"in the best interest of the game"

A nicely dressed, well-behaved, and prosperous looking woman who appears to be somewhat new to casino style poker is out for the evening playing 20/40 holdem game in a large Los Angeles card club. She is having a good time and is holding her own despite limited skills until the following hand comes up.


She flops a straight holding a Q-J when the board comes A-K-T. There is tremendous action on the flop and turn, with the woman betting and raising every chance she had. By the river, the board reads A-K-T-Q-J with no flush possible and the woman is now in a three-way pot with two tough professional players. The pros bet and raise until the betting is capped with the woman calling all bets.


On the showdown she holds up Q-J for all to see, and it is obvious she is disappointed that her nut flop hand is now sharing the pot. But she shows her inexperience by throwing her hand into the muck after the pros table their hands. The dealer starts to split the pot in two. She exclaims: “I’m playing the board – why do I need to keep my hand when I called all bets!” The floor is called and the pros insist that they split the pot since they have the only “live hands.” Perhaps the floorman is intimidated by the pros and rules that the lady forfeited the pot by tossing her hand in the muck. (IMO, a good floorman could have ruled the pot be split three ways in the best interest of the game.)


The lady immediately left the card club in tears. That was two years ago and my friend Greg, a mid limit professional player who witnessed this mess, has never seen her since and he plays all over town. It is likely that was her last time playing poker in a card club. If so, maybe that unfortunate event turned her off to an activity she would have enjoyed for years to come (assuming she could afford her losses).


Now those two pros had something to gain with that decision. But all who play for profit as well as fun lost something, namely their share of her probable future action. And that is a shame for the pros as well as recreational players who are victims of similar decisions.


I’m a believer in protecting the inexperienced from innocent mistakes in the best interest of the game as long as there is no reasonable “angle” and no pot is unfairly awarded. That means I’m in favor of rules that allow a clearly discernable hand to be retrieved from the muck as long as action is not affected. That means I’m in favor of awarding 1/3 of the pot to the woman in this story. That means I believe what is in the best interest of the game is also what is best for all of us who take poker seriously.


Perhaps my favorite 2+2 poster is Jim Brier. Certainly, he is the most giving of his time and a fine gentleman. But in a now buried thread on the Hold’em forum titled “Dealer makes an error, should I say something?” started by ReelBigFish on July 20th I disagreed with Jim in a similar, hypothetical situation. Perhaps some of you would like to read this thread and comment further here or in the thread. I should be around the next couple of days for comment and flames.


Regards,


Rick

Rick - I'm sorry, I'm no good at finding archived threads. But in reponse to your post above I don't believe these two so-called pros are very clever. Quite honestly, if I had been one of those pros with the ruling in "my" favour, I would have quickly made my way to the woman as she was leaving and given her enough chips/money to cover what she should have made on that hand.


Those two boys obviously have no experience in either home game play or basic child psychology. A good home game hustler would have been gobsmacked by their petty short-sightedness.


Best of luck. Billy (LTL)

Not every fish comes back just because you're nice to them. And not every fish stays away because you aren't.


These two pros stood to gain about (if I read your story correctly) 5-7 big bets by insisting. Compare this against the chance that the woman's likelihood of return may have not been affected in this situation either way, and I think in some cases, thinking short term isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Yeah its nice if every fish you were nice to became your own personal weekly ATM. But sometimes they were just walking by and decided to have an experience. And never came back.


I don't like the idea of giving floormen so much discretion in their rulings. I'd rather an objective set of standards (how about if a new player says "But I thought a straight beat a flush!"..give the newbie the pot in the best interests of the game?). I can't define exactly what point on that slippery slope I want to stop at, so I'd prefer just to stay off of it altogether.

This is a totally different situation than the last one you posted. Too bad one of the pros didn't insist on a 3-way split. WOuld have been a good chance to tell her about some of the rules if they could do it in a non-patronizing way.


OTOH, I somewhat agree w/ David Ottosen, for someone to be a steady player in the mid limits, they might have to show a bit more competitive instinct than someone who cries and never comes back. Too bad she didn't cry, then come back to shoot some angles on those 2. ;-)

i agree with david. i have seen so many bad ruling by floorpeople that i cant resonably want to give them descretion on whats best for the game. maybe they should be fighting for a rule book that is clear and easy to understand that everyone has access to and can use to defend their position.

why should the lady get a share when one of the other players wouldnt. when she sat down maybe the dealer or floorman should have told her that there are rules she needs to know. that is more whats wrong rather than blaming players that just put maybe half of all their money in the world in the pot.

its the old story the house throws everyone to the wolves and trys to iron out the problems rather than making it clear. as they are afraid if the mistake is theirs they are the ones that have to pay.

Billy,


The other thread isn't old enough to be in the archive. Just go to the Hold'em forum and scroll down a bit or search for my name using "Find" in the "Edit" menu.


