Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.

[AngusThermopyle]

So what was the dealer's excuse?

[jeffnc]

OK I can understand how 2 cards might have been kept from the previous deal (extremely sloppy, but possible.) What I don't see is how a dealer could have taken a bad deck from a Shufflemaster. He would have to be on an exreme drug trip not to notice that one.

By the way, horrendous ruling by the floor. I'd be quite pissed if I had put money in that hand and folded before they split the pot. Quite pissed.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't see is how a dealer could have taken a bad deck from a Shufflemaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer didn't take a bad deck from the machine.

The outgoing deck was complete and properly shuffled. That was the one used for the deal.

It was the incoming deck that was missing 2 cards. That deck would then be inside the shuffler while the next hand was being dealt and played.


q/q

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All - is the entire hand's action reversed and refunded, or do the two players left in the hand split the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody (blinds, etc) gets their money back if the hand is voided due to a foul deck.

Splitting the pot rewards someone who plays on when he knows the deck is foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

EVERYONE could have known the deck was fouled....hence the convincing case for the second option. Normally I'd say all action has to be turned backwards but this is not a normal situation, its not like the villain has two A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in his hand from the same color deck. I wouldn't be shocked at either ruling, they both seem reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats reasonable. Often the deck colours aren't that different and to notice it from across the table is pretty hard. I'm rarely looking at a persons cards, if anything I'm looking at their face. Since the person who SHOULD have noticed his cards were the wrong colour influenced action I think its only fair that everybody gets their money back.

If you rule that the person with the wrong cards gets half the pot, thats opening a pretty big hole to be taken advantage of. That person can basically freeroll, playing aggressively and then when things go badly he can 'discover' his cards are wrong and get a portion of the pot.

I even like giving all of the money to the only other player left in the hand better than splitting it with the guy with the wrong cards.

[DeuceHigh80]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think thats reasonable. Often the deck colours aren't that different and to notice it from across the table is pretty hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the person who SHOULD have noticed his cards were the wrong colour

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's putting too much on SB to expect him to have noticed this right away, especially given that he didn't see the deal. It's not like you've been looking at drab grey cards for 3 hours and suddenly a flourescent orange card shows up -- either of these card backs are equally likely to be in play and your mind would stop paying attention to the difference because it isn't significant.

I think accidentally noticing this requires that both card backs are nearly centered in your field of view at the same time. When SB is looking at his own cards it's unlikely any other cards are near the center of his field of view if even visible.

I actually think it's more likely someone across the table would notice. If anyone next to SB still has cards then someone across the table could see both backs at the same time, plus anyone across the table has to look over the muck.

Still given the whole table and dealer got to a showdown with no one noticing it goes a long way towards proving how subtle it is...

[ QUOTE ]

If you rule that the person with the wrong cards gets half the pot, thats opening a pretty big hole to be taken advantage of. That person can basically freeroll, playing aggressively and then when things go badly he can 'discover' his cards are wrong and get a portion of the pot.

I even like giving all of the money to the only other player left in the hand better than splitting it with the guy with the wrong cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that SB had the nuts and called the foul on himself it seems pretty clear he wasn't angle shooting. Still though agree he shouldn't benefit. But, why award the pot to MP? What if he was the only one who noticed the fouled hand and instead of saying anything just outwaited the rest of the "live" hands?

I think the hand needs to be "undone" and all bets (and rake...) returned.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]


Given that SB had the nuts and called the foul on himself it seems pretty clear he wasn't angle shooting. Still though agree he shouldn't benefit. But, why award the pot to MP? What if he was the only one who noticed the fouled hand and instead of saying anything just outwaited the rest of the "live" hands?

I think the hand needs to be "undone" and all bets (and rake...) returned.

[/ QUOTE ]

A rule shouldn't be based on the specific details of one hand. This is a situation that should have a standard rule, and it shouldn't be one that opens a hole for abuse.

But I agree, the best solution was to undo everything. I just said that if that wasn't an option and it was a choice between chopping the pot between the two remaining players, or giving the money to the guy with a valid hand, I choose the latter option.

[DeuceHigh80]

[ QUOTE ]
A rule shouldn't be based on the specific details of one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely -- that's why I said SB shouldn't benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
I just said that if that wasn't an option and it was a choice between chopping the pot between the two remaining players, or giving the money to the guy with a valid hand, I choose the latter option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I understand, I was just pointing out that I'm not sure MP is a better choice than SB. That also opens the door to angle shots.

Say the rule is established that the last active hand wins as it did here -- then anyone noticing a fouled hand betting aggressively can help them drive everyone else out and announce the foul after they are the defacto winner...

[sirpupnyc]

[ QUOTE ]
Say the rule is established that the last active hand wins as it did here -- then anyone noticing a fouled hand betting aggressively can help them drive everyone else out and announce the foul after they are the defacto winner...

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, the rules cover that...you do it, you lose.

[DeuceHigh80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say the rule is established that the last active hand wins as it did here -- then anyone noticing a fouled hand betting aggressively can help them drive everyone else out and announce the foul after they are the defacto winner...

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, the rules cover that...you do it, you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

well no, in this case MP could've been doing exactly that and he was apparently awarded the whole pot.

If your rule for dealing with a fouled deck is last active hand(s) win/split (as happened here), then anyone in the hand who notices a foul knows they have a free-roll until it's revealed to the rest of the table / dealer.

If no one else reveals it before showdown they can pretend to notice it then and they will at least get a share of the pot if not the whole thing...

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
The floor ruled that the SB's hand was dead and the pot was rewarded to MP, the only player left with live cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gross ruling. Should be declared a misdeal and all bets go back to the bettors.