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

[Splash]

do we know if the guy actually had KK?

yeah they got flipped towards the end of the incident

[RioRodent]

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.

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

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.

[RioRodent]

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.

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 

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.

[AgentChip109]

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

[RioRodent]

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.

[ripple11]

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.

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.

[jakally]

[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.

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

[Splash]

[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.

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

Correct

[Cf]

[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.

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

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.

[gatso]

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. 

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

[avillan]

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.

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?

[kinboshi]

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.

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!!!

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?


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)

[MANTIS01]

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

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.

[Cf]

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

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.

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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.