I'm going to post some thoughts about the value of altruism in a spot like this under David Ottosen below. They may surprise you.


Regards,


Rick

David,


You wrote: “Not every fish comes back just because you're nice to them. And not every fish stays away because you aren't.”


Agreed. But you generally catch more fish if you are in a nice environment for fishing. And this incident despoiled the environment.


”These two pros stood to gain about (if I read your story correctly) 5-7 big bets by insisting. Compare this against the chance that the woman's likelihood of return may have not been affected in this situation either way, and I think in some cases, thinking short term isn't necessarily a bad thing.


There is no question that in a large metro area with many card clubs, these two pros had far more to gain by insisting that the woman not get her share of the pot. Even if she was a “catch and release” fish, it is not likely they would be fishing if she came back. But in a small, isolated card room, even they would suffer.


”Yeah its nice if every fish you were nice to became your own personal weekly ATM. But sometimes they were just walking by and decided to have an experience. And never came back.”


No one player becomes my or anyone elses weekly ATM at mid limits (this may not be true at high limits). But collectively everyone gains if the recreational players feel they have a fair shot.


”I don't like the idea of giving floormen so much discretion in their rulings. I'd rather an objective set of standards”


I’m 100% in favor of better training for floorman, and well-written rulebooks and standards for decision-making.


”(how about if a new player says "But I thought a straight beat a flush!"..give the newbie the pot in the best interests of the game?).”


Obviously, this is silly. No one would be awarded the pot in your example.


” I can't define exactly what point on that slippery slope I want to stop at, so I'd prefer just to stay off of it altogether.”


I’m all in favor of avoiding slippery slopes but this slope isn’t that slippery. The rules and guidelines for decision-making can be well written and proper training provided to floorman. IMO the industry needs to grow up here and realize it is serving a new market where the fish need a reasonable degree of protection.


Regards,


Rick

HDPM,


You wrote: “This is a totally different situation than the last one you posted.”


I assume you mean my posts on the “Hold’em” forum. This example is different, but it is in a related category.


”OTOH, I somewhat agree w/ David Ottosen, for someone to be a steady player in the mid limits, they might have to show a bit more competitive instinct than someone who cries and never comes back.”


I believe she may be very competitive, but would like to complete in an arena that is fair.


Regards,


Rick

Ray,


You wrote: i have seen so many bad ruling by floorpeople that i cant resonably want to give them descretion on whats best for the game.”


Clearly, better rules can be written. I’m reasonably sure someone like Bob Ciaffone has already written rules and intelligent guidelines (in his columns) that would steer an intelligent and thoughtful floorman in the right direction.


”maybe they should be fighting for a rule book that is clear and easy to understand that everyone has access to and can use to defend their position.”


This is a great idea along with better training for floormen.


”why should the lady get a share when one of the other players wouldn’t”


If the pro was sloppy and made this particular mistake (let’s say he was from out of town where the showdown rules were different) he should be protected too. Good rules protect everybody.


” whats wrong rather than blaming players that just put maybe half of all their money in the world in the pot.”


Anyone who puts half of all their money in a pot deserve what they get.


”its the old story the house throws everyone to the wolves and trys to iron out the problems rather than making it clear. as they are afraid if the mistake is theirs they are the ones that have to pay.”


Note that the dealer made no mistake here. I’m just in favor of rules and staff training that would facilitate a fair outcome here.


Regards,


Rick

The rule about mucking hands is not unfair. Unduly harsh sometimes, as it was here. But the woman was not cheated. I would have handled the situation differently if I were one of the pros, but the rules about showdown are fair. She was ignorant of them, and more might be done to ease the pain of her ignorance or help her learn.

Your argument, with which I also disagreed in the ReelBigFish thread, was that since the action on the river went check-check, the pot should be awarded to the best hand; there was no possibility of an angle by the last player. But retrieving cards from the muck always leaves open the possibility of cheating.


Also, the situation was different there. The board was not the nuts. In this case, the woman clearly intended to play the board and did not need any supposedly mucked cards to have a winning hand. In the ReelBigFish situation, the player really intended to muck and then changed his mind. I don't think it's that hard to determine the player's intention. I agree with you here that the woman should have gotten her 1/3 of the pot.

RZ: ” whats wrong rather than blaming players that just put maybe half of all their money in the world in the pot.”


RN: "Anyone who puts half of all their money in a pot deserve what they get."


M: Well, a few times in my life I've put 98% of all my money in the world into a pot (and I didn't always win it). But that was a good while ago.

Andy,


You wrote: ”Your argument, with which I also disagreed in the ReelBigFish thread,”


You disagreed? I was disappointed you never posted after my responses /images/ohwell.gif


”was that since the action on the river went check-check, the pot should be awarded to the best hand; there was no possibility of an angle by the last player.”


