Commerce floor ruling
 

20/40 limit. I'm in late position against 2 opponents, a man in EP and a woman in MP.

The flop comes 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. They both check, I bet, they both call.

Turn is 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. It gets checked around.

River is 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. It gets checked around.

EP guy tosses his hand face up into the middle of the table. I see two paint cards. MP woman turns up AQ. I table A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and hold it in front of me. Dealer mucks EP's face cards, MP's AQ, and pushes the pot to me.

As I'm scooping the pot towards my stack (I keep my chips stacked in neat pyramid-fashion, so the pot is still scattered around the pyramid gathering and waiting to be stacked), 3 players at the table plus the EP guy start to object. They say EP had Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] for a flush. No cards are face up on the table except my AK (which hasn't been mucked yet by the dealer) and the board cards. The dealer thinks and nods, agreeing that the EP hand he mucked was indeed a flush. I'm wondering what the hell -- the pot is in front of me and I have the only live hand.

So I call the floor. I tell him what happened, and he asks if the AK hand is mine. Dealer says yes. Then the other players say EP had the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Floorman asks the dealer if this is true, dealer says yes. Floorman asks the other players if they all saw it, and 3 or 4 of them say yes, he had a flush. Floorman turns to me and says, "Then sir, I have to award him the pot if he had the flush."

The dealer then starts digging around in the muck to turn up cards. Eventually he finds the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] then digs around turning up a few more before finding the J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. This satisfies the floor completely, and I take the pile and shove it over to EP myself.

I don't doubt that he had the flush -- even though I never saw it, I'm sure the other players wouldn't all lie at once. But why did the river check through? Also, shouldn't EP be punished for releasing his hand before getting awarded the pot? The rules state that my hand, face up, is the only live one on the board and thus should be the winner. If I'm a nit, I probably complain more -- but since I figured the guy with the flush deserved the pot, I didn't argue any more. Should I have?

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

i probably would have done what you did. going by what people are saying, he probably held those cards and had the flush, so i would give up the pot.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

If both the dealer and half of the players at the table say that he had the flush, then the floor made the right call. The rule of thumb is that everything possible should be done to award the pot to the winning hand.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

that many ppl arent gonna lie about seeing the flush, so i wouldnt worry about it, but anywhere ive played on the east coast say that you have the winning hand because its the only live hand still. theyre gonna say he shouldve protected his cards. he didnt announce the flush, so at a quick glance of the cards, how was anyone supposed to know?

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm scooping the pot towards my stack (I keep my chips stacked in neat pyramid-fashion, so the pot is still scattered around the pyramid gathering and waiting to be stacked), 3 players at the table plus the EP guy start to object. They say EP had Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] for a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like the "cards spoke" and at least half the table was listening. Give the man his money.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
The rules state that my hand, face up, is the only live one on the board and thus should be the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rules make no reference to your hand.

Whenever possible the player with the best hand gets the pot.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, shouldn't EP be punished for releasing his hand before getting awarded the pot? The rules state that my hand, face up, is the only live one on the board and thus should be the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

EP didn't muck his hand, he tabled it. Cardspeak.

[ QUOTE ]
But why did the river check through?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was afraid of the FH. Yes, some people are that weak.

b

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
i probably would have done what you did. going by what people are saying, he probably held those cards and had the flush, so i would give up the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO WAY DARREN WHAT ARE YOU NUTS! YOU GOTTA TAKE EVERY POT YOU CAN. IF I WERE THE OP I WOULD HAVE DOVE OVER THE TABLE AND SCRAMBLED THE MUCK UP REAL GOOD, THEN BERATED THE DEALER AND THE OTHER PLAYER FOR MESSING WITH ME.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

Perfect all the way around. (except for the guy checking his flush and the dealer pushing the pot to the wrong hand).

Floor - A
You - A
Other Players - A
Dealer - C

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

If you don't doubt EP had the flush (and it's confirmed by most of the table) then everything is copacetic. But sometimes there is significant doubt, and a unscrupulous stronger player might like to see a pot that's rightfully yours (a strong player) go to another player who is a fish. When there is this sort of doubt and lack of multiple confirmations ask for a camera check or further verification and don't be afraid to be a pest.

Also keep in mind not to let winning hands out of your grasp - too many dealers are working on about two hours sleep (or sleepwalking through the job).

~ Rick

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

PJ,

He tabled the winning hand. He should get the pot. What is your question?

