This Never Happened to Me Before - Ruling

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally that rule only says "may", which means probably that it's still at floor's discretion whether player loses the right to act. I still say that SB has not done enough wrong to warrant losing the right to act, and that dealer's mistake should not cost SB the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is that you're still wrong. At least when I showed you the rule you started to get it, but then you nitpicked about it HAVING to be 3 players, and it doesn't. Robert's Rules aren't hard and fast, and "significant action" basically means action that most players should be able to stop should they see it happening. SB allowed the dealer to ship the pot, and but for his cards being invisible to the 2 people seated DIRECTLY NEXT TO HIM, this could not have happened.

Dealer may have made a mistake, but it was SB's mistake that started this mess.

Seriously, you seem nice enough. If you live close enough to an actual live cardroom, go visit and chat up the floor if you get a minute. If you ask pretty much any floorperson about this situation, they'd tell you everything we've already said.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had I mucked my hand as soon as I saw the bb fold (assuming I was the only one left), I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Seat 10 gets the blinds AND my raise.

But what I learned from posting this, is that the dealer awarding me the pot makes all the difference in the world. Seat 10 must speak up BEFORE the pot is shipped!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The dealer makes yet another mistake and this should work in *your* favor, not SB? This kind of ruling just invites collusion and cheating between a player and dealer. The dealer could be shipping a person early pots once a night (missing players "inadvertendly" because they were talking/half-hding cards/insert excuse of choice) and the player slipping him a few bucks outside for the benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why should I be penalized for the dealer's mistake, the 10 seat's hidden cards, not to mention his inattention to the game? So you'd rule that I lose 2 small bets because of this and the 10 seat gets rewarded 3 1/2 bets, because he didn't even realize there was a hand in progress?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally that rule only says "may", which means probably that it's still at floor's discretion whether player loses the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

And any Floor with even a minimal grasp of the dynamics of live play would declare his hand dead.

[ QUOTE ]
I still say that SB has not done enough wrong to warrant losing the right to act, and that dealer's mistake should not cost SB the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not apply for a Floorman's job at a casino near me.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
>>>>>There is soemthing you seem to be missing here. The Player didn't muck his cards. He gave them to the dealer after the dealer pushed the pot.

And the practical difference is what exactly? The cards end up in the muck. The ruling difference is what exactly? I know of no rules that distinguish giving the cards to the dealer to be mucked, or mucking them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, please consider listening to all those who have been playing live and posting on these forums for years. Significant action had happened. The difference is that SB can't just sit there and hide his cards and talk to his friend without paying attention to the game and use that to his advantage.

SB kept his cards from being visible to everyone, including the dealer - who was seated right next to him. He should have protected his action instead of worrying about the gossip. Asking for the full amount including OP's raise is a lame angle shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I'm not sure if his cards were hid from the dealer. They were on the other side of his chips (so I couldn't see them). This means the dealer probably should have saw them. Does this change anything? I don't deny that there were several mistakes involved.

1. Me not noticing the sb hand't folded (if I'm in the hand, I should know who has cards).

2. The 10 seat not paying attention (and putting his cards to where they weren't visible to everyone).

3. The dealer probably should've realized that she hadn't collected the 10 seats cards before pushing me both blinds.

So it really was a comedy of errors that I never saw before. I probably raised and looked away for a sec and when I turned back, I saw the bb fold and the dealer giving me the blinds, I just assumed they both folded. I guess what I'm saying is everybody played a part in the mix up.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally that rule only says "may", which means probably that it's still at floor's discretion whether player loses the right to act. I still say that SB has not done enough wrong to warrant losing the right to act, and that dealer's mistake should not cost SB the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it should cost me the blinds PLUS 2 small bets?

[Edge34]

If the cards weren't hidden from the dealer, then the dealer made a big mistake in not at least prompting SB that he should start playing poker and save the chatter for later. However, its not the dealer's job to babysit players and if SB doesn't want to pay attention, he doesn't have to. However, if he makes that decision, he can forfeit all rights to action, which is what it sounds like he did.

As its been agreed, you did a gentlemanly thing giving SB his blind back. Hopefully he'll pay more attention to the game after that incident. I don't think the dealer is blameless in this mixup, but that doesn't change the fact that the key rule is that SB didn't protect their action. All they have to do is speak up at some point before the hand is over and they're fine. They didn't, they lose. They should be happy it was only a small blind in a small pot.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
>>>>>There is soemthing you seem to be missing here. The Player didn't muck his cards. He gave them to the dealer after the dealer pushed the pot.

