|
|
#31
08-28-2007, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.
Apparently, a couple of years back, there were four cards from the other color deck in a $15/30 game at Canterbury Park. It took several hands before anyone noticed.
Action stops and all money is returned to the respective bettors. 
|
|
#32
08-28-2007, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.
This was more a dealer mistake than a player mistake:
1. Didn't collect all the cards from the last deal. 2. Didn't deal a new hand to the SB - what was the dealer thinking? Was the old hand so hidden that he didn't notice the cards when he was dealing out the hands? Was he "dealing out" the SB since he wasn't at the table? 3. Accepted bets from the SB after dealing him out. That was one poor dealer. This was obviously a fouled hand, due to dealer errors. All bets should have been returned. My guess is that the ruling to declare the hand dead was based on casino interests more than making a fair ruling - it would take time to sort out the return of all the bets, which means less rake for the casino; plus the rake already collected would have to be returned. Kudos to the SB for being so gracious.
|
|
#34
08-28-2007, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.
[ QUOTE ]
5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#35
08-28-2007, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player has two cards different from deck in play, big pot.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] My point was that it's a bad idea to pre-determine who gets the pot when a hand is fouled otherwise it encourages people to change their play. Not sure how this changes the discussion or counters my point? Are we supposed to just trust everyone to follow this rule? This casino has already demonstrated they aren't using Robert's rules in this situation otherwise the whole hand would've been declared null and void.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
