Final table floor decision

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how on earth did this happen?
Did he push his chips out and say, "all-in" and then the dealer snatched up his cards? Seems kind of weird.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a recent dealer evaluation the dealer finished dead last.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took for granted that the cards were mixed into the muck and unidentifiable. I do not accept that a card becomes identifiable by being announced by a player or whispered to a floorperson too much chance of shenanigans in that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

ehh, what are the chances of someone's fabricated hand actually being in the muck at that point? I can't see someone taking a chance there and making something up. If he does, he's getting banned for sure, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just the making up of a fabricated hand. If you allow the hand to be whispered to the floor, then what if the floor is in on it (Randy notes that he would require the hand be written down which helps). But what if I have a hand with a weak ace and the guy next to me has a hand with a weak ace, he telle he had an ace or flasheses the ace. Now I know there are two aces in the muck so I say my hand was pocket Aces.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since there has been absolutely no action after his all-in I see no real harm in returning his entire bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter that's there's been no action after. He called two other all-in bets. You're possibly depriving those two players of his chips that they would have won.

Also, since it's a tournament, you're affecting all other players since seat 10 may have more chips than he would have had if he lost the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say that the dealer had mucked the cards before the player declared he was all-in. Those players are still deprived of the chance to win the chips.

There is totally fair way to solve this problem, but treating it as though the muck came first seems to be reasonable solution in this scenario

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I would add all-in player's as a protected class as everyone sees their chips in the center and htey have bet all their chips so they do not have a chip to protect their cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really bought the excuse that a player who is all in didn't have a chip to protect his cards, because there are other ways to protect your cards, many players bring trinkets for just that purpose, and almost all of us have fingers we could keep on the cards.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
By being "fair" to the guy that lost his cards you're being "unfair" to the guys that were called. Maybe the "protect your hand" rule should be changed, but as of now it is the rule, right? When I go all in, I make a deliberate effort to keep my hand on my cards because of this rule.

Comparing it to stud up-cards being protected is silly. Who's going to muck the up cards and leave the rest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I hear many stories of only one card in a stud hand getting mucked.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Is that the number 1 rule in poker is to protect your hand, the player here failed to protect his hand. To the extent that his all-in bet may exceed the previous bets you return those chips and he is out of luck on the rest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since our friendly psandman has taken up the fight here on all other issues, I will challenge this point: Protect your hand certainly is not the "number 1 rule in poker." To say so is dealer/floor hyperbole in order to shift the blame to the player for what is most frequently a dealer f**k up. That is why the rules as written (and as should be enforced) allow hands to be rescued from the muck whenever possible.

Discuss.

[psandman]

There are many number 1 rules in poker.

As for shifting the blame from player dealer to player I don't think that is the point of the rule. And I don't think the blame needs shifting. I believe that almost everytime a hand gets "mistakenly" mucked it is combination of the fault of the dealer and the fault of the player. Some instances the fault is more on one side then the other, but it usually a combination.

As for rescuing hands from the muck. I don't have a problem with rescuing identifiable cards form the muck. But once the cards get mixed into the muck to the point that they can not be identified this is not an option.

I certainly never want a hand to be killed because of an error I made (even if a significant part of the error was the fault of the player).

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many number 1 rules in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Rules of Poker:

1. There are many number 1 rules in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

[pfapfap]

According to the last Robert's I read, protecting your hand was Rule #2.