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
PJ,

He tabled the winning hand. He should get the pot. What is your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard dozens of stories of guys tabling the winning hand, but then one of their cards slowly slips off the table and hits the ground. The hand is declared dead and someone else gets the pot. This guy's hand was tabled, but released, then mucked by the dealer and mixed into a bunch of other face down cards. When a guy's pocket aces accidentally slide off the table, I don't think he should have to forfeit the pot either -- but them's the rules.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard dozens of stories of guys tabling the winning hand, but then one of their cards slowly slips off the table and hits the ground. The hand is declared dead

[/ QUOTE ]

These hands all took place in places where they are unfamiliar with the rules and procedures of poker or with inexperienced floorstaff or both.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

Why is it you or others want to bend the rules to your own satisfaction. The most basic of rules in 99% of poker rooms is "CARDS SPEAK". If they were tabled, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Dont be a jaggoff....dont whine how I think I should get the pot or a portion or anything the such. This is routine. Things happen. Dealer misssed it but the cards spoke and the table saw it. The pot was awarded accordingly.

Yes you are being a nit. But alas you also did push the pot to the winner. As should be. just dont add any "but" to it afterwards. move on to the next hand.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

Perhaps the most basic rule of making decisions is that you want the best hand to win the pot, and you don't want the best hand to LOSE the pot on a technicality.

If the guy clearly had a flush, and his hand was accidentally misread, then mucked, he should get the pot anyway.

al

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

I fully understand why people want to give the winning hand the pot. The problem here is that there will always be doubt what the winning hand is. If I didn't specifically see it there is no way I am going to trust other players. The dealer obviously didn't know and shouldn't be listened to.

I say old time Vegas approach. So If all the players agree that the player with the mucked hand had the flush, the floor should count the pot, award it to the OP, and pay the player with the mucked hand the same amount, taking the pot out of the dealer's pay. That is the old school Las Vegas approach, and makes dealers more apprecitive of those $.50 tips. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Harsh, yes, but the dealers can't make horrible errors like mucking the winning hand. It will always lead to at least one or two bitter customers. In a huge game the dealers may not be able to afford a big pot, but then the house should go to the tape.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

I think the floor made a terrible ruling.

As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw. Because from your point of view, they could all be partners. I feel very strongly that the winning hand has to be readily available for all (most importantly the losing hands) to see. If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over.

Now if his hand had been accidentally turned over and everyone (including you) agrees which cards they are. And even if it accidentally touches the muck, the pot should then be rewarded to him.

But if there is no way for YOU to acertain for certain which cards are this, then his hand should be dead.

Poker is not a game which can rely on trusting people's words as to what they have. You have to be able to see his hand.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot.

Edit to add:

[ QUOTE ]
If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over.

[/ QUOTE ]

The previous hand is over when the cards are riffled for the next hand.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

Aren't you aware of the muck rule? Next time grab his cards before he shows them and throw them into the muck,(the 'ol chuck 'n' muck) that way you win anyway.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]

By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks.

SpaceAce

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

As far back as I remember, Commerce always awards pots in this manner. If there is confusion, they ask the dealer what happened, and then they ask the players.

Unfortunately while most Commerce dealers are very responsible and professional, there are a few true idiots who have no business being card dealers. One of these was driven to tears a few years ago dealing omaha. Imagine a novice, incompetent dealer having to deal with the low limit Commerce omaha nits.

So monumental mistakes are pretty common.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the floor made a terrible ruling.

As a matter of principle, the awarding of a pot cannot be based on what some people say they saw. Because from your point of view, they could all be partners. I feel very strongly that the winning hand has to be readily available for all (most importantly the losing hands) to see. If his hand is in the muck, and the pot has been pushed to you, then the hand should have been declared over.

Now if his hand had been accidentally turned over and everyone (including you) agrees which cards they are. And even if it accidentally touches the muck, the pot should then be rewarded to him.

But if there is no way for YOU to acertain for certain which cards are this, then his hand should be dead.

Poker is not a game which can rely on trusting people's words as to what they have. You have to be able to see his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

And what would have happened if I had stacked the pot and mixed it into my chips before the floor made a decision? Do they go up, look at the tape, and come tell me how many chips I have to take out of my stack and give to the EP guy?

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what would have happened if I had stacked the pot and mixed it into my chips before the floor made a decision? Do they go up, look at the tape, and come tell me how many chips I have to take out of my stack and give to the EP guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

This happend to me 4-5 years ago in a game. I was very tired, sitting in the 2 seat, opponent was in the 9 (10 handed). Both hands were shown and I was awarded the pot. I couldnt see the other guys hand, it was mucked, when 2 players said "hey didnt he have XXXXX?" details dont matter what the hand was. They called the floor, I told him I had no clue what the other hand was. I had already stacked my chips.

