Poker Tourney Director - Opinion poll - Part One
Poll
 | 11 votes (68.75%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 3 votes (18.75%) |
16 members have voted
A big pot is built up, the board looks like KQT73.
The aggressor has bet every street and has been called by a player out of position.
At the show down, the aggressor turns over his cards, the dealer announces an Ace high straight.
The other player instantly throws his hand into the muck.
It is then pointed out that the aggressor has only Ace-Nine and thus no straight.
The second player then claims to have folded a winning hand as a result of the dealer's error.
How would you rule?
Edit: I know mucked hands are usually dead, but does the fact that this was a dealer error mitigate that? On the other hand, the mucker could have been shooting an angle...
The easy way to prevent this situation is to always show your cards.
Quote: MathExtremistI've never been a TD but I'd make a concerted effort to unwind the hand: give all players back all their bets as if the hand never happened at all. Did this scenario actually happen? If so, what was the resolution?
Edit: I know mucked hands are usually dead, but does the fact that this was a dealer error mitigate that? On the other hand, the mucker could have been shooting an angle...
This did actually happen, and the card room manager (and I use the term loosely) deemed that the mucked hand should win the pot. His reason was that the player who called on every street is a known 'tight' player and would certainly have beat ace high. In his opinion. I now player poker somewhere else.....
Quote: WizardofEnglandThis did actually happen, and the card room manager (and I use the term loosely) deemed that the mucked hand should win the pot. His reason was that the player who called on every street is a known 'tight' player and would certainly have beat ace high. In his opinion. I now player poker somewhere else.....
Where did this happen? Name and shame. In my opinion that is a terrible decision.
Quote: CroupierWhere did this happen? Name and shame. In my opinion that is a terrible decision.
Are you sure ;-) ;-)
Quote: WizardofEnglandAre you sure ;-) ;-)
Definately. I know it wasnt the club where I work. At least I think it wasnt........
According to Robert's Rules of Poker (Google it), if the cards can be easily retrieved, they should be. If they are not easily retrieved, then, sorry.
Note that some card rooms have different rules, and even separate rules for cash and tourneys.
In some cases, the eye-witness testimony of other players can also be considered.
HOWEVER, in NO CASE, should the emotional aspect of a player's history be the deciding factor.
Quote: WizardofEnglandIt was a G though, Leicester sq, poker in the pit.
They really should know better. Cant wait to tell my Card Room Supervisor about this. He split his sides.
I am embarrased to work for the [sort of] same company.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWere the cards mucked, or were they mixed into the muck?
According to Robert's Rules of Poker (Google it), if the cards can be easily retrieved, they should be. If they are not easily retrieved, then, sorry.
Note that some card rooms have different rules, and even separate rules for cash and tourneys.
In some cases, the eye-witness testimony of other players can also be considered.
HOWEVER, in NO CASE, should the emotional aspect of a player's history be the deciding factor.
I don't think they were totally mixed in, but they were not the top two cards.
I have run poker leagues in pubs, and always tried to re-create the action if I could, the aim of the evening was entertainment rather than winning loads of money, and the dealer was in error. But in this situation I would rule that they are dead, people who play in casino should learn, and quick if they want to be taken seriously.
Quote: WizardofEnglandAt the show down, the aggressor turns over his cards, the dealer announces an Ace high straight.
The other player instantly throws his hand into the muck.
One solution would have been to ask the player what his cards were, and then turn over the cards that were in the vicinity of where he mucked them. They should be easy to retrieve if the dealer had stopped all action when the mistake was discovered.
The Tournament Director is given the power to make decisions "in the best interest of the game". If the hand could not be retrieved, it was still within his discretion to award the pot to the player who mucked.
Generally, they will NOT be the top two. The cards tend to be thrown onto the table towards the muck. If the dealer swept them into the muck, they could be anywhere and the hand is dead. However, if the dealer didn't touch them, or if he only swept them part way, where they could have been easily identified, and then they are live.Quote: WizardofEnglandI don't think they were totally mixed in, but they were not the top two cards.
The flip side of that argument is that the dealer is supposed to be experienced enough to not make that kind of mistake.Quote: WizardofEngland...people who play in casino should learn, and quick if they want to be taken seriously.
I could derail this thread and talk about several dealer errors that I've been involved in....
I do not understand why players do not like showing losing hands. Just table your hand.
You can be so concerned about two pair or such, that you didn't see a four-flush or a backdoor-straight. Many consider Phil Ivey the best poker player right now. He mucked a winning flush... all he had to do was table his hand.
Obviously, you don't play much poker. You never want to give away information.Quote: minnesotajoeI do not understand why players do not like showing losing hands. Just table your hand.
