blonde poker forum

£100 f/o at Luton last night.

1500/3000/400.

Utg limps, utg+1 shoves 48k, folds to bb, who has 40k approx. Announces raise and throws in a 5k chip. Utg folds.

bb has not seen the all in and mucks. His hand is killed, or at least has touched the muck.

What happens now?

He doubles the guy up.

Mmmmmm - we all what should happen Vin (BB's hand is dead, & his silicones go to Mr Utg+1)      .....     

Strangely a similar scenario happened to me in a hand a month, or so, ago - I raised all in, called in one spot, turn my PP over, oppo looks down for his (unprotected) cards, rookie dealer has mucked them      .....     at (you guessed it) the Luton G.

Ruling called for    ....       we both agreed we 'knew' what the outcome was to be - and put it down to his 'bad luck'.

Not on your Luton G phuqqin Nelly my son!

I sat gobsmacked as talk of 're-constructing the hand' slowly melded into a decision that my oppo got his chips back (he outchipped me, but not even the 'call' amount was taken from his stack)     ......   and I ended up with the SB/BB/antes only.

Now everyone down to Pina the Cleaner knew what the ruling should have been - but I ended up getting the worst ruling in my 'poker life'!

I take it - from the post in Chompy's thread Das has got similarly 'floored'?

Tbh nothing surprises me anymore @ Luton       ......       

Alex is right as per

Common sense is required in this spot IMO, if it were down to the facts given then I would force the bb to sacrifice his 5k or if his cards are identifiable give him the option to call. He has said raise into a pot where he can't technically raise. It is again technically down to the player to protect his interest in the pot. But no one can act after him and therefore they are not angeling. It's a mistake ffs that can be rectified. Rule 1 here.

 9hEww just woke up and seen that utg folds pmsl what the fuck was the dealer doing lol

utg limps and then utg+1 shoves for 48k but the bb doesn't notice so tries to raise? What should happen here is bb should be picked up and slung out into the carpark. I would actually prefer a trap door under each seat so when this shit happens the offending player just snap disappears from view, but as it stands just wrestling him out the door and telling him to piss off seems reasonable.

If his cards are identifiable then give them and his 5k back and give him the option to call.

Surely not?

His cards have hit the muck. There was UTG in the hand after him so we can't say if bb is just daft or angle-shooting

His hand is dead, UTG has folded (doh!) and UTG+1 doubles up

I didn't see originally that UTG was in.

In which case all his chips are in, but if his cards can be identified they should be turned and live, if they cannot be identified then pot goes UTG+1's way.

There is a misconception that if a players cards "touch" the muck then come hell and high water they cannot EVER be live. If it is clear what cards they are, then in the spirit of the game if they are 100% identifiable they should be retrieved and play in this case.

Firstly, as long as his cards are identifiable then if we are gonna make him go all in then his cards are live. It doesn't matter if they've touched the muck or not. The muck isn't some magical entity that kills anything that touches it.

Secondly, we need to exercise some discretion as TD. Is it a genuine mistake? If so then just point out the previous action and let him consider his options.

Forcing a call/raise does nothing for the integrity of the game if it was in error. The player who shoved all in might not even want calling.

And utg does muddy it a little, but it doesn't make much of a difference here to me.

cards were in the middle of the muck, no way of knowing which cards they were

Dead then, but OP said "touched the muck"

so as the bb hard fewer chips than the allin you eliminate him from the comp and give all his chips to the allin uncontested?

We do have to force a call as a player has now acted after him, but UTG is actually in the wrong by folding when he did as a) he didn't know what the raise was or b) he thought he was folding to a 5k raise?

harsh as it sounds yes. If it was per my original answer when I still had sleep in my eyes and didn't see that UTG was in and it was just between the 2 of them then only the 5k would be lost by the bb

Should there not be an option where the dealer deals flop, turn and river and the BB has a (small, obv) chance by having to play the board? After all, they would be all in and it does give them an option?

Errrm ........ no :)

I was the sb in this hand.

the gentleman who raised and didnt notice the all in wouldnt have it in him to angle shoot.

he was at least late 70s and it was a genuine mistake.

his cards were 'in' the muck, however they were clearly visable as they were to the side of the rest of the deck.

they could have been passed back but of course they have been mucked.

the action was............. limp.... then folded round to the button that shoved. i pass sb. bb says raise throws in a 5k chip. when he realises with horror a player has gone all in he takes his 5k chip back and throws his cards in. he had less than the all in.

its a horrible spot as it was a genuine mistake on the bubble of a big comp by luton standards. but.... if he isnt going to pay attention and follow the game its his own fault. for what its worth, my impression of the bb after playing with him for 3-4 hours is that he would sooner give up his chips and hold his hands up to a mistake then cause any aggro.

the rule given was that the 5k stands including blinds and antes.

