How do you rule? (2 Viewers)

[ArielVer18]

didn't read anyone else's response. Player 1 killed his own hand, but he can get his $300 bet back. Villain takes the rest of the pot.

 

[CraigT78]

Not my preferred ruling, but theoretically by the book:

After all action is completed, player #1 is discovered to have an invalid hand (incorrect number of cards), which is ruled dead.

Pay attention, bro.


It's the only possible ruling that reinforces a no-angling policy. Otherwise it opens the very real possibility of a player hiding hole card(s) and claiming the river card(s) were erroneously dealt from his hand (if he loses), or saying nothing and collecting the pot (if he wins).


Edit: Is this from @MrCatPants's game?

So what would be your ruling if this was to occur at your game?

 

[CraigT78]

Need more info.

How many hole cards were supposed to be in P1's hand? How many cards were actually in P1's hand when he 'discovered his error'? How many cards were remaining in the deck stub? Were burn cards being used? If so, from where was the river burn card dealt? Were there any witnesses who saw him deal from his hand? Was alcohol involved?

5 hole cards.

3 cards left in his hand.

~5-7 stub cards left. (7 handed, draws complete, double board to the turn)

No burns in circus games

No witnesses to the actual river placement

No alcohol for this player/dealer

 

[BGinGA]

So what would be your ruling if this was to occur at your game?

5 hole cards.

3 cards left in his hand.

~5-7 stub cards left. (7 handed, draws complete, double board to the turn)

No burns in circus games

No witnesses to the actual river placement

No alcohol for this player/dealer

Our games are pretty by-the-book, so my initial ruling would be dealer's fouled hand is dead and pot is awarded to villain.

But I would allow the two involved players to compromise on a different agreed-upon solution (so long as it didn't harm the other players with $$ in the pot). Any solution other than "dealer's fouled hand is dead" requires agreement by both players and the decision-maker.

So with that in mind (along with your additional info), and assuming that neither player's unseen hole cards have yet been revealed:
- no chopping of pot allowed
- retrieval of dealt river cards allowed
- retrieval or redistribution of river bets allowed
- re-dealing of river cards allowed

A reasonable solution (to me) in a 'friendly' game would be:
1) river bets are returned,
2) erroneously-dealt river cards are returned,
3) river cards are dealt from deck stub,
4) new river action is completed.

Performing just the first two items and then awarding the pot based on no river cards or action would also be reasonable imo.

Villain is in the driver's seat, and essentially gets to decide dealer's fate. Without villain's agreement otherwise, he wins the pot outright.

 

[surfik]

Tought cookie.....

Player was also a dealer

Not sure how WSOP or EPT official would rule, but with my social circle i would pull back 200$ raise, removed all blinds and bets made by other players if possible and award the rest of the Villain

 

[CraigT78]

Our games are pretty by-the-book, so my initial ruling would be dealer's fouled hand is dead and pot is awarded to villain.

But I would allow the two involved players to compromise on a different agreed-upon solution (so long as it didn't harm the other players with $$ in the pot). Any solution other than "dealer's fouled hand is dead" requires agreement by both players and the decision-maker.

So with that in mind (along with your additional info), and assuming that neither player's unseen hole cards have yet been revealed:
- no chopping of pot allowed
- retrieval of dealt river cards allowed
- retrieval or redistribution of river bets allowed
- re-dealing of river cards allowed

A reasonable solution (to me) in a 'friendly' game would be:
1) river bets are returned,
2) erroneously-dealt river cards are returned,
3) river cards are dealt from deck stub,
4) new river action is completed.

Performing just the first two items and then awarding the pot based on no river cards or action would also be reasonable imo.

Villain is in the driver's seat, and essentially gets to decide dealer's fate. Without villain's agreement otherwise, he wins the pot outright.

Got it.

Not a "friendly game" resolution as I would have liked, but fair all around.

It was after this error that we realized we weren't playing in a "friendly game" rather a semi public game like @WedgeRock had mentioned earlier.

 

[JustinInMN]

One of the guys recently started burning in between streets for 7 stud games ("because that's how they do it in vegas") - we've never done that before but if it's on his deal... ::shrug::

The proper time to burn a card is always after any betting round. The idea being to reduce advantage of marking the backs of cards. You absolutely should burn cards in all forms after every betting round. Your friend is actually bringing the right idea. Also @Taghkanic 's point below is a very important secondary consideration.

