Odd ruling related to inadvertently mucked cards

[Ghaleon]

2-Table Tournament at a live card room, not a home game.  Blinds 200/400, 7 handed table, UTG player limps in for 400, Two folds, Cutoff raises to 1600, button folds, SB & BB fold.

I'm not sure what happend at this point because I wasn't looking in that direction, but when I turned back around, the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser.  The raiser's cards were mucked, though one was still in the middle of the table, seperate from the muck pile.

Agian, Im not sure exactly what happened, but either the dealer forgot that the UTG player was still left to act and pulled the raiser's cards in, or the raiser forgot about the UTG player, assumed he had already won the pot and mucked his cards.  Either way, the ruling should be the same ( I think )

UTG player says "Hey wait, I still get to act", but at this point, at least one of the raiser's cards is completely buried in the muck pile and is absolutely not retreivable.  The floorperson is called over and he makes the following ruling

Hand is over.  UTG pulls back her 400 bet, 1600 is returned to the raiser.  Then the blinds are split and each player is awarded 300 chips.

I thought that was the wackiest ruling I had ever seen.  This same situation happened at my home game and I awarded the pot to the UTG player.  I think I called it right.

Anyone ever seen this split pot ruling before?

[Gobbs]

It depends...

If the dealer awarded the pot to the raiser before he folded his cards, I'd say you cannot penalize the player for not protecting his cards and acting on good faith based on dealer instructions.  So, if that were the case, I'd return all bets and replay the hand.

If the player folded his hand on his own, the pot should have been awarded to the only player who still had a valid hand.

Gobbs

[Hands_of_Fate]

Maybe my math is wrong, but was each player involved was awarded an ADDITIONAL 300 chips beyond what they had put in the pot originally?  (SB, BB, UTG + Raiser)? If so, what reason did the floorperson give?  I've never seen add'l chips introduced into a tournament. 

[Muley05]

Maybe my math is wrong, but was each player involved was awarded an ADDITIONAL 300 chips beyond what they had put in the pot originally?  (SB, BB, UTG + Raiser)? If so, what reason did the floorperson give?  I've never seen add'l chips introduced into a tournament. 

I think you might have mis-read the OP.  I took when he said "Then the blinds are split and each player is awarded 300 chips." that the blinds of 200/400 were split amongst the UTG player and the Cutoff, meaning they got 300 each.  The BB and SB had folded and did not get anything.  I don't think that extra chips were introduced, but I can see how you would read that based on the wording of the OP.

[Ghaleon]

Sorry for the confusion, Muley is right.  The 300 chips given to each player came from the 600 in blinds.

I see Gobb's point too.  However, I disagree, it's not just up to the dealer to pay attention to the action and make the right decisions.  I think all players are responsible for being aware of the action on the table and protecting their hand.

Though I hate to reward such weak play, I still say the pot goes to the UTG limper.

[Gobbs]

Sorry for the confusion, Muley is right.  The 300 chips given to each player came from the 600 in blinds.

I see Gobb's point too.  However, I disagree, it's not just up to the dealer to pay attention to the action and make the right decisions.  I think all players are responsible for being aware of the action on the table and protecting their hand.

Though I hate to reward such weak play, I still say the pot goes to the UTG limper.

So, the next time the dealer tells you to flip your cards and then realizes there is still action, you'll agree that your hand is dead if that is the house rule?

Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

We're not talking about exposing cards.  If the dealer tells me to flip my hand, but then realizes that there is still action, then my  hand is not dead.  The betting is over, but my hand is not dead.

In this case, one of the players cards was buried in the muck.  And again, I'm not sure if he put it there, or if the dealer took it.  Regardless, his hand is dead.

The player made an error of not paying attention to ALL of the action at the table and did not protect his hand.  I don't see why the dealer's error cancels that out.

[Gobbs]

We're not talking about exposing cards.  If the dealer tells me to flip my hand, but then realizes that there is still action, then my  hand is not dead.  The betting is over, but my hand is not dead.

In this case, one of the players cards was buried in the muck.  And again, I'm not sure if he put it there, or if the dealer took it.  Regardless, his hand is dead.

The player made an error of not paying attention to ALL of the action at the table and did not protect his hand.  I don't see why the dealer's error cancels that out.

You're contradicting yourself.  In one scenario, the player acts on dealer instructions (turn over the cards - oops, there is more action to be made), and is not penalized.  In the other, the player acts on dealer instructions (give me your cards while I award you the pot), and you want to penalize him.  In both cases, the player acted on the dealer instructions, but did not pay attention to ALL the action at the table.  So, which way do you rule?  You can't rule differently in both cases unless there are mitigating circumstances, like a player hiding his/her cards.

Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

Gobbs - I'm not contradicting myself

In the scenario you described, a player turned over his cards on dealer instruction when there was still action to be played.  In that situation, the hand is still live.

22. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player in a multihanded pot may not show any cards during a deal. Heads-up, a player may not show any cards unless the event has only two remaining players, or is winner-take-all. If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.

In the actual situation that I'm describing, the player's hand was mucked.

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

The "clearly identifiable" criteria was not satisfied.  One of the players whole cards was buried in the muck.  Both the player and the dealer admitted that they are not 100% sure which card to retrieve.

The two situations are different.  In my scenario, the player's cards are mucked, in yours, they are face up on the table.  The player is not absolved of all responsibility just because he acted on dealer instructions.

It's not a contradiction, it is two different and distinct scenarios.

Gobbs you said "You can't rule differently in both cases unless there are mitigating circumstances"  - Doesn't a a hole card buried in the muck pile constitute a mitigating circumstance?

[Gobbs]

Gobbs - I'm not contradicting myself

In the scenario you described, a player turned over his cards on dealer instruction when there was still action to be played.  In that situation, the hand is still live.

22. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player in a multihanded pot may not show any cards during a deal. Heads-up, a player may not show any cards unless the event has only two remaining players, or is winner-take-all. If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.

In the actual situation that I'm describing, the player's hand was mucked.

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

The "clearly identifiable" criteria was not satisfied.  One of the players whole cards was buried in the muck.  Both the player and the dealer admitted that they are not 100% sure which card to retrieve.

The two situations are different.  In my scenario, the player's cards are mucked, in yours, they are face up on the table.  The player is not absolved of all responsibility just because he acted on dealer instructions.

It's not a contradiction, it is two different and distinct scenarios.

Gobbs you said "You can't rule differently in both cases unless there are mitigating circumstances"  - Doesn't a a hole card buried in the muck pile constitute a mitigating circumstance?

I said, if there is a house rule that automatically kills exposed hands.  You must have missed that.  Now which way would you then rule?

Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

I don't get what you're asking.  House rules are house rules.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with them and I don't have to play at that particular house.  At the card room where I play, and at my own home games, if a player inadvertently exposes his cards his hand is not dead, however, he is prohibited from further betting.  Further action continues in a side pot as if the exposed player were all-in.

Though, in that case, I would probably enforce an immediate penalty.  It is a very dangerous situation where a player on a draw could expose his hand and be exempt from further betting, yet still be able to see the board cards.

However, in your scenario, a penalty is not warranted since he was acting on dealer instructions.

Anyway - Back to the original post.  My question is, how can a player muck his hand, whether by accident, on purpose, according to dealer instructions, or otherwise  and STILL have a claim to the pot? 

[Gobbs]

I don't get what you're asking.  House rules are house rules.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with them and I don't have to play at that particular house.  At the card room where I play, and at my own home games, if a player inadvertently exposes his cards his hand is not dead, however, he is prohibited from further betting.  Further action continues in a side pot as if the exposed player were all-in.

Though, in that case, I would probably enforce an immediate penalty.  It is a very dangerous situation where a player on a draw could expose his hand and be exempt from further betting, yet still be able to see the board cards.

However, in your scenario, a penalty is not warranted since he was acting on dealer instructions.

Anyway - Back to the original post.  My question is, how can a player muck his hand, whether by accident, on purpose, according to dealer instructions, or otherwise  and STILL have a claim to the pot? 

And now you have contradicted yourself again....in one scenario, a penalty is not warranted since he was acting on dealer instructions; however, for the OP, you want to penalize the player for acting on the dealer instructions.  Again, you can't have it both ways.

Gobbs

[Ghaleon]

No I didn't contradict myself.  You're choosing whatever definition of "penalize" is convenient to your argument.

If a player took advantage of the house rule that said an exposed hand is not dead but is barred from further betting in order to get a free draw, I would give a penalize the player.  As in a warning or time-out.

If it happened as a result of a dealer error, then I would not penalize the player, but the ruling stays the same.  The hand is NOT dead and the betting is over for that player.

NO CONTRADICTION

In my OP, the "penalty" you refer to is the killing of the players hand and loss of chips.  That is not a "Penalty", it's an unfortunate result of that player's lack of attention to the action on the table.  I never referred to that as a "penalty"

Let me clarify my entire point

A player's hand was mucked.  Whether the dealer did it, or the player did it, does not matter.  Whether the player did it based on dealer instruction or not doesn't matter.  His hand is dead.  The rules are INCREDIBLY clear on what happens when your cards are lost in the muck pile.  Your hand dies.

In all of the alternate hypothetical scenarios that you've described, the players cards did not touch the muck pile.  They were simply turned face up.  In that situation, there are two possibilities.

1) The player did it on his own, either accidently, or on purpose.
2) The player did it as a result of an erroneous dealer instruction.

In scenario 1, at a minimum, a warning is in order.  If I felt a player did it purposefully, then it is definitely a time penalty.