In all seriousness, if you have time reread my response(s) in that thread. I agreed in the lead example that the hand should be ruled dead because there was doubt about the identity of the partially mucked hand. Later I created another, hypothetical scenario where the cards could be retrieved.


”But retrieving cards from the muck always leaves open the possibility of cheating.”


Yes. This is why the cards must be clearly identifiable and the action completed to be retrieved.


”Also, the situation was different there. The board was not the nuts.


Yes. And because there was doubt about the identity of the hand, I agreed that it should be ruled dead.


”In the ReelBigFish situation, the player really intended to muck and then changed his mind.


But the river action was check-check. Had there been no doubt about the identity of the hand, it could be retrieved under Los Angeles rules. Because the player awkwardly pulled it out of the muck himself, there was a chance of slight of hand, and therefore doubt.


”I don't think it's that hard to determine the player's intention. I agree with you here that the woman should have gotten her 1/3 of the pot.”


I’m glad we agree on something! But if you look at the other thread, I’m hoping we find even more areas where we agree or at least agree to disagree in an agreeable way /images/smile.gif.


Regards,


Rick


PS I’m almost through “Blowback” and will try to email you some comments if I get time.

"On the showdown she holds up Q-J for all to see".


This is a very different situation. She called the final bet and showed her hand "for all to see". Therefore, in effect, she has turned her cards face up. Under these circumstances, she is entitled to one third of the pot. Suppose one of the pros turned his cards face up and then as the dealer is splitting the pot, he tosses them in the muck? Would the pro's hand be dead? I don't think so.


If the lady had simply mucked her hand such that the other players and the dealer could not see it, then I would argue that her hand is dead and she is not entitled to anything.

If she showed her hand I think it's an easy ruling that she gets 1/3 the pot.

It seems to me that if she showed her hand to the table, then the cards speak and she should get her share.

"i have seen so many bad ruling by floorpeople that i cant resonably want to give them descretion on whats best for the game."


Yes but Ray what is "good ruling" from your point of view, the floorman's point of view, and the other players' point of view may by three different rulings. Point being that your criticism may have certain amount of self interest. The idea of having a uniform rule book has been discussed and basically the result is that it makes everyone a lawyer every time the floor man makes a decision. There is a certain amount of efficiency to having the floor man lay down the law and getting on with the hand, whether or not it is a good ruling. In my experience the floor man usually makes a good to mediocre decision and in the end that's OK as long as it keeps the game going.


In the case that Rick described I think it was a terrible decision by the floor man not to give the woman 1/3 of the pot as she called all the bets and everyone saw her cards. As a first time player she should be given a little bit of slack at least once.

"You disagreed? I was disappointed you never posted after my responses"


-You responded to my post. I guess I must have thought I had nothing more to say there, or I got bogged down with the Other Topics forum and didn't come back to the thread. Maybe once I saw the post from Zee I didn't think my contributions would be missed.


"In all seriousness, if you have time reread my response(s) in that thread. I agreed in the lead example that the hand should be ruled dead because there was doubt about the identity of the partially mucked hand. Later I created another, hypothetical scenario where the cards could be retrieved."


-I must not have read carefully enough. Sorry if I have misinformed people of your position.


"But the river action was check-check"


-irrelevant IMO. If a player intended to fold and the cards were released as a fold, it's a fold. Why should a player be allowed to change an action after the other player turns over their hand?


Let's make sure we're talking apples and apples here. I check; you check; I turn over a hand that includes an Ace for a straight; you look and concede, releasing your cards, folding. Now you look again and, since you had an ace, decide you want to un-release them, to "unfold."


How would this differ from you calling and then when I show an Ace for a straight, you now decide you want to "uncall"?


Once a person has taken a clear and legitimate action, either checking, calling, folding, or raising, the action should not be changeable. We are in agreement that the person's intent is what counts and that's why we agree that the woman who called all the bets on the river should have gotten 1/3 of the pot: it was her clear intention to call.


[By the way, why were the 2 pros betting and raising with a board of A-K-Q-J-T and no flush possible? Usually, someone laughs and says "chop it up" before anyone can try to confuse a novice.]


"if you look at the other thread, I’m hoping we find even more areas where we agree or at least agree to disagree in an agreeable way"


-My dictionary lists pleasant, likable and amiable

as synonyms for agreeable, and all four words are perfect descriptions for you.