I get it… Except that burns here could have prevented errors like this, and others. Burns help not just with security, but also slow things down enough to help avoid premature turns/rivers, etc.

Even if you don't think any players would do mark the deck, the benefits of burning are good for every game. It not only demonstrates care to keep exploits out of the game in addition to trying to cut down on premature dealing or other errors such as what happened in this thread.

I typically have two different card protectors in front of me - one for my cards and one for the stub when I'm dealing, helps me keep track sometimes (muck pile is up next to the board or off to the side a bit)...

I do think the best approach is cap your own hand. Burns under the pot, muck between yourself and the pot just to avoid any confusion.

No alcohol involved, simply an honest mistake, no angle, no burn because we don't burn in circus games.

As much as I am pro burn, and think burns slowing the action down could have at least helped this situation, I understand that if players are comfortable with no-burns in circus games, that can be understood.

One more question? Are cut cards in use? That could have been another indicator that he wasn't dealing from the stub.

But really, the initial issue is the dealer did not cap his own hand. That prevents everything.

 

[JustinInMN]

A reasonable solution (to me) in a 'friendly' game would be:
1) river bets are returned,
2) erroneously-dealt river cards are returned,
3) river cards are dealt from deck stub,
4) new river action is completed.

I do very much agree with this.

I think in general, most errors that can be "corrected" in some form should be in a friendly game, especially if the situation seems to be a one-off. If the proper cards are identifiable with some confidence. Set everything back and do it right. After the fact, use it as a teaching moment, the risks involved due to the error, and how alternate, more difficult rulings could be applied in different situations.

If someone is repeating mistakes, then I would get more concerned that someone is attempting an exploit and probably off the invite list.

All that said, while we agree on the roll-back approach, I don't have a problem with the decision that was made either. Protecting your hand should be treated with importance as soon as anyone learns poker, and it's fair that there are consequences for failing to do so.

 

[CraigT78]

The proper time to burn a card is always after any betting round. The idea being to reduce advantage of marking the backs of cards. You absolutely should burn cards in all forms after every betting round. Your friend is actually bringing the right idea. Also @Taghkanic 's point below is a very important secondary consideration.


Even if you don't think any players would do mark the deck, the benefits of burning are good for every game. It not only demonstrates care to keep exploits out of the game in addition to trying to cut down on premature dealing or other errors such as what happened in this thread.


I do think the best approach is cap your own hand. Burns under the pot, muck between yourself and the pot just to avoid any confusion.


As much as I am pro burn, and think burns slowing the action down could have at least helped this situation, I understand that if players are comfortable with no-burns in circus games, that can be understood.

One more question? Are cut cards in use? That could have been another indicator that he wasn't dealing from the stub.

But really, the initial issue is the dealer did not cap his own hand. That prevents everything.

Yes, we use cut cards.

This situation was an outlier.

The player in question is skilled, frequently deals for the table and manages the pot etc.

I believe the issue here was playing in the seat with a cutout, leaving little room for his hand, his massive stack, the muck pile and the stub. Add in a few players who were probably not following the action correctly and it added up to the perfect storm to allow the mistake.

I advocated for rolling back the action and the rivers but was quickly overruled by a member of the lodge (where the game was held) so I was curious to see how others would have handled it had it been their game.

 

[JustinInMN]

I believe the issue here was playing in the seat with a cutout, leaving little room for his hand, his massive stack, the muck pile and the stub. Add in a few players who were probably not following the action correctly and it added up to the perfect storm to allow the mistake.

Ah. FWIW, I am not at all a fan of the seat cutout. Even if the dealer is not playing. My one experience at such a table was a couple years ago at the Bicycle Casino. With the dealer in the cutout, I was sitting in the seat to the dealer's left. It's very difficult to follow the action from the two players before me with the dealer in the way. My natural line of sight to the player on the dealer's right is basically through the dealer's back. Found it very hard to follow chips.

I advocated for rolling back the action and the rivers but was quickly overruled by a member of the lodge (where the game was held) so I was curious to see how others would have handled it had it been their game.

I would have 100% done the same as you. I see this as something that can be corrected and should be in a friendly game.

But I can understand the ruling that was made and why from a hand protection standpoint. Still this is fine line to navigate deciding how punitive against dealers, especially decent ones, for errors in self-dealt games. Sooner or later, no one will want to deal if it's "too risky." The couple "fire the dealer" or "one mistake rule" comments on here are a bridge too far and a recipe for killing games.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Since there are no common rules for player-dealer games, the only rule I could fall back on would be TDA rule 1:

"The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules."

