Final table floor decision
 

Here is a floor decision I became aware of last night. The floor got it right, but there was quite a bit of dissension about what the correct ruling was. UTG goes all-in, UTG +2 goes all-in, and then UTG+4 (in the 10 seat) goes all-in. Next the dealer reaches out and mucks the 10 seat's cards. The floor is called and has to rule on what should happen next. The floor got it right, but I won't mention what he ruled as that would really alter the perception of what should happen. So tell me 2+2, what should be done to rectify this situation?

Re: Final table floor decision
 

Given that there are only 4 cards in the muck after the 10 seat's cards have been combined with the 9 seat (UTG+3), the wrongly mucked hand can be fairly quickly identified once he whispers to the floorperson his hand (rank and suit).

Floor can then restore player 10's hand, and action is on the 1 seat.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

It all depends if they can separate the cards from the muck or not. If they have no way to tell where is cards is, likely the floor will say he didn't protect his hand and therefore his all-in verbal command does not count.


Could be wrong, just a guess.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

If the 10 seat didn't protect his hand, he is all in without cards and can't win unless an all-way chop happens. If he did, dealer gets KITN, player whispers his hand to the floor, and he gets his hand back.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

This happened in a satellite at the WSOP, except it was from the 2 seat. The guy was a loudmouth and made a big deal out of everything. So while he was standing up (for a satellite all-in, lol) and waving his arms about, the dealer mucked his cards. He was ruled all-in, no cards, and lost the hand. He didn't really argue, he knew he's supposed to protect his hand.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

I'm torn between two decisions.

1) Is that the number 1 rule in poker is to protect your hand, the player here failed to protect his hand. To the extent that his all-in bet may exceed the previous bets you return those chips and he is out of luck on the rest.

2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

I vote for retrieving the cards from the muck, if possible; and if not, he's all-in without cards.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

Retrieve cards from muck.

According to Robert's Rule of Poker:
Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management's discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
Retrieve cards from muck.

According to Robert's Rule of Poker:
Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management's discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took for granted that the cards were mixed into the muck and unidentifiable. I do not accept that a card becomes identifiable by being announced by a player or whispered to a floorperson too much chance of shenanigans in that scenario.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
I took for granted that the cards were mixed into the muck and unidentifiable. I do not accept that a card becomes identifiable by being announced by a player or whispered to a floorperson too much chance of shenanigans in that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

ehh, what are the chances of someone's fabricated hand actually being in the muck at that point? I can't see someone taking a chance there and making something up. If he does, he's getting banned for sure, huh?

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took for granted that the cards were mixed into the muck and unidentifiable. I do not accept that a card becomes identifiable by being announced by a player or whispered to a floorperson too much chance of shenanigans in that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

ehh, what are the chances of someone's fabricated hand actually being in the muck at that point? I can't see someone taking a chance there and making something up. If he does, he's getting banned for sure, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

If one goes this route the cards need to be written down, not whispered to the floorman. I have only done this one time and it was when two hands were mixed together.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. Any of you out there that wanted to take both his chips and his cards you forgot the rule that is listed at the very top of TD rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be grossly unfair to take this player's chips when he has no cards and there has been no following action so the preceeding players are not harmed in anyway.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter that's there's been no action after. He called two other all-in bets. You're possibly depriving those two players of his chips that they would have won.

Also, since it's a tournament, you're affecting all other players since seat 10 may have more chips than he would have had if he lost the hand.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're possibly depriving those two players of his chips that they would have won.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what. How can anyone say that havign a dealer take in someone's bet and then taking his cards is fair. Player's are to win these cards on the strength of their cards, not on a mistake. It is unfair to the other players in the touranmetn to give these two a shot at money that has no cards to beat them. This is the same reason a disqualified palyer has their chips removed from play rather than blinded off.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, since it's a tournament, you're affecting all other players since seat 10 may have more chips than he would have had if he lost the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he has less than if the dealer had not taken his cards.