In scenario 2, there is no formal warning or penalty to the player.

In BOTH scenarios the ruling remains the same.  And in my house, the ruling is that the hand is NOT dead, but betting is over.

Finally, back to the OP, no one has yet to explain to me why a player whose hand is CLEARLY dead, has any claim to the pot whatsoever. 

[Gameface]

Ghaleon, with all due respect, you're way off.  The dealer in a poker game, especially a game in a casino, is like an official in a sporting event, or a traffic cop in an intersection, if you will. By acting according to their instructions a player should not be penalized.

For instance, using the traffic cop analogy, if it was really the driver in the North bound lanes turn to go, but the cop tells the driver in the eastbound lane to proceed, but the northbound driver knowing it's his turn goes anyway, do you give the ticket to the person who went out of turn but who was acting on instruction by the cop? No! You can't penalize a person acting on the instruction of the official because we are required to follow the instructions of that official.

The raiser's hand was not killed until after the pot was awarded. So if you want to say the hand is dead, go right ahead, the hand was also over and the pot awarded. The UTG player had an obligation to stop all this action before the pot was awarded and the raisers hand was mucked by the dealer. By sitting and watching all this happen and then objecting only after the hand was mucked I would say that the player may have been angle-shooting, knowing that the other player's cards would possibly be irretrievable.

If every player is required to pay attention to EVERYTHING that is going on at the table then the UTG player was woefully negligent in their duties, wouldn’t you say?

[Ghaleon]

For the last time - I'm not PENALIZING the player.  Your traffic cop analogy isn't even close because the player isn't "getting a ticket".  If a cop told you to proceed into traffic, then your'e right, you shouldn't get a ticket.  But if you obey teh cop's instruction and drive into oncoming traffic, and get broadsided by a semi, you're car is still smashed right?  We can sit here and debate where to assign the blame all day, but the end result is the same.  The same goes for this situation, we can blame the dealer, we can blame the player, we can blame the government, we can blame god, none of it changes the end result.  And the end result is, cards went into the muck pile before the hand was over, and are therefore dead.

If you go back and read my OP the dealer was in the process of awarding the pot and collecting cards.  It wasn't complete.  To clarify further, the chips were being pushed in the direction of the player, but the dealer's hand was still on them. 

And the UTG player did speak up, this whole thing happend during the course of a second or two.  So if you want ot get technical, the act of awarding the pot was not complete.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A DEAD HAND HAS A CLAIM TO THE POT, OR EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HIS HAND IS NOT DEAD?

[Ghaleon]

If every player is required to pay attention to EVERYTHING that is going on at the table then the UTG player was woefully negligent in their duties, wouldn’t you say?

Actually no.  It was her action and she is entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider her play.  If the dealer began collecting cards and awarding the pot while she was looking at her cards or counting out chips, why is she at fault.

And, for what it's worth, as I said in my last post, she did say something, a split second after this whole mess began.

[Gameface]

And because the mess was caused by the dealer and because the floorperson decided that neither player had done anything wrong the two players split the pot.

What was it that the raiser did that was wrong, other than not paying attention to EVERYTHING at the table? So do you kill a players hand if they say check if there's been a bet? There actually is no requirement at all that a player know exactly what's going on at the table.

[Ghaleon]

This thread has started to exasperate me.  So I'm going to calmly and quietly recap the exact action.  I thought it was clear in my original post, but clearly there is some confusion which I apologize for.

Here is the situation.

SB posts 200
BB posts 400
Dealer deals two hole cards to each of six players.
UTG calls 400
1 fold
CO Raises to 1600
Button (me) folds
SB folds
I look up at the score of the Celtics game
BB folds
I hear "Wait a minute" from UTG player
I look down from the TV and see the following:
Dealer has one hand on top of a pile of cards, one of which is the CO player's hole card.  The dealers other hand is on top of a pile of chips and is oustretched in the direction of the CO player.
There is one card face down in the center of the table, it is the CO player's other whole card.
Dealer calls the floor person
Floor person says that CO gets his 1600 back, UTG keeps her 400, and each player is awarded half of the blinds (300)

[Gameface]

I'm not sure what happend at this point because I wasn't looking in that direction, but when I turned back around, the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser.  The raiser's cards were mucked, though one was still in the middle of the table, seperate from the muck pile.

Agian, Im not sure exactly what happened, but either the dealer forgot that the UTG player was still left to act and pulled the raiser's cards in, or the raiser forgot about the UTG player, assumed he had already won the pot and mucked his cards.  Either way, the ruling should be the same ( I think )

UTG player says "Hey wait, I still get to act", but at this point, at least one of the raiser's cards is completely buried in the muck pile and is absolutely not retreivable.  The floorperson is called over and he makes the following ruling

You say that the raiser's hand was mucked. Who mucks cards? When is the winners hand mucked?