The floor asked me if I had any trouble with him looking it over on the tape and just going with his results. Of course I didnt have any issue with that. He returned 10 minutes later, confirmed the other guy won and told me the amount which I gladly counted out and pushed. They bought my dinner of the main menu anything I wanted. It was good for the game. naturally gave me tons of respect from the floor too. Which was to my benefit as I made a living in that room playing.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks.

SpaceAce

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room.

It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot.

The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong.

b

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks.

SpaceAce

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room.

It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot.

The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

great post

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

At Commerce, if this happens most of the floor people will attempt to recreate the action thereby figuring how much should be in the pot. I have never seen them go to the tape for anything other than a jackpot.

[ QUOTE ]
And what would have happened if I had stacked the pot and mixed it into my chips before the floor made a decision? Do they go up, look at the tape, and come tell me how many chips I have to take out of my stack and give to the EP guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By rule if at least 3 players can confirm what the player said he had he wins the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know. I'll never lose another hand I play, I'll just make sure to be there with friends. This rule sucks.

SpaceAce

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to table your hand first. Good luck trying to exploit it. Not to mention, try it a couple times and see how much weight your word will carry with anyone on the table or in the room.

It's a great rule because it helps the table self police itself. If it is really disputeable, call the floor and look at the camera. In the OPs instance, I doubt the camera was needed. The only thing you have to look out for are angleshooters and buds that may have other interests other than integrity of the game. Which tend to stick out quite a bit on tables. The greater majority of players will be honest when they are fighting for someone to be awarded the pot.

The assumption that everyone is shooting every angle and trying for every edge on your table is just flat out wrong.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it generally works well enough in practice. But I think that rules should be set up such that there are no loop holes to be exploited.

Imagine a scenario where you're playing a big no limit game and you lose a pot because 3 players you don't know say they saw something. Now these guys could all be friends and are just waiting for the one chance to steal that 20K pot they otherwise wouldn't have got. Once is enough is this case. And even if they were honest, the person whose pot was taken away will still have doubts and it will haunt and bug him for a long time.

I think the loser being able to see the winner's hand is such a fundamental principle in poker (and rightly so) that these rules of '3 people' or whatever deciding who has the winner is just plain bad and dangerous.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

Good points. The players, as well as the dealer, should be responsible for "policing" the game. I've seen several players point out the winning hand when the dealer had made a mistake. A dealer, especially one who is not a hold 'em player, might have trouble reading the winning hand. I see nothing wrong with players pointing out which tabled hand had won the pot.

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what would have happened if I had stacked the pot and mixed it into my chips before the floor made a decision? Do they go up, look at the tape, and come tell me how many chips I have to take out of my stack and give to the EP guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally if there is uncertainty regarding who gets the pot or the amount of the pot that requires review of the tape, a good floor will impound the approximate amount of the pot, usually by placing the approximation in chip rack between the dealer and the drop hole. This prevents the player who wrongfully won the pot from leaving the table with the chips or losing the chips during the review (which takes about ten to fifteen minutes).

~ Rick

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good points. The players, as well as the dealer, should be responsible for "policing" the game. I've seen several players point out the winning hand when the dealer had made a mistake. A dealer, especially one who is not a hold 'em player, might have trouble reading the winning hand. I see nothing wrong with players pointing out which tabled hand had won the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

NL game Saturday at Hollywood Park. On the river the board is T-9-8-6-8 rainbow. Seat five had been leading all the way and paid off a medium-size river raise from seat eight, obviously in frustration. Seat eight shows J9. Seat five momentarily tables QQ face up and quickly tosses it toward the muck in disgust. The dealer intercepts the queens and calmly announces "two pair, queens and eights". I'm watching seat five, it was clear from the expression on his face he thought he lost to trip eights or worse. He pulls in the pot and obsequiously slides the dealer several blue chips.

Many dealers do a great job.

~ Rick

Re: Commerce floor ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a scenario where you're playing a big no limit game and you lose a pot because 3 players you don't know say they saw something. Now these guys could all be friends and are just waiting for the one chance to steal that 20K pot they otherwise wouldn't have got. Once is enough is this case. And even if they were honest, the person whose pot was taken away will still have doubts and it will haunt and bug him for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously in this scenario where you don't know anyone or see any signs that they are str8 up players, or contrary, on top of the fact that it's $20k you'd call the floor and go into it a little more extensively. If any doubt, you have every right to call the floor and ask for the cameras to verify it. In fact, I'd recommend that and any player playing that high of a limit would/should fully understand it.

Btw...When you play live for awhile, it's not hard to peg angleshooters and buds who are acting in each others interest.

b