What happens to the $210?

[UbinTook]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker isn't about teaching lessons to people who make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you allow this mistake to be made without consequence.
You willing to give up the 210 in this situation because
"Poker isn't about teaching lessons to people who make mistakes"?

Your statement may be true in many circumstances, where the mistake( bad play, etc) makes you money, but not this one.

[El Diablo]

Rick,

"I do (I think). But once I've pushed (meaning no further action for me) I put my head down and sort of cover my face Mike Caro style more or less consistently."

You're too old to do this!

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Rick,

"I do (I think). But once I've pushed (meaning no further action for me) I put my head down and sort of cover my face Mike Caro style more or less consistently."

You're too old to do this!

[/ QUOTE ]

Caro's about ten years older than me so I still don't understand.

~ Rick

[terp]

both rottersod and soah are right

[amead]

The guy isn't trying to pull an angle here, from all accounts. He sounded like he was mulling over a call, decided to call, then the dealer mistook him and mucked his hand.

Protecting your hand aside, it's pretty awful to make someone put chips in the pot with no hand, just from a ethical standpoint, giving him no chance to win.

Yeah, he's technically out of line not protecting his cards, but I don't think that poker is a game of technicalities as much as gets argued here sometimes. I mean, call me a dumb fish who's allergic to money, but I don't necessarily want to win that way either.

In the spirit of the game, if the dealer accidentally mucked the guys cards, I don't see making him put his chips in without even getting to play. Call me a bleeding heart though.

[uclaben]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy isn't trying to pull an angle here, from all accounts. He sounded like he was mulling over a call, decided to call, then the dealer mistook him and mucked his hand.

Protecting your hand aside, it's pretty awful to make someone put chips in the pot with no hand, just from a ethical standpoint, giving him no chance to win.

Yeah, he's technically out of line not protecting his cards, but I don't think that poker is a game of technicalities as much as gets argued here sometimes. I mean, call me a dumb fish who's allergic to money, but I don't necessarily want to win that way either.

In the spirit of the game, if the dealer accidentally mucked the guys cards, I don't see making him put his chips in without even getting to play. Call me a bleeding heart though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and I don't really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

Yes, he said call. He certainly intended to call - until the dealer took his cards, lol. When the dealer mucks your cards, you haven't called, regardless of what you intended to do. I mean, think about it: the dealer took your cards. How can that possibly be a call unless you get them back?

No way this can work both ways.

Edit: How is trying to get the $210 anything other than an angle shoot here?

[TxRedMan]

It sounds like the other player was sitting right next to the dealer? Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to muck the hand without the player realizing it and stopping him. i.e., a dealer can snatch a hand and muck it at light speed it the player is in the 1 or 10 seat.

That being said, it has to be a dealers mistake. If I call an all-in and we're heads up, I'm not worried about protecting my hand, because I know I'm about to turn it face up. In other words, when I'm all-in and heads up, I almost always table my hand, so if I were in the process of tabling my hand and the dealer mucked it, i'd be super [censored] pissed.

If that's how this went down, as you- i'd expect the house to pay me my $210, and as the other player I'd expect the house to award me the pot because I had the best hand, and one or both of us would be SOL.

[Rick Nebiolo]

...nowhere. The floor came back a few moments later and had the pot (minus the last $210 call) pushed to me. Everyone took it calmly and the game went on.

An hour or two later I got up to stretch my legs and ran into the floor. We sometimes chat when he isn't busy; he's a good guy and one of his claims to fame is that he multi-tables enough on Stars to qualify for one of the VIP player cars (or he's close; I forget).

After talking about the sorry state of online poker and some B&M shop I mentioned that I thought it odd that when he first came to the table regarding the decision in the OP he asks if we would agree to a chop. I mentioned that years back (when I worked the floor) I always found a winner unless the players were already agreeing to a chop and it was clearly fair and would keep people happy or avoid a clusterf_ck yada yada yada. He agreed that asking for/encouraging a chop was a bit premature.

Then I asked why did he go for a consult on the decision; it didn't seem that hard. He essentially said that many players in my spot would ask for the extra $210 and he wanted some backup ready. He didn't want to rule that way.