You now say the UTG objected immedietly, but that's not exactly what you say in the OP. Besides that, you weren't even watching the table.

By taking the pot away from the raiser you absolutely are penalizing them.

How much should the UTG player get if you award them the pot?

[Ghaleon]

And because the mess was caused by the dealer and because the floorperson decided that neither player had done anything wrong the two players split the pot.

What was it that the raiser did that was wrong, other than not paying attention to EVERYTHING at the table? So do you kill a players hand if they say check if there's been a bet? There actually is no requirement at all that a player know exactly what's going on at the table.

The raiser should have protected his hand until the hand was over.  Which it wasn't.  I dont see why this is even a question.  If a dealer inadvertenly mucks a hand, it's dead isn't it?  It's a pretty common and straightforward rule.

[Ghaleon]

I'm not sure what happend at this point because I wasn't looking in that direction, but when I turned back around, the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser.  The raiser's cards were mucked, though one was still in the middle of the table, seperate from the muck pile.

Agian, Im not sure exactly what happened, but either the dealer forgot that the UTG player was still left to act and pulled the raiser's cards in, or the raiser forgot about the UTG player, assumed he had already won the pot and mucked his cards.  Either way, the ruling should be the same ( I think )

UTG player says "Hey wait, I still get to act", but at this point, at least one of the raiser's cards is completely buried in the muck pile and is absolutely not retreivable.  The floorperson is called over and he makes the following ruling

You say that the raiser's hand was mucked. Who mucks cards? When is the winners hand mucked?

You now say the UTG objected immedietly, but that's not exactly what you say in the OP. Besides that, you weren't even watching the table.

By taking the pot away from the raiser you absolutely are penalizing them.

How much should the UTG player get if you award them the pot?

It doesn't matter who mucked the cards.  If the raiser did it himself because he thought the hand was over, he's an idiot and his hand is dead.  If the dealer did it inadvertently, the the raiser should have protected his hand and it's still dead.  That's why it doesn't matter whether I saw it or not.  In either scenario, his hand is dead.

As for "when is the winners hand mucked" I always hold on to my cards until the pot is directly in front of me.  The winners hand is mucked last.

And as for my OP, I clearly state "the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser".  Present tense, not past tense.  Again, I apolgoize for the confusion

And the UTG player should get 2600 (200 + 400 + 400 + 1600)

Yes it sucks for the raiser.  Yes it SEEMS unfair.  But it's an irregularity, and it's part of a live game.  Those are the breaks.  It's not always fair.  And this forum is FILLED with examples of situations where fairness is vague at best.  We just have to take the rules as they are written.  And the rules clearly say, when you cards go into the muck, they're dead.

I think the traffic cop analogy works here.  Yes the cop said you should go when it wasn't your turn.  But that doesn't mean you should not still watch for oncoming traffic.  And if you hit an oncoming car, it sucks.  Maybe it's the cops fault for telling you to go out of turn, or maybe it's your fault for not looking where you were going.  In either case, your car is still smashed.

And further, your comment that the dealer in a poker game is "like an official in a sporting event" I agree.  However, it doesn't meant that their mistakes can't change the outcome of a game.  Take baseball for example.  Let's say there are runners on first and second base.  The batter hits a hard ground ball toward the shortstop.  However, the umpire has to dart out of the way of the ball and inadvertently gets in the runners way.  The runner is slowed a split second and is then thrown out at third base.  Do we say the runner is safe because the umpire F'd up?

[Gobbs]

And because the mess was caused by the dealer and because the floorperson decided that neither player had done anything wrong the two players split the pot.

What was it that the raiser did that was wrong, other than not paying attention to EVERYTHING at the table? So do you kill a players hand if they say check if there's been a bet? There actually is no requirement at all that a player know exactly what's going on at the table.

The raiser should have protected his hand until the hand was over.  Which it wasn't.  I dont see why this is even a question.  If a dealer inadvertenly mucks a hand, it's dead isn't it?  It's a pretty common and straightforward rule.

Actually, the hand is over when the dealer awards the pot, which is what he was doing by your very own admission.  So, the player protected his hand until the end of the hand as he/she should have.  I don't even see why this is a question.

To answer your question, if a dealer inadvertanetly mucks a hand during play, it's dead.  Since the pot was awarded, he didn't accidentally muck a hand during play.  So, the rule on which you are hanging your hat does not apply here.

There are only two acceptable rulings here.  1) Rule as the floorperson ruled.  2) Award the pot to the raiser since the limper did not meet his obligation to stop play when he/she was being skipped or because he/she was hiding his/her hand.  The proper ruling would depend on how long the player had to react or if the player hid the cards.  It doesn't sound like there was much time and you have not commented on whether or not the player hid cards.  So, I like the floorperson's ruling.

Gobbs