Ivey's mistake was NOT mucking his hand instead of tabling it. His mistake was not double-checking before mucking.Quote: minnesotajoeYou can be so concerned about two pair or such, that you didn't see a four-flush or a backdoor-straight. Many consider Phil Ivey the best poker player right now. He mucked a winning flush... all he had to do was table his hand.
Edit:
If the player that mucked in the original post had instead tabled his hand, the dealer would have (or at least should have) announced what it was, then turned it over into the muck. But if nobody pointed out the dealer's mistake, he still would have lost.
Keep in mind this was the dealer's mistake, not the player's.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWere the cards mucked, or were they mixed into the muck?
According to Robert's Rules of Poker (Google it), if the cards can be easily retrieved, they should be. If they are not easily retrieved, then, sorry.
Note that some card rooms have different rules, and even separate rules for cash and tourneys.
In some cases, the eye-witness testimony of other players can also be considered.
HOWEVER, in NO CASE, should the emotional aspect of a player's history be the deciding factor.
Quote: AyecarumbaIf the hand could not be retrieved, it was still within his discretion to award the pot to the player who mucked.
But doing so would open a whole other can of worms. Awarding a pot to a player without cards is an extreme ruling. Such a ruling would open the Card Room Supervisor to accusations of collusion (especially if he ruled in favour of a regular player). It would also go against the common ruling of two cards needing to be shown to claim a pot.
Quote: DJTeddyBearGenerally, they will NOT be the top two. The cards tend to be thrown onto the table towards the muck. If the dealer swept them into the muck, they could be anywhere and the hand is dead. However, if the dealer didn't touch them, or if he only swept them part way, where they could have been easily identified, and then they are live.
Standard company rules state when the cards are mucked the hand is dead. Doesnt matter if they are retrievable or not.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe flip side of that argument is that the dealer is supposed to be experienced enough to not make that kind of mistake.
Us dealers are human and prone to errors same as everyone else. The actual guidelines we have state that players are responsible for thier own hands, and cards speak.
Quote: CroupierBut doing so would open a whole other can of worms. Awarding a pot to a player without cards is an extreme ruling. Such a ruling would open the Card Room Supervisor to accusations of collusion (especially if he ruled in favour of a regular player). It would also go against the common ruling of two cards needing to be shown to claim a pot.
Agree, this was extreme, but it was the TD's effort to correct a dealer error. The TD was within his rights and responsibilities to make the call.
Quote: AyecarumbaAgree, this was extreme, but it was the TD's effort to correct a dealer error. The TD was within his rights and responsibilities to make the call.
I agree with the rights and responsibilities, but there is just no way I can agree with the call.
As for the original post here, the TD made a terrible decision.
"Whole other can of worms" is putting it mildly.Quote: CroupierBut doing so would open a whole other can of worms. Awarding a pot to a player without cards is an extreme ruling. Such a ruling would open the Card Room Supervisor to accusations of collusion (especially if he ruled in favour of a regular player).Quote: AyecarumbaIf the hand could not be retrieved, it was still within his discretion to award the pot to the player who mucked.
If that happened when I was at the table - even if I wasn't in the hand - I'd call gaming control (or whatever the governing agency is).
Showing both cards to be awared a pot at a called showdown is a common rule. It is sometimes ignored in a cash game, but never in a tournament.Quote: CroupierIt would also go against the common ruling of two cards needing to be shown to claim a pot.
Although it contradicts Robert's Rules, there IS a rule. That being the case, why was the rule ignored?Quote: CroupierStandard company rules state when the cards are mucked the hand is dead. Doesnt matter if they are retrievable or not.
Yes, dealers make mistakes too. Please forgive me if it seemed like I was assigning blame to the dealer.Quote: CroupierUs dealers are human and prone to errors same as everyone else. The actual guidelines we have state that players are responsible for thier own hands, and cards speak.Quote: DJTeddyBearThe flip side of that argument is that the dealer is supposed to be experienced enough to not make that kind of mistake.
My point was in response to a comment that the player should know the rules.
Big mistake by the dealer, but an equally big mistake by the player. As was mentioned in the commentary, players need to protect their cards.Quote: LucyjrDealer error caught on tape at WSOP. Approx 150 players left at this point IIRC. Fair ruling IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dx47VMC0c0.
What was not mentioned is how important that is particularly for players in the seats on either side of the dealer. You will hear comments about it at any table where the player in either of those seats is not using a protector.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Although it contradicts Robert's Rules, there IS a rule. That being the case, why was the rule ignored?
Pass. That is what makes it such a shocking decision.
Quote: DJTeddyBearYes, dealers make mistakes too. Please forgive me if it seemed like I was assigning blame to the dealer.
Not at all, I missed of a bit of my point. I also meant to say thatall players are encouraged to read the board, as dealers are only provided as a courtesy to facilitate the speed and consitency of the game, according to company guidelines - not strict rules.