Another thing that is missed is an all-in player should "protected." This isnt' adressed specifially in most rules becasue NL was an after thougth when most rules were written, but the rules call for a player to be "protected" when it takes a major mistake to kill there hand. The written example is a stud player's up cards are consdiered protected. If I were to write a modern rule book I would add all-in player's as a protected class as everyone sees their chips in the center and htey have bet all their chips so they do not have a chip to protect their cards.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would be grossly unfair to take this player's chips when he has no cards and there has been no following action so the preceeding players are not harmed in anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy - I agree with the decision and your reasoning.

Let's say there is a "little bit" of following action e.g. one player folds. What do you think the decision should be then?

(pick better examples of a "little bit of action" if you want)

~ Rick

Re: Final table floor decision
 

RR - With so few cards in the muck I still fail to see why they simply can't be retrieved. Shouldn't be hard at all to figure out which ones are his which I think is more in the 'best interest' of the game than just letting him have his bet back.

Also, how on earth did this happen?
Did he push his chips out and say, "all-in" and then the dealer snatched up his cards? Seems kind of weird.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
If one goes this route the cards need to be written down, not whispered to the floorman. I have only done this one time and it was when two hands were mixed together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did this maybe five times in four years. Writing it down and making it clear that the hand is only valid on an effectively identical match is essential. Floor technique matters a lot here. There simply cannot be any appearance of impropriety and everyone needs to understand what is happening and why.

~ Rick

Re: Final table floor decision
 

By being "fair" to the guy that lost his cards you're being "unfair" to the guys that were called. Maybe the "protect your hand" rule should be changed, but as of now it is the rule, right? When I go all in, I make a deliberate effort to keep my hand on my cards because of this rule.

Comparing it to stud up-cards being protected is silly. Who's going to muck the up cards and leave the rest?

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how on earth did this happen?
Did he push his chips out and say, "all-in" and then the dealer snatched up his cards? Seems kind of weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sort of weird in the satellite I was in as well. The guy was blabbing and waving his arms around that he didn't notice until just before the flop came down. This guy's end of the table was empty except for him. His chips and cards were sort of towards the center on every hand anyway. It could be that the dealer just saw cards surrounded by lots of empty green and reflex to scoop them kicked in. He didn't realize it either until the player mentioned it.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how on earth did this happen?
Did he push his chips out and say, "all-in" and then the dealer snatched up his cards? Seems kind of weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

A friend of mine mucked an all-in players cards once which resulted in the guy losing on the bubble of a satellite-type payout structure (top 20 advance, just surviving into the top 20 is all that matters).

Apparently the guy had been folding the whole time my buddy was at the table by moving his cards about 1 inch to the right (he was in the 1-seat) and had even snapped off a peevish response along the lines of "if I wasn't folding they wouldn't be there" when my buddy told him the action was on him once earlier in the night. So apparently what happened on the hand in question was two other players had moved all in and the 1-seat moved his cards aside to push his chips into the middle of the table - well, since he had been folding in that exact manner all day my friend instinctively grabbed his cards and swept them into the muck...

The best part of the story is the guy didn't even notice until the turn (all action was on the flop) was out and the third burn card was down, at which point he starts shrieking "Where's my cards?!" - and my friend realizes what happened and calls for the Tourney Director... Who informs the gentleman that his cards are gone and he is SOL.

So maybe the guy in the OP had a similar history of folding by pushing his cards to the side, and then he did the same motion to make way for his chips and the dealer just reacted the way he had been "programmed" to by the guy's previous actions... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how on earth did this happen?
Did he push his chips out and say, "all-in" and then the dealer snatched up his cards? Seems kind of weird.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a recent dealer evaluation the dealer finished dead last.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took for granted that the cards were mixed into the muck and unidentifiable. I do not accept that a card becomes identifiable by being announced by a player or whispered to a floorperson too much chance of shenanigans in that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

ehh, what are the chances of someone's fabricated hand actually being in the muck at that point? I can't see someone taking a chance there and making something up. If he does, he's getting banned for sure, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just the making up of a fabricated hand. If you allow the hand to be whispered to the floor, then what if the floor is in on it (Randy notes that he would require the hand be written down which helps). But what if I have a hand with a weak ace and the guy next to me has a hand with a weak ace, he telle he had an ace or flasheses the ace. Now I know there are two aces in the muck so I say my hand was pocket Aces.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter that's there's been no action after. He called two other all-in bets. You're possibly depriving those two players of his chips that they would have won.

