2-4 decision

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I observed the following situation occur recently. I'm so darn nosy that anytime I hear "floor!" I have to poke my nose in and look to see what's the deal, and what decision winds up being made.

Here's the setup:

2-4 game. Tourist city. Alcohol involved in "slightly" higher than minimal quantities.

"FLOOR"

It's the river. Board something like 44Q67 no flush possible.

Dealer tells floor what happened:

First guy bet (he's quite clearly an inexperienced tourist). Second guy called. First guy did not see call, or the other guy's cards. He thought everyone folded, so he tossed his hand in face down. But everyone didn't fold. Second guy had actually called. After second guy called, and first guy tossed hand in face down, dealer took first guy's cards and put them on top of the muck.

What the floor sees: First guy has very obviously fanned out $4 in chips. Second guy has a less than obvious semi-splashed-the-pot $4 call, and judging from what I saw, it was quite likely his card may have been concealed (it's very common for low limit players to conceal their cards, they don't know any better). First guy says he thought everyone folded, and he didn't want to show. Second guy says he called. First guy says he had a full house and would never have folded. Second guy starts getting irate and saying "he folded." Second guy shows his cards, having AKo for no pair.

What's the floor to do?

There are two basic principles at work here, and they conflict somewhat. First off, there's only one player with a live hand. Second, it was obvious that the first guy did not mean to fold, and had acted on incorrect information, so it's a matter of "clear intent."

In addition, I feel it was clearly a dealer error to take the bettor's cards so quickly in this situation, since it was pretty obvious the bettor did not realize he had been called. Action is not always binding if it's made on incorrect information. Dealers also should not be too jumpy when it comes to drunken 2-4 tourists.

Now typically, if the floor comes over to a table and there's only one guy with a live hand, and the other is properly mucked and gone, the decision will almost always be to push the pot to the guy with the live hand. Tough luck, protect your hand already. However, there are some situations where a hand can be retrieved from the muck.

So the questions are...

1. Should the first guy be penalized for his actions, even tho he obviously wasn't clear about the fact he'd been called?

2. Is this a case of "your hand is dead, too bad" ??

3. Should the fact that player one is an obviously inexperienced tourist be taken into consideration?

4. Who gets the pot?

More to follow

al

[Rduke55]

Would this fall into the "if they're easily retrievable" category?

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

OF course these situations should first be sorted out at the player level--#2 should see #1 full and give him the pot. A 2-4 pot is not worth losing your dignity over.

If it is super clear which 2 cards are #1s and it is a FH, I think a reasonable floor could rule in #1's favor, but it depends on the room. In some rooms, the letter of the law must be followed 100% or chaos ensues.

That said, I think it takes a skilled Floor to make the "right" decision, and #1 at least can learn a vluable lesson about public cardroom proceedure, namely "don't let go of your cards untill the pot is moving in your direction" and "pay attention to the action".

I've learned many of these lessons the hard way as well for more money than I care to think about.

[Yads]

The dealer should have said "Show please" when the second player called, but yeah I think this is one of those tough luck for the first player kind of situations. I don't see how the floor could rule in favor of the 1st player.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Because the dealer put the cards directly on top of the muck, they were easily retrieveable. note that putting cards on top, or even on the bottom of the muck, is a dealer error, they should be mucked so as to make them completely unidentifiable. However, mucking them at all in this exact situation might have been a worse error.

al

[Don Olney]

First of all, there are checks on the table from the second guy--- there was a bet, the first guy needs to pay attention--- He mucked done deal---
NO---We both know that here in Vegas a lot of rooms at the lower limits will turn to can the CARDS be saved---and in this case it seems like they were----
I go by MAKE THE NEW PLAYERS HAPPY BUT TEACH THEM AS THEY PLAY RULE-----

[4_2_it]

OK Al, who did you kick in the nuts?

My bet is on the dealer /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the dealer put the cards directly on top of the muck, they were easily retrieveable. note that putting cards on top, or even on the bottom of the muck, is a dealer error, they should be mucked so as to make them completely unidentifiable. However, mucking them at all in this exact situation might have been a worse error.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the cards are clearly retrievable give them back to teh bettor and allow him to turn them up. When the cards are retrievable the best hand wins.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is super clear which 2 cards are #1s and it is a FH, I think a reasonable floor could rule in #1's favor, but it depends on the room. In some rooms, the letter of the law must be followed 100% or chaos ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The letter of the law in most rooms is that your hand MAY be declared dead for touching the muck. in the interest of fairness the player gets his hand back. Also he said he wanted to show down his hand prior to the card being irretrievably mucked so there is also room to give him his cards based not only on the sprit of the rules but also the written rules.

[CrazyEyez]

If the dealer is certain that the cards are on top, show them and give the pot to #1, assuming he really did have the best hand.

It's better for everyone in the long run. #1 still learns his lesson, #2 learns to make his actions more clear, and the dealer (hopefully) learns how to handle it better the next time. And most importantly, a new player is not turned off or scared away from the game.

[Rasputin]

Split the pot. Teach the bettor to pay more attention and the caller to not be a nit.

