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

[ScottMGee]

Having read this thread you have to say that this is an appalling ruling.

If there had been action after the all in / mucking of cards then I could understand the loss of the 10k in chips.

However as there has been no action the commonsense approach is either

a) the player loses his 1,800 (his fault for not protecting his hand) - harsh but fair
b) players cards are returned to him as they are clearly recoverable and his all in stands.

I think someone stated the player made restrained protests - personally I would have to be restrained!

I only normally play the £25 tournament and I would have gone ballistic in that let along the £300 one.

[kinboshi]

Having read this thread you have to say that this is an appalling ruling.

If there had been action after the all in / mucking of cards then I could understand the loss of the 10k in chips.

However as there has been no action the commonsense approach is either

a) the player loses his 1,800 (his fault for not protecting his hand) - harsh but fair
b) players cards are returned to him as they are clearly recoverable and his all in stands.

I think someone stated the player made restrained protests - personally I would have to be restrained!

I only normally play the £25 tournament and I would have gone ballistic in that let along the £300 one.

IF he'd just said "yeah I meant to fold" that would have been the case.  1,800 lost.

BUT, he insisted that he'd gone "all-in", and then subsequently the cards were mucked.  So he's lucky that the call wasn't made and all his chips would then have had to go in.

Gatso is right.  Yes, it's true.

[MANTIS01]

Why is the dealer taking a hand signal as a fold?  The signal could mean anything, fold, all in, get that fly out of my face.

I'm sure the player had a couple more hand signals for the dealer that didn't mean fold.

[Boba Fett]

Why is the dealer taking a hand signal as a fold?  The signal could mean anything, fold, all in, get that fly out of my face.

I'm sure the player had a couple more hand signals for the dealer that didn't mean fold.

Everyone that has said "his fault for not protecting his cards", if the dealer is aking his hand signal as an intent to fold and is reaching over and mucking the cards for the player, would the precense of a card protector have made any difference?  Surely the dealer would still act the same and take the cards from under the protector and muck them.

When I am dealing in self dealt games, if someone makes some sort of hand gesture for fold that isnt entirely clear, I will reach for the cards but confirm with the player that they want to fold before actually mucking them and the same for an unclear check gesture, I will confirm their intention to check before moving the action.  Surely its common sense for all dealers to be doing this?

[MANTIS01]

I don't get how come when the player was so handy at waving his arms about he failed to bring them down very sharply when the dealer reached for his kings. I swear to God if I was in this situation i'd turbo karate chop that dealers humerus before he got those kings off me; I would prob shoot him actually. However, it is well known that people can be struck by this rabbit in the headlights brainfuck situation when they find themselves in situations of extreme terror and freeze. Your kings heading for the muck here prob qualifies.

[boldie]

Wow...


that is all.

[GlasgowBandit]

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DtD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

[Cf]

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DTD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

It is. It's why it can make the correct ruling here where 90% of other establishments would not.

[MANTIS01]

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DTD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

It is. It's why it can make the correct ruling here where 90% of other establishments would not.

Do you work there?

[Cf]

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DTD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

It is. It's why it can make the correct ruling here where 90% of other establishments would not.

Do you work there?

lol no

[Geo the Sarge]

Dealer should have been taken out to car park and given a beating.

TD should have got a bullet in each knee for making the most ridic decision ever.

I thought DTD was supposed to be the creme de la creme?

It is. It's why it can make the correct ruling here where 90% of other establishments would not.

It never was the correct ruling:

Dealer took action as being a fold and mucked cards, regardless of what action the player made, the dealer has determined this to be a fold..............raise should never have been made up.

Geo

[gatso]

lol, this is the thread that keeps on giving

[avillan]

Tournament Directors Association New Poker Rules, Feb 23, 2007

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.

I understand now..

Player 1 raised to 1800

player 2 re-raised to 12000

player 1 re-raised all-in (hand motion) the dealer took this to be a fold and mucked his cards (dealer error) but the verbal stands

player 2 is only one left with a live hand and therefore player 1 has to match the 12000 bet.

What would have happened if player 2 had called the all-in, would they have given player 1 his cards back or would player 2 have been deemed the winner and player one would have had to match player 2 chips?

[avillan]

Like it or not ---- it is the correct rule

[Cf]

Hopefully everyone is now agreed that this is the correct ruling (even if you don't agree with it).

This comment provides an interesting spin on the situation:

What would have happened if player 2 had called the all-in, would they have given player 1 his cards back or would player 2 have been deemed the winner and player one would have had to match player 2 chips?

The way I see it, there's 2 orders this can happen:

1)
Player 1 goes all in
Dealer mucks cards
Player 2 calls

2)
Player 1 goes all in
Player 2 calls
Dealer mucks cards

I would rule in situation 1) the ruling is the same as the one given here. Once player 1's hand is mucked the hand is over, and player 2 wins by being the only player left with cards. As the hand is over he obviously can't call, so player 1 simply matches the 12k and retains the rest of his chips.

In situation 2) I would retrieve player 1's cards. In an all in showdown the all in player's cards must be tabled. This obviously though runs into trouble if the cards aren't identifiable, in which case player 1 is probably losing all his chips.