Who gets the side pot?

[bollo]

Unusual event at my poker league last night. Blinds are 400/800 and short stack go all in for his last 600 and the small blind calls which creates a side pot of 400. The blinds check down to the river and the short stack shows the nut flush. Small blind then announces ten high, big blind announces 8 high and BOTH muck their cards without showing forgetting there is a side pot.

Who gets the side pot?

[Jambine]

The best hand with money in the side pot, wins the side pot.

[Martini]

This is why you award the side pot first.

As for this specific hand, whoever mucked their hand first has a dead hand and the side pot would go by default to the other player involved in the side pot. What they announce their hand as is irrelevant.

[KPrather]

This is why you award the side pot first.

As for this specific hand, whoever mucked their hand first has a dead hand and the side pot would go by default to the other player involved in the side pot. What they announce their hand as is irrelevant.

Although technically, hands cannot be mucked in an all-in situation, correct? If the cards are retrievable, both hands should be retrieved and tabled.

[Martini]

This is why you award the side pot first.

As for this specific hand, whoever mucked their hand first has a dead hand and the side pot would go by default to the other player involved in the side pot. What they announce their hand as is irrelevant.

Although technically, hands cannot be mucked in an all-in situation, correct? If the cards are retrievable, both hands should be retrieved and tabled.

I am assuming that neither player in the side pot were all in since it would be unlikely given that both side pot players only had a BB in the middle nor did the OP mention anything about them being all in.

Regardless, there was a screw up in procedure and though a hand should be shown to win the pot giving it to the person who mucked last is the most equitable solution under these circumstances.

[KPrather]

I am assuming that neither player in the side pot were all in since it would be unlikely given that both side pot players only had a BB in the middle nor did the OP mention anything about them being all in.

Ok, then I'm misunderstanding the rule. My understanding was that in this instance of one all-in and two callers, all three hands would have to be tabled at showdown no matter what, side-pot or no side-pot.

[Martini]

I am assuming that neither player in the side pot were all in since it would be unlikely given that both side pot players only had a BB in the middle nor did the OP mention anything about them being all in.

Ok, then I'm misunderstanding the rule. My understanding was that in this instance of one all-in and two callers, all three hands would have to be tabled at showdown no matter what, side-pot or no side-pot.

Proper procedure wasn't followed. Yes, the hands should have been shown. If there is no further betting action then all hands are to be turned up when a player is all in. But since there was still potential action between the two players in the side pot all hands are kept face down until the hand is over. At that point the dealer should have asked the two players involved in the side pot to show their hands and award the side pot to the winner (or chop if needed). Then ask the all in player to turn his hand up and award the main pot accordingly.

[KPrather]

Proper procedure wasn't followed. ... since there was still potential action between the two players in the side pot all hands are kept face down until the hand is over. At that point the dealer should have asked the two players involved in the side pot to show their hands and award the side pot to the winner (or chop if needed).

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[bollo]

I was dealing this table and it was player error on the part of both players for mucking their hands prematurely.

I retrieved the folded hands from the muck and they matched what the players had verbally announced so I awarded the pot to the player with the 10 high hand. We also discussed the options of who mucked last and just chopping the pot which was only 1 big blind but I decided since I was able to verify the mucked hands I would award the side pot with the information.

[Martini]

@bollo
I think it can charitably be said that everyone shared some responsibility in the gaffe. However, it is the dealer's job to control the action and if the side pot had been awarded first as dictated by procedure then there would not have the opportunity for the players to have discarded their hands. If the cards were actually mucked properly then there would have been no way to that they could be clearly identified as the actual cards of each player. Though the amount in this case was an extremely negligible amount the situation would have had far more dire consequences had the side pot been of a significant size.

I think chopping would be a reasonable remedy if it could not be determined who mucked first.

[KPrather]

I was dealing this table and it was player error on the part of both players for mucking their hands prematurely.

The way you describe it, it looks like the players both actually threw their cards into the muck, which is something that shouldn't be happening. The muck should be protected by the dealer, and cards brought into the muck by the dealer.

[Nerre]

I think it is just the common confusion between folding, discarding and mucking.

Only the dealer can muck a hand, players discard their hands.

Discarding your hand when the action is on you means you are folding.

So, in this case I think the two players discarded their hands (and possibly mixed their cards, the dealer can not prevent players from mixing their cards), but the dealer did not muck them.

[Martini]

It's semantics and views vary on the matter. But one thing to keep in mind is that if the player discards their cards into the muck pile their hand is still dead whether or not it was "mucked."

[Gobbs]

Since I haven't said this in a long time - the players did NOT muck their hands, they discarded or folded their hands.  Dealers muck cards.

Therefore, if the cards are retrievable and identifiable, do so.  If only one of the players' hands is retrievable, he wins the side pot.  If neither, the last one to discard his hand gets the side pot.

As somebody said before, this is why the dealer should tell the all-in player to wait and award the side pot first.  The dealer should muck the losing side pot hands and then award the main pot (or next side pot) as appropriate.

KC

[Wedge Rock]

I imagine the short stack was anxious to announce the winning hand and probably did so as soon as he heard check-check on the river.

That is when the lightbulb has to go off in the dealer's head that we have a pot to deal with *before* the shortstack gets the main pot.

Instead, the other two players realized they couldn't beat a nut flush, announced and folded.

A dealer who was cognizant of the situation could have tabled the ten high hand and, assuming the 8-high hand folded, award ten-high the side pot and shortstack the main pot.

This is a dealer lesson.

The OP asks who gets the sidepot, and assumes that the dealer already made an error.  In that situation and assuming the cards were mucked by the dealer, I think the correct answer is whoever folded last.  If that can't be determined, I'd chop the side pot.

Give the dealer a rail penalty.