Well, technically we could say the BB hasn't actually made any action in this case. He can't raise as the bet is more than his stack. That said, even if he had more it wouldn't bother me and rule 1/the rule that actually states mistakes due to not knowing there was a prior raise come into play.

So in a sense UTG has acted out of turn here. But i'm not gonna punish him for that. And he's clearly not interested in the pot so i'm happy to just ignore the fact he was even there in this instance, as long as we're happy that the BB wasn't shooting an angle, which I think we are.

So we are now back on the BB and it comes down to what is best in the spirit of the game? We can:

a) Force him to call off his stack with no hand - I don't like this. This was a mistake and not an angle shoot. And also, this is massively open to collusion. This seems an incredibly easy way to chip dump to me...

b) Not force the call but sacrifice the 5k - This is a definite no-no. There is no reason whatsoever that the 5k should remain in the pot. It was not a valid bet.

c) Not force the call and give him back his 5k, big blind stays in - And for me this is the only solution in this instance. To knock out the big blind here is incredibly harsh, and surely is not within the spirit of the game.

It's amazing how different people give different interpretations of what has happened :) In this instance it implies everything has happened before UTG acts. As I said earlier, UTG has no interest in calling so i'm happy to "ignore" that he's even there. But first we're told the cards touched the muck, then that they were in the middle of it and not identifiable, and then that they're at the side and retrievable.

Not calling anyone right or wrong. It's just interesting the different versions of events you'll hear from different people as it's hard to remember these things exactly as they are.

FWIW that ruling is an ok one. Good job on not eliminating him. But he should get the 5k back. I can't think of a single reason why that remains in the pot.

Just out of curiosity, how do people determine what the "muck" is here? (as in blonde as a whole not the situation)

5k should stay in as that has been committed and is the penalty for "not following the action", but if the cards are retrievable that's a whole different ball game.

UTG has acted prematurely but it is down to the TD to determine if the UTG was going to call the original raise and folded to the word "raise" by the bb, or didn't see the original bet either and folded to the bb's raise of 5k? (This is the reason why folding to the word raise rather than waiting for the bet to be completed happens is wrong, the amount of people that think as soon as the word raise is used they think they now can act is astonishing, it also possibly effects the size of a raise when players do this)

CF: If the bb has said all-in not seeing the UTG+1's all-in would it stand?

Where is it written that there is a penalty for "not following the action"? Putting extra chips in a pot bloats the pot and has the potential to change any future action. To me this is not in the best interests of the game.


Nice question. I think in this instance I'd have to make the all in stand, even if it was done not realising another player was already all in. Going all in always carries the risk that you may be called. So the player has made it clear he's happy (assuming it's not a bluff, but even then that's the risk...) to play for his stack. So I find less reason to try and dig him out of the hole.

I'd also consider the attitude of the other players. If the original all-inner (is that a word?) was of the type who went "he folded! the rules say the chips are mine!" then i'd be more inclined to not take his side as although this is what the rules might say it seems like someone who is trying to take advantage of them for his own benefit.

It is an interesting question as to where the line is drawn. At the end of the day I want what is in the best interests of the game. The rules should protect players, both from others and themselves. People make mistakes. In general I don't think we should be punishing mistakes when we don't need to. But there's always the question of where the line is drawn, and do we want to set precedents in certain cases or can we be seen to be favouring different players etc.

Rule 1 is there for a reason :)

Oh and also, we say "the rules say this", well... there is actually a rule seperate to rule 1 to cover this situation. Feels like ages since i've quoted them, and i'm aware not everyone follows them but from robert's rules...

12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation. A possible rule-of-thumb is to disallow any claim of not understanding the amount wagered if the caller has put eighty percent or more of that amount into the pot.

Example: On the end, a player puts a $500 chip into the pot and says softly, “Four hundred.” The opponent puts a $100 chip into the pot and says, “Call.” The bettor immediately shows the hand. The dealer says, “He bet four hundred.” The caller says, “Oh, I thought he bet a hundred.” In this case, the recommended ruling normally is that the bettor had an obligation to not show the hand when the amount put into the pot was obviously short, and the “call” can be retracted. Note that the character of each player can be a factor. (Unfortunately, situations can arise at big-bet poker that are not so clear-cut as this.)

You are quoting Roberts Rules;

TDA Rules as follows :

35: Verbal Declarations / Acting in Turn
Players must act in turn. Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Chips placed in the pot in
turn must stay in the pot.

This is why I said we may use rule 1


We are not really penalising him 5k we are letting him off with the other 35k,

Fair play. I don't think I agree with that rule. I can think of reasons against it and don't think that "to make people pay attention" is a good reason for it to be there. There any other arguments for its inclusion?