Also, since it's a tournament, you're affecting all other players since seat 10 may have more chips than he would have had if he lost the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say that the dealer had mucked the cards before the player declared he was all-in. Those players are still deprived of the chance to win the chips.

There is totally fair way to solve this problem, but treating it as though the muck came first seems to be reasonable solution in this scenario

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would add all-in player's as a protected class as everyone sees their chips in the center and htey have bet all their chips so they do not have a chip to protect their cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really bought the excuse that a player who is all in didn't have a chip to protect his cards, because there are other ways to protect your cards, many players bring trinkets for just that purpose, and almost all of us have fingers we could keep on the cards.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
By being "fair" to the guy that lost his cards you're being "unfair" to the guys that were called. Maybe the "protect your hand" rule should be changed, but as of now it is the rule, right? When I go all in, I make a deliberate effort to keep my hand on my cards because of this rule.

Comparing it to stud up-cards being protected is silly. Who's going to muck the up cards and leave the rest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I hear many stories of only one card in a stud hand getting mucked.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]

1) Is that the number 1 rule in poker is to protect your hand, the player here failed to protect his hand. To the extent that his all-in bet may exceed the previous bets you return those chips and he is out of luck on the rest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since our friendly psandman has taken up the fight here on all other issues, I will challenge this point: Protect your hand certainly is not the "number 1 rule in poker." To say so is dealer/floor hyperbole in order to shift the blame to the player for what is most frequently a dealer f**k up. That is why the rules as written (and as should be enforced) allow hands to be rescued from the muck whenever possible.

Discuss.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

There are many number 1 rules in poker.

As for shifting the blame from player dealer to player I don't think that is the point of the rule. And I don't think the blame needs shifting. I believe that almost everytime a hand gets "mistakenly" mucked it is combination of the fault of the dealer and the fault of the player. Some instances the fault is more on one side then the other, but it usually a combination.

As for rescuing hands from the muck. I don't have a problem with rescuing identifiable cards form the muck. But once the cards get mixed into the muck to the point that they can not be identified this is not an option.

I certainly never want a hand to be killed because of an error I made (even if a significant part of the error was the fault of the player).

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are many number 1 rules in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]

Rules of Poker:

1. There are many number 1 rules in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Final table floor decision
 

According to the last Robert's I read, protecting your hand was Rule #2.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. Any of you out there that wanted to take both his chips and his cards you forgot the rule that is listed at the very top of TD rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be grossly unfair to take this player's chips when he has no cards and there has been no following action so the preceeding players are not harmed in anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR - Can you clarify on retrieving the cards from the muck? If the cards had been retrievable, wouldn't that have been the first (and the preferred) option?

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. Any of you out there that wanted to take both his chips and his cards you forgot the rule that is listed at the very top of TD rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be grossly unfair to take this player's chips when he has no cards and there has been no following action so the preceeding players are not harmed in anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR - Can you clarify on retrieving the cards from the muck? If the cards had been retrievable, wouldn't that have been the first (and the preferred) option?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent dealer evaluation the dealer finished dead last.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are dealer evaluations done?

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a recent dealer evaluation the dealer finished dead last.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are dealer evaluations done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if our evaluation process is a trade secret or not. When I saw the results I was surprised how very accurate the rankings were.

Re: Final table floor decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a recent dealer evaluation the dealer finished dead last.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are dealer evaluations done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if our evaluation process is a trade secret or not. When I saw the results I was surprised how very accurate the rankings were.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just want to know how I can be evaluated as a better dealer than I am.

Without revealing trade secrets, would you generally say that evaluations are done over hours, days, weeks, or months?

Do they involve analysis of video recordings at all?

Do they involve things not directly related to the table, such as how early/late a dealer arrives at work, how often he asks for an early out, whether he plays as a prop more than he is required to, etc.?

What about how aggressive the dealer is in quickly pushing players to act when the action is on them?

In some rooms, tokes are pooled. I can't imagine this happening, but do you think some of those rooms keep track of that and make a comparison of toke dollars per actual hour dealt among dealers? This would seem to weight greatly in favor of hot, young, busty females.