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

glorfindel · #1 08-27-2007, 07:50 AM

Horseshoe, Tunica MS., limit hold-em. Five people in for one bet before flop. Flop Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] . Flop capped between SB and MP and three people fold after putting in 2 bets each. Turn 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] SB bets, MP calls. River A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] SB looks at his cards and says, "These cards are a different color from the deck in play." (They were green, deck in play was burgundy). Dealer's mouth drops open, table erupts, floor is called.

Ruling?

Annorax · #2 08-27-2007, 08:03 AM

Hand is dead. SB moron should have noticed earlier, he's been staring down at the cards all hand.

Dima2000123 · #3 08-27-2007, 08:03 AM

Refund everyone the money invested in a hand, of course. In addition, the floor should look for security camera footage, and if appropriate take SB to the back room and execute him a just a little.

*TT* · #4 08-27-2007, 10:24 AM

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

I'd say the latter has a strong argument this time.

AngusThermopyle · #5 08-27-2007, 10:29 AM

[ 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.

*TT* · #6 08-27-2007, 10:35 AM

[ 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.

jjshabado · #7 08-27-2007, 07:23 PM

[ 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 · #8 08-27-2007, 08:31 PM

[ 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.

sirpupnyc · #9 08-27-2007, 10:33 AM

I'm inclined to say SB is SOL. It appears I'd be wrong, though:

[ QUOTE ]
3. If a card with a different color back appears during a hand, all action is void and all chips in the pot are returned to the respective bettors. If a card with a different color back is discovered in the stub, all action stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I wouldn't object too strongly to some twisted argument that since the cards were accepted by all when they appeared, the action stands but SB's hand is dead. It'd be a stretch, but even if SB's mistake is an honest one it's a doozy, and "Oopsie, do-over!" just seems a little light to me.

jeffnc · #10 08-27-2007, 10:50 AM

Come on, get real, how could no one at the table have noticed this? Doesn't it seem a little strange that SB got 2 cards of a different color? There just happened to be 2 cards of the wrong color in the deck, and those 2 cards just happened to be dealt to the same player? This whole thing sounds very weird.