|
|
#1
08-14-2007, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
3 ruling questions from my recent vegas trip
I have three ruling questions, and I am curious for some input:
1) I'm playing at a full NL table out of the small blind and post before the cards are dealt. The dealer deals out the cards to all players, and my two cards were dealt right on top of each other in front of me. However, the dealer deals me a third card by accident, which is not touching my two actual cards and is noticeably separate. Before I could get the dealer's attention or touch any of the cards, UTG folds and the following two players limp in. I finally get the dealer's attention and the game pauses. Given that it is obvious which is the extra card, that I had not looked at any of the cards, and that the guy to my left witnessed the whole thing, what should the ruling be? 2) Again, playing at a full NL table. The hand is played out as normal and three players see the river. Player1 checks, Player2, who has been the aggressor throughout the hand also checks, and Player3 thinks about it for a second. The first two players think that Player3 checked the hand (no one else spoke up and said that he had checked), and Player1 motions to Player2 to show his hand, which he does. Player1 says that he can't beat that and throws his hand in the muck. Player3 finally says that he never checked and that he should be allowed to act on his hand. He then makes a substantial bet. 3) At a room where only $100's play as cash. Say that you go to the table with a strap of 100's that is marked as $5,000 total, are you allowed to simply toss it into the pot without anyone counting it? What if there really isn't $5K there, but rather two 100's wrapped around a bunch of singles? 
|
|
#2
08-14-2007, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 ruling questions from my recent vegas trip
1) They should take back the "obvious extra card" and proceed.
2) Players 1 and 2 get reminded by dealer not to act out of turn. Player 3 gets a lesson in how to be decisive at a poker table. Probably Player 3 wins the pot because Players 1 and 2s hands are dead because they revealed them with action left to go. 3) The player who pulls this trick should be escorted to jail. They are committing fraud by misrepresenting the amount they bet. With an amount that large they should count it, but if it was clearly marked and no one asks for a count then a count might not happen.
|
|
#3
08-15-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 ruling questions from my recent vegas trip
[ QUOTE ]
2) Players 1 and 2 get reminded by dealer not to act out of turn. Player 3 gets a lesson in how to be decisive at a poker table. Probably Player 3 wins the pot because Players 1 and 2s hands are dead because they revealed them with action left to go. [/ QUOTE ] NO! See that recent thread by that FelixNietzsche guy from Oklahoma where he was treated this way, WRONGLY. Player 1 has unilaterally decided to muck and P2 has decided to table his hand, so of course P3 may check it down, bet, or muck. [ QUOTE ] 3) The player who pulls this trick should be escorted to jail. They are committing fraud by misrepresenting the amount they bet. With an amount that large they should count it, but if it was clearly marked and no one asks for a count then a count might not happen. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but I think not counting it is incredibly dumb. It should probably be counting the moment he adds it to his stack, since opponents have a right to know his stack size. I'm also not averse to the Borgata's "no cash plays" policy because it prevents this sort of thing, except for players running a chip-forging operation.
|
|
#4
08-15-2007, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 ruling questions from my recent vegas trip
Player 3 didn't protect his action as far as I can tell. The other players moved along to showdown and he waited to see what BOTH of them did before saying anything.
|
|
#5
08-15-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My take on #1
I would have ruled that Player3 wins the hand since the other two players' hands were dead.
Player2 exposed his hand first. There were 3 players still in the hand and Player3 had not yet acted on his hand. Since it was not HU, exposing his cards deaded his hand. Player1's hand was also dead. Upon seeing Player2's hand he simply stated that he couldn't win and tossed his hand in the muck. Therefore, his hand is dead regardless of whether it was his turn to act. Player3 was therefore the only player left in the hand and therefore wins the pot. It was not necessary for him to bluff out Player2, which is what actually happened in the hand. Am I off base?
|
|
#8
08-15-2007, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My take on #1
Tournament rulings for exposes hands are that they are ruled dead, however, in a cash game, hands are still live and played as is. In any dispute, the poker room manager can make the call, and his word is the law.
|
|
#9
08-15-2007, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ruling for 2 - correct?
In the actual hand, the dealer gave me back my small blind and ruled that my hand was dead.
This did not seem correct to me, but I wasn't about to make a stink over something like that especially considering that she gave me my blind back. Was this right?
|
|
#10
08-15-2007, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ruling for 2 - correct?
[ QUOTE ]
In the actual hand, the dealer gave me back my small blind and ruled that my hand was dead. This did not seem correct to me, but I wasn't about to make a stink over something like that especially considering that she gave me my blind back. Was this right? [/ QUOTE ] No. She should have taken the obvious card back, exposed it to the table, and used it as the burn.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