I was stunned. I told him that I didn't think for a second about getting his last $210 call given the circumstances. I just wasn't going for the chop either, especially since I had a strong made hand with redraws (had he really had the higher flush) to the nut straight flush.

So I posted this one in sort of an "open format", including the possibility that the player in my spot wanted the extra $210 and you were the floor put in the spot of making a tougher decision involving the remaining $210.

I'll be in and out today so I'll have time for further comments if warranted.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like the other player was sitting right next to the dealer? Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to muck the hand without the player realizing it and stopping him. i.e., a dealer can snatch a hand and muck it at light speed it the player is in the 1 or 10 seat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I made it clear somewhere that the player was seated next to the dealer. In Los Angeles County a full game is nine-handed (perhaps to make room for food trays and make one less spot for the nits who only play AK and the top three pairs in super early position).


[ QUOTE ]
That being said, it has to be a dealers mistake. If I call an all-in and we're heads up, I'm not worried about protecting my hand, because I know I'm about to turn it face up. In other words, when I'm all-in and heads up, I almost always table my hand, so if I were in the process of tabling my hand and the dealer mucked it, i'd be super [censored] pissed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although the dealer isn't blameless here players have to understand that when competing in a noisy, chaotic multi-culture, multi-lingual environment you need to make your actions clear. That's why I usually do it all with chips, with the occasional need to call "Time". Any other words at the table can easily be misunderstood (the words "bet" and "check" sound very alike in LA).

When seated next to the dealer you also have to take extra extra extra special care to protect your hand with your hands (once again the hands with fingers) or a solid object. I've seen many opponents sitting next to the dealer bet, check or raise with a hand in these two spots with their cards in one spot and fold a hand one inch or so further away. That's putting the dealer in a position to make mistakes easily and as mentioned elsewhere my philosophy is that a smoothly run poker game is a team effort.


[ QUOTE ]
If that's how this went down, as you- i'd expect the house to pay me my $210,...

[/ QUOTE ]
As mentioned in the post written a few minutes back I didn't consider this especially from the house (and still don't think this is right).



[ QUOTE ]
...and as the other player I'd expect the house to award me the pot because I had the best hand, and one or both of us would be SOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that nobody saw his supposedly best hand and it was completely intermingled in the muck. If he did fold a better hand than my made baby flush with this big a pot and the relatively small remaining stack sizes then he must believe I'm the ultimate nut-peddler.

I'm not but I'll try to keep this image in mind. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how Rick doesn't get the 210.

This needs to be simplified.
A. A verbal declaration was made and affirmed by the player who made the call.
B. it is the players responsibility to protect their hand from getting fouled. Period.
The dealer should not have been able to put the hand in the muck if it had been protected PROPERLY.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not established that the player had announced a call until after his hand had been folded. While verbal declarations may be binding, they have to be understood by the dealer to mean anything. I can't count how many times a player has said something and the dealer responds "Did you say [call/check/raise]?" and waits for confirmation before accepting the action. In this case the dealer believed that the player had folded, and mucked his hand, which was irreversable (sp?). A player cannot call and fold at the same time, and folding is what happened here. After he folds, he cannot call. The merits of my argument are possibly debatable, but I don't think there is any doubt that it's not in the best interest of the game for him to be forced to call here without cards. About the only time I think that he should be forced to pay off the bet is if Rick has the nuts on the river, or has a made straight flush or quads or something else which leaves his opponent drawing dead no matter what two cards he has. Otherwise, there will always be an element of doubt as to who would have won the pot. In the long run, the guy who was trying to call will often have had the winner and got screwed out of the pot here. Forcing him to give up more money simply compounds the problem.

wrt protecting hands, it's true that players are responsible for protecting their cards. However, dealers are not supposed to muck any unprotected hands (by this I refer to cards which are not out in the middle of the table - dealers should only be mucking the cards that appear to have been folded). Players are supposed to protect their cards to protect themselves from dealer error. If a player leaves his cards uncovered, and the dealer mucks them, then the dealer has made a mistake which the player could have prevented, which the player has no recourse against. The player does not "deserve" to have his hand mucked just because he doesn't protect it as he should.