Ruling from £50k Gtd at DTD this weekend..

[Splash]

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??

[AlexMartin]

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.

[Graham C]

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

[Jim-D]

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 just plain terrible

[EvilPie]

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.

[WarBwastard]

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??

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? 

[GlasgowBandit]

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

[jakally]

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.

[blonde17]

    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

[action man]

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???

[snoopy1239]

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?

[GreekStein]

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.

[maccol]

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??

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? 

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

[Indestructable]

Card protectors have a use.

[NoflopsHomer]

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.

This x 1000, especially in seat 1 or 9.