hand even had been revealed.

After hand: I flip Q4 as any other hand. After minute or so dealer wakes up from his dreaming/sleep mode and starts counting Jamie's chips or pushing put etc. Then from somewhere comes a cry that my hand has 3 cards. TD is called.

My line of play really cannot represent nothing else than Q4 of diamonds. Any sugestion otherwise would be really improbable - i would need to be mentally retarded to call 126k bet after investing 20k in the pot whilst knowing I had 3 cards. Although not many of you saw me recently at DTD, but I am not novice in poker."

It's all irrelevant to the ruling, the only relevant bit is that you had three cards, therefore your hand has to be dead and you should be awarded 0% of the pot. Any other ruling would mean that players who had been dealt 3 cards could keep quiet and freeroll the whole hand - if they got called down they could just claim they didn't know and get half the pot back. Now I know you'll retort with "but I didn't know I had three cards", but how is a TD meant to judge who is telling the truth there? The rules are there to prevent angleshooting of this nature being possible and it is a good and fair rule - but on this occassion it's extremely unlucky for you, but it's the correct rule nonetheless.

Good point here.

If other player has already mucked his hand without tabling it at the point the 3 cards are discovered, the pot has no owner and surely chips should come out of play?

Just for the record, I don't know either player and am just commenting as an interested observer.

I also have no idea what the actual ruling is especially as so much action has taken place.

This situation meant that all players were affected as the burn cards and flop were not as they should have been etc.

For me that means every player at the table was impacted and therefor no one player should profit from the outcome.

Give everyone there chips back and the 'offending' player has to sit out for a round maybe?

If hero was in the bb, and only realises when 3 people have acted and then he looks, is his hand dead?

jamie didn't muck his cards anyway. he showed aj off

Ahhhhh the plot thinkens

Yes, now makes it a very different situation.

Lots of action, hand plays out, 3 card hand dead, opponent shows hand, ruling correct.

most pots are won without a hand being tabled. do you want to give everyone their chips back everytime someone bets and isn't called just in case they had 3 cards?

If it's a bet and call situation on the river, the pot can only be claimed by disclosing a hand. The pot cannot be won unless you show your cards.

If the TD has to use discretion in making a decision on the principle of fairness - then awarding the pot even though his hand wasn't disclosed would be it

a more interesting situation is when both players left in at the river turn up with 3 cards

Haven't read the entire thread, so don't know anyone else's opinion.

But I think your hand is dead.

I once saw a £20,000 pot in PLO awarded to the losing hand at showdown because one player had been dealt an extra card in the SB and not noticed it.

If that hand is dead then so it yours /thread

Really does suck though as it wasn't your fault, all you can do is be super vigilant and a little fortunate this doesnt happen to you again. unlucky mate :(

what was wrong witht the can of worms that we had all ready why have you got to open a new one

I can't be impartial in matters of injustice - you were robbed, would demand entry fee back in writing..minimum.

You say dealer is dozy and missing stuff but you played whole hand of poker with 3 cards and missed your oppo flipping A-J. Hand is stone cold dead and it's entirely your own fault, sorry. Next can of worms, what if you win a pot having only 3 cards in 4-card Omaha? No way to angle shoot.

still dead, think there's an exception to the wrong number of cards rule for stud games though but not sure what it is, I'll have a look if I can be arsed

No can of worms required. Hand is dead as a dead thing's dead bits.

got it

thanks

This. Nice to know you could be arsed after all.

But what if the dealer is disinterested in his job role?

<3 Mantis, and exactly spot on.

So, from making a thread that looks like you are trying to get the TD in the shit (as all DTD management read here)  you have just enhanced his position on a 100% correct ruling.

Threads like this are dangerous, TD's should make a decision based on facts and fairness, not how they think a forum will slate that decision if it doesn't go the way of an OP. By all means ask a question of whether a decision is fair. If it seems like it isn't and a ruling is ridiculous the community will usually scream for an OP to name names (slightly different scenario).

Absolutely no chance of this happening. A touch sensationalist IMO

I'd hardly call this thread dangerous. Nobody's likely to get hurt.

Dan wouldn't feel too happy if a decision was scrutinized on a forum that all members thought he was wrong (I know it didn't happen here as the decision is pretty clear cut) and he knew he was going to be in the office about when he next goes in. I lost a job over a players inability to recall a hand correctly and arguing over a decision with me (on a different forum btw) many years ago. It can be dangerous :/

Nothing more to discuss. Hand is dead, learn from it, don't let it happen again and move on.

I bit my tongue about 15 minutes ago, IDK if it was directly linked to this thread but I'm in quite a bit of pain over it.

Brown Bread

I also remember him making some really out of line comments on the monte carlo thread in december.

^ How it shouldn't be done (from someone that has had his fair share of personal criticism via the internet)

How it should have been done:

Q: I had my hand declared dead at showdown after I tabled three cards in NLH. Was that the correct ruling?


A: Unfortunately, if you have the incorrect number of cards your hand is dead and you cede all claim to the pot.