Best regards,

Andy

i am not totally against giving her part of the pot. but lets be clear. a hand is not shown unless it is put face up on the table. all players should know or be made aware of this simple rule before they sit down.

the dealer did make a mistake here. if he thought she was truly a begginer he should have informed her of the rules or told her to find out as some rules could cost her a pot. also why didnt he stop her from mucking by saying " a hand must be face up to be live". thats his job. if it isnt his place to say that, then it means that the hand is dead because it implies that the dealer should let someone throw away a winner if they are ignorant of the rules. you cant have it both ways . except maybe as ive said in small stakes with beginners. she was playing higher stakes and obviously understood the game, just had a lapse which we all make from time to time.

i agree no brainer in my mind...once a hand is called and shown..it cannot be fouled..imho..gl

Besides the fact that she showed her hand before mucking. She called all bets when the board was the nuts. What cards the players held don't even matter. Does she even have to have a "live" hand in this situation?

Yes, she must have a live hand. She cannot simply play the board because she called all the bets. One of the reasons for this is that her hand may not be a legal one (she might have 3 cards or something).

Another reason is that there could be no disagreement over who was actually in the pot at the showdown.

Andy,


Boy, you are bogged down on the “Other Topics” forum. I wish I had the time and intellectual capacity to go head to head with some of those guys.


Anyway, I (RN) wrote above: "But the river action was check-check"


You (AF) responded“-irrelevant IMO. If a player intended to fold and the cards were released as a fold, it's a fold. Why should a player be allowed to change an action after the other player turns over their hand?”


Me now: If the BETTING action goes check-check or bet-call then the betting action is complete and now it is the showdown. For the showdown, the trend in rules is to be very liberal in awarding the best hand the pot (even if it is momentarily overlooked or partially mucked yet discernable and retrievable).


AF: “Let's make sure we're talking apples and apples here. I check; you check; I turn over a hand that includes an Ace for a straight; you look and concede, releasing your cards, folding. Now you look again and, since you had an ace, decide you want to un-release them, to "unfold."


Me now: There is no possible angle here for your opponent since the BETTING action was complete. If he was facing a bet the moment he indicated he was folding his hand is dead. You can’t change your mind when facing a bet or take back a bet when you realize you are going to be called.


AF: How would this differ from you calling and then when I show an Ace for a straight, you now decide you want to "uncall"?


Me now: Once again, this would never be allowed, since this affects the BETTING action.


AF: Once a person has taken a clear and legitimate action, either checking, calling, folding, or raising, the action should not be changeable.


Me now: Absolutely when we are talking about BETTING action.


AF: ”We are in agreement that the person's intent is what counts and that's why we agree that the woman who called all the bets on the river should have gotten 1/3 of the pot: it was her clear intention to call.”


Me now: The fact is she did call. If she intended to call but forgot to call the last bet and threw her hand away she would have a dead hand.


AF:-My dictionary lists pleasant, likable and amiable

as synonyms for agreeable, and all four words are perfect descriptions for you.


Me now: I can’t say who but someone got a big laugh out of this.


Regards,


Rick

Jim,


You wrote: ”One of the reasons for this is that her hand may not be a legal one (she might have 3 cards or something).”


The fact that she could have three cards or two ace of clubs or some other fouled hand is the reason card room management gives for rules such as “must have all seven cards to win” (in stud) and “must show both cards to win” (in holdem) and so on. But in the real world, a simple mistake is far more likely than a fouled hand. As a result, management was forced to relax the enforcement somewhat.


For example, in stud, there are players in the four, five, and six seat holding hands on the river. On the showdown, seat five shows and protects a big full house. When the adjoining seats muck their hands, seat five ends up with only six cards (obviously, one of his irrelevant cards was swept into the muck with the adjoining discards). Would you really want to kill seat six’s hand?


Or in holdem, on the river the board has four clubs with no full house or straight flush possible. The river action went player A bets and player B calls. Player A immediately shows the Ace of clubs (without) showing his other card. Player B quickly concedes and mucks and player A quickly mucks without showing his other card. Note that the dealer is supposed to have player A show both cards but everything happened fast. Do you really want to kill player A’s hand?


Note that in most cases concerns about a fouled deck could be handled other ways. For example, in the stud example above where a player has only six cards on the river, the pot could be impounded, play resumed, and the deck checked. If the deck was good, the player holding the best six-card hand could be awarded the pot. Obviously, the house should handle very low limits and very high limits differently for obvious reasons.


Regards,


Rick

Well, it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I can't see where there's any difference if an action taken effects the betting action or it doesn't. Once a player folds I don't think he should be allowed to rescind his action, whether the action that caused him to fold was a bet or someone turning over their hand after there was no bet on the river. Folding is an "action" the same as betting is.


Best regards,

Andy

Ray,


We're not eye to eye on these types of things, me being softer. I would have jumped in to bash the pros for being so evil, until I saw these words from you, a reminder that in-bounds harshness in poker is indeed fair and right.


Ray wrote: "rather than blaming players that just put maybe half of all their money in the world in the pot"


Tommy

Believe me, if I went into a casino and found out that pots are allocated by politics, I would run the other direction 100 miles an hour.


If this lady is used to getting paid money just for being her, she'll be back anyway.


eLROY