[Mackie]

The correct ruling is player 2 is awarded the pot, however as the floor I would allow the identifiable cards of player 1 to be retrieved if player 2 was indeed hiding his cards, intentionally or not, AND calling in an ambiguous manner as you described. I would go to the camera if necessary.

If player 2's cards or action should have been clearly visible, the floor would be doing player 1 a favor by denying him the pot.

A couple months ago I was playing 6-12 and a young player at the other end of the table was in the habbit of tabling his cards by tossing them up in the air such that they would land face up in the middle of the table. He was warned by one dealer not to do this, but persisted. Sure enough, it cost him. I had AK utg and raised, he called. Flop Kxx I bet, he calls. Turn J. I bet, he raises, I call. Turn blank. Check-bet-call. He flips his cards up in the air the a jack lands in the middle face up. The other card, which I clearly saw was a king, lands on top of the muck face DOWN. Floor is called, rules against him. He asks me to chop the pot with him. I decline. The way I look at it, I was doing that kid a favor. That was the last time I saw him table his cards by tossing them up in the air.

Player 1's error was less extreme than my example, but he should learn to pay attention to how many players are in the pot, whether he's drinking or not.

[canis582]

As an aside, this is why some casinos shy away from spreading poker. If the room isnt successful, you end up with a table of 2-4 and two tables of stud filled with old nits. So you get 3-4 employees working in a large space that isnt producing much revenue, causing constant management headaches.

[steamboatin]

clearly a dealer error and in my mind that mitigates the mistake made by player #1. I say, retrieve the cards and the best hand wins.

If the dealer had done a better job, you would have a much easier decision or no problem at all. Without a dealer error, I say mucked hands are dead.

Drunk tourists are good for poker so it wasn't like He was going to keep those chips for very long.

[TripleH68]

As a player I am greatly annoyed when another player "conceals" his hand, voluntarily or not.

In this situation: if the dealer can retrieve the bettor's cards AND the bettor can call his hand before it is shown - I would not mind giving the pot to the bettor. Seems fair to me.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the dealer put the cards directly on top of the muck, they were easily retrieveable. note that putting cards on top, or even on the bottom of the muck, is a dealer error, they should be mucked so as to make them completely unidentifiable. However, mucking them at all in this exact situation might have been a worse error.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cards were retrievable then I like this line since it's fair and in the best interest of the game.

Not sure any deserves a kick in the nuts this time though /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

Most places where I've seen printed rulebooks, usually have a rule like the floorman may make a decision contrary to the letter of the rules if it's in the best interest of the game. I think that would hold here. So:

1. Should the first guy be penalized for his actions, even tho he obviously wasn't clear about the fact he'd been called?

-He's an inexperienced player. He should be given the benefit of the doubt.

2. Is this a case of "your hand is dead, too bad" ??

-No. If the hand is retrievable, they should be retrieved and, before they're exposed, first guy should be asked "What did you have?" If he says Jack-Ten or whatever and the two cards are Jack-Ten, they should be allowed to play.

3. Should the fact that player one is an obviously inexperienced tourist be taken into consideration?

-Yes. See 1.

4. Who gets the pot?

-Whoever has the best hand. If player 1 is telling the trutn, it would be him. See 2.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The floor asked player 1 what his exact two cards were. The player responded, the floor checked the top two cards, and they were exactly what the player said they were(6s4s). The floor then gave the pot to #1. I thought it was a good ruling. There is no way an inexperienced player like #1 folded a full house on purpose. He learned an important lesson tho, never give up your cards till they push you the money.

al

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

At 2/4 touristy games, and with identifiable cards, these should be pulled from the muck.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel it was clearly a dealer error...

The dealer should have said "Show please"...

the dealer (hopefully) learns how to handle it better the next time.

clearly a dealer error

If the dealer had done a better job,

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop blaming the dealer! He didn't throw away a full house!

He should've said, "Show please"??? What if there were players still to act after Player Two? I'll bet that there were (this is $2-4), and I'll bet that Player 1 threw his cards in when the last of them folded.

He shouldn't be so quick to muck the hands? 100% WRONG. He should muck those hands immediately. What would prefer, that he interview everyone who throws in their cards? "Sir, are you SURE you want to fold?"???

OK, so he put them on top of the muck. This is not a major error, IMO.

If I was assigning blame for this incident, I'd say that Player 1 was 95% responsible; Player 2 was 4%; and the dealer was 1%.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
At 2/4 touristy games, and with identifiable cards, these should be pulled from the muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

and the guy should be told HOLD ON TO YOUR [censored] HAND. JACKASS. by me.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The letter of the law in most rooms is that your hand MAY be declared dead for touching the muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a dinosaur.

Don't you read the posts here at B&M? No one EVER differentiates between "fouled" and "dead" any more.

It's 2005, we are in the WPT Era. America is full of poker rooms, run by people who have never HEARD the terms "fouled", or "MAY be declared dead".

Stop boring us with tales from the 1990's. No one cares about what the rules were back when Wild Bill Hiccup was playing.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so he put them on top of the muck. This is not a major error, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a small error, but one that can be made up to 9 times a hand.