I appreciate why you might find it frustrating, having genuinely been oblivious to the third card. That being said, if you consider this impartially, it really is the -only- ruling that can be made that protects the integrity of the game.

Good post^

You have to realise what is relevant to the situation.

Only fair ruling is for the hand to be dead.

Never had this done to me but I'd know soon enough I had 3 cards being dealt to me no matter the amount of lazy dealing or combo meals being consumed.

Think on the flip side too, put yourself in another's shoes and think if you'd be happy losing a pot (or even 50% of it) to a person with a 1 card freeroll over you the entire hand.

They screwed up this exact same ruling at Genting Stoke in the dealers choice cash game. I wasn't in the game but got told about it later. Its £2/£2 and 2 players get it in on the flop in a quite a big pot in 6 card PLO8. By the river the board is 235xx rainbow (the xx are 2 random high cards that don't matter), one guy turns over all 6 cards, he has A4 for the high and the low, the other guy turns over A4 for a chop and leaves the rest of his hand face down next to it. The dealer starts chopping it up and the first player asks to see the rest of his hand, the dealer turns it over and there are 5 cards so he'd played the whole hand with 7 cards. Dealer doesn't know what to do, gets a ruling, cardroom manager (not sure which one) doesn't know what to do (despite it being their job to), they get one of the other floor managers who shouldn't have anything to do with rulings in the cardroom and rules that they go back through the whole hand and give everyone their money back.

I do think its good that these things can be discussed somewhere like this. If naming and shaming people over dodgy rulings improves the integrity of the games then an that really be a bad thing? I get that it can shake players confidence in the people making decisions that can cost them significant amounts of money and that it could be embarrassing for the people responsible but surely considering the money involved this has to be worth it to keep the games fair and well run?

Obviously in this case, a 3 card hand is not a valid hand and it has to be ruled dead and once action has taken place it can't be ruled as a misdeal and the hand replayed

Out of interest, if you table two cards, and one is identical to one of the flop cards (say they're both the Td), is your hand dead in the same way?

I thought Alonso was Ronaldo. now I'm pretty confused. Wish people would stop being anon because now I don't even know if I am laughing at the right people.  I love Ronaldo at Dtd and Alonso on here but don't have a clue who Ronaldo is on here or who Alonso is at Dtd :(

Despite my love of both guys only seen a few incidents of kicking off in Dtd and all involved Ronaldo and only seen a few incidents of forum members being in the wrong over rulings and they all involved Alonso :)

Who is the dozy dealer?

The cards were perfectly stuck together apparently. Hard to believe but they got slide to Alonso together and he never noticed. Tbh I have never once checked if I have been dealt 3 cards in all my years of playing however nearly ever tourney I must have had to ask for my 2 nd card when on the dealer button

The real lesson to be learnt is to not peel Q4 out the blinds

no 3bet it oioi

<3

ROFLs!

Hear hear never just look it up always 3-4bet and if have to ship it all in lol

Hi all,

Thank you all for the opinions. Just few things to mention.

1. I kind of know Ronaldo. But that is about it. I heard about incident in deepstack involving Ronaldo, but that's about ti - I think I heard it here. I myself never even played 500DS

2. Somebody mentioned some other TD decision involving me. I doubt that is truth. I had one going against me but it was 12-18 months back in 50 freezout and nowhere near important as this one. Also I really don't think i posted it here or in that case anywhere else. So I guess or where is another Alonso or somebody mistaken me for somebody else.

3. Anon situation. Again, put that request in place just this Thursday. Basically my parent's let's say are old fashioned and would never support me being involved in poker. Problem is with all search engines I got already nearly cought by search engines relating my name to other poker forum/poker site. So I just decided it is easier to be Anon. If I play another deepstack and somebody wants to use my forum nickname or post normal photo I don't have problems with that nor I asked DTD to forbid it. All I asked was not to post my real name in MTT results section on their website.

Standard and correct decision. Fin.  ;frustrated;

Lol. I am the pet detective.

So from this post you confirm you are not Ronaldo and using the observational skills I honed on the Krypton factor I now have worked out you are not The Ginger Lawyer. Was gonna plumb for east European drug Barron but being scared of ya mum don't fit that profile either.  Can you help a brother out here. Who the hell are you?

Alonso - Got it wrong about Chelsea though!

And in not related news (finally):

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2633044,00.html


Any odds on Maurinho comeback? Otherwise very difficult to explain why Di Mateo allowed to destroy club even further (although it is just 15 games or so)...

Found out who Alonso actually is. Turns out Iv kinda of known you for years mate. Im cardroom supervisor at Alea lol

Does alonso look like Tony G 20 years ago? ;)

Haha yes

Lol same village too. Tighty has to start calling him Baby G in the updates

I think he's the one that gave me and Alex stick
in the last MC if u can remember Alex.
We challenge him to come and face us personally but
he back off. I saw him that day but I think ge look like a P U S S Y so
I let him off . One of those Internet hero

Looks like Tony G and Stato's unholy offspring.