And the practical difference is what exactly? The cards end up in the muck. The ruling difference is what exactly? I know of no rules that distinguish giving the cards to the dealer to be mucked, or mucking them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would explain it to you, but it looks like you are ignoring the explanations given above. Instead I will give you some advice to enhance your 2+2 experience. When a subject comes up that you know nothing about, it is a really bad idea to argue with those that do know.

[LiveInPeace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally that rule only says "may", which means probably that it's still at floor's discretion whether player loses the right to act. I still say that SB has not done enough wrong to warrant losing the right to act, and that dealer's mistake should not cost SB the right to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is that you're still wrong. At least when I showed you the rule you started to get it, but then you nitpicked about it HAVING to be 3 players, and it doesn't. Robert's Rules aren't hard and fast, and "significant action" basically means action that most players should be able to stop should they see it happening. SB allowed the dealer to ship the pot, and but for his cards being invisible to the 2 people seated DIRECTLY NEXT TO HIM, this could not have happened.

Dealer may have made a mistake, but it was SB's mistake that started this mess.

Seriously, you seem nice enough. If you live close enough to an actual live cardroom, go visit and chat up the floor if you get a minute. If you ask pretty much any floorperson about this situation, they'd tell you everything we've already said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone allowed dealer to ship the pot this was not SB's fault exclusively. All we have from the OP as far as I can tell is that the cards were not visible to poster. WE do not know if they were invisible to the dealer. More likely the dealer was simply not paying enough attention. Probably some other players could see them but didn't speak up. I agree it is a players responsbility to keep his cards visible but this sounds much more like simply lack of attention on the part of the dealer and opening poster regarding who has acted/who's left to act, than any deliberate attempt on the part of SB to hide cards.

We know if SB is not paying attention it is the responsbility of dealer to bring his attention to the game, and failing that take his cards. So imo, the first significant mistake by players was by other players involved not standing up for their rights to have this proper procedure enforced. In particular seat 1 acting out of turn, quite probably deliberately out of impatience with SB. That violation and the subsequent awarding of the pot are in my view much more serious than the relatively minor issue relating to SB's card visibility. I agree to some extent it does depend just how hidden they were, but for all we know everyone else at the table could see SB's cards, and poster probably could too if he'd made an effort to look.

[steamraise]

[ QUOTE ]
what I'm saying is everybody played a part in the mix up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You did nothing wrong. You raised and honestly thought everyone folded. Collected the pot and released your cards.
Protecting your opponents action is not your responsibility. (although you would have if you had seen his cards.)

Honest mistake by the dealer or he wouldn't have pushed you the pot.

If SBs cards were in view you and/or the dealer would have stopped the action for him
If SB was paying attention to the game he could have stopped the action.

[LiveInPeace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had I mucked my hand as soon as I saw the bb fold (assuming I was the only one left), I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Seat 10 gets the blinds AND my raise.

But what I learned from posting this, is that the dealer awarding me the pot makes all the difference in the world. Seat 10 must speak up BEFORE the pot is shipped!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The dealer makes yet another mistake and this should work in *your* favor, not SB? This kind of ruling just invites collusion and cheating between a player and dealer. The dealer could be shipping a person early pots once a night (missing players "inadvertendly" because they were talking/half-hding cards/insert excuse of choice) and the player slipping him a few bucks outside for the benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why should I be penalized for the dealer's mistake, the 10 seat's hidden cards, not to mention his inattention to the game? So you'd rule that I lose 2 small bets because of this and the 10 seat gets rewarded 3 1/2 bets, because he didn't even realize there was a hand in progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

The cards are mucked. So someone has to be a loser, particularly if SB is holding AA and we know it's not going to be the house that loses anything. So I'm just saying that IMO your inattention to who remains in the pot and taking the pot you had no right to take (albeit inadvertently) put you much more at fault than SB not having his cards way out there where everyone can see them easily. I see no good reason why a draconian punishment like losing an entire pot should be enforced on SB given his relatively minor transgression. Imagine this was a critical stage in a tourney with big blinds, and SB did pick up a big hand like AA or KK. Imagine you were SB and someone on the rail distracted you with a question for a second. You're at the table - you'd have a right to action regardless of what anyone else does. Turning around and talking is not illegal. Inadvertently not having cards in full view of everyone should not be significantly penalised on first offence. I don't agree with any rule that says players have a responsibility to "protect their action", if that was even practically possible. No-one can enforce that others do not act out of turn behind them. That rule is just asking for trouble. It's the dealer's job to protect the order of play. If you make players responsible for those players who act out of turn behind them, it puts those player in the wrong automatically, which is clearly nonsense. Its a bad rule to have because it's very ambiguous - what exactly does a player need to do in order to protect their action? Sometimes you can have three people fold behind you before you've even had a chance to look at your cards.