|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2-4 decision
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
Would this fall into the "if they're easily retrievable" category?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
[ 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. ~ Rick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
[ 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
Split the pot. Teach the bettor to pay more attention and the caller to not be a nit.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Result of decision
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2-4 decision
[ 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. |
|
|