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

[Geo the Sarge]

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.

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

[celtic]

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?

[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.

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

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.

[StuartHopkin]

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 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?

[Cf]

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.

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.

[gatso]

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

[StuartHopkin]

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

[celtic]

was the dealer a regular dtd dealer?

[nirvana]

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

[Forrester]

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!!

[phatomch]

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.

[maccol]

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


This.

[Splash]

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

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.

[Splash]

was the dealer a regular DTD dealer?

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!