The player-dealer was trying to do a solid for the table by dealing. If one could say that his dealing was in the best interest of the game, then I would prefer the ruling that kept him dealing without harming anyone else (best interest & fairness) thus, rollback and deal the correct rivers.

However, feet to the fire, I can't say the club's ruling was "wrong" - just harsher than required, unless the dealer wasn't actually helping the game.

I personally prefer dealer-players in rotating deal games, or a dedicated dealer, but not a dedicated player-dealer.

 

[JustinInMN]

The player-dealer was trying to do a solid for the table by dealing. If one could say that his dealing was in the best interest of the game, then I would prefer the ruling that kept him dealing without harming anyone else (best interest & fairness) thus, rollback and deal the correct rivers.

However, feet to the fire, I can't say the club's ruling was "wrong" - just harsher than required, unless the dealer wasn't actually helping the game.

I personally prefer dealer-players in rotating deal games, or a dedicated dealer, but not a dedicated player-dealer.

Very much agreed on all counts. "Harsher than required" is a good descriptor as is the acknowledgement that the ruling isn't "wrong."

This ruling is just inferior to the solution on which we would agree.

 

[bergs]

I’d recommend that dealer and player engage in ritual 1:1 combat and let the Gods decide their fate, as our forefathers did and their forefathers before them.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

Set the scene.

Player #1 is dealing for the table.

This is the first mistake. Unless the rest of the table is in unanimous agreement with this, I wouldn't allow a player to all-time deal.

My ruling would be that the hand is dead, and all bets would stand. If the two players agreed on something else, that is entirely between them. If I was in villain's position and had no reason to believe there was foul play involved, I would likely work something out where at least river bets were returned.

If so, there can be no betting after the muck.

The dealer tried to do everyone a solid by dealing for the table, made a mistake. I'm fine with a by-the-book ruling (even though this dealer may not have been angle-shooting, the next one may -- this is a semi-public game, not a home game.)

So what's the rationale for the $100 call standing but the $300 river being returned? They were both premised on the same incorrect river cards.



His hand became invalid (and dead) as soon as the first "river" was dealt, certainly before the bet and raise.

Then we both owe some players in a crazy pineapple game some money back.

 

[MrRossKeys]

The proper time to burn a card is always after any betting round. The idea being to reduce advantage of marking the backs of cards. You absolutely should burn cards in all forms after every betting round. Your friend is actually bringing the right idea. Also @Taghkanic 's point below is a very important secondary consideration.

Maybe I'm trippin, but wasn't it shared that the game was 5 cards per player, 8 players, double board? That would mean 40 cards to players with 10 cards on the board by the river leaving no opportunity for burn cards.

Even if this isn't exactly the case in this situation, there are situations where burn cards aren't possible with the type of game and number of players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Maybe I'm trippin, but wasn't it shared that the game was 5 cards per player, 8 players, double board? That would mean 40 cards to players with 10 cards on the board by the river leaving no opportunity for burn cards.

Even if this isn't exactly the case in this situation, there are situations where burn cards aren't possible with the type of game and number of players.

When there are so many cards in play that you cannot burn anymore, you aren't really playing poker anymore. It's more of a free-for-all. It can still be fun... with the right people, but it's not the usual.

Just like that party where the host told you to put your car keys in a bowl...

 

[chippitydoodah]

When there are so many cards in play that you cannot burn anymore, you aren't really playing poker anymore. It's more of a free-for-all. It can still be fun... with the right people, but it's not the usual.

Just like that party where the host told you to put your car keys in a bowl...

Craig loves to gambol

 

[JustinInMN]

Even if this isn't exactly the case in this situation, there are situations where burn cards aren't possible with the type of game and number of players.

You can always pick up the burns and reshuffle in situations when the deck is exhausted. though admittedly in games without drawing where the number of cards is fixed, then I get that you would end up doing this 100% of the time in certain situations.

 

[CraigT78]

Craig loves to gambol

#FACTS

 

[Samuel]

I’d recommend that dealer and player engage in ritual 1:1 combat and let the Gods decide their fate, as our forefathers did and their forefathers before them.

Who gets to run the action on the fight?

 

[TheOffalo]

#FACTS

You down with OPP?

 

[CraigT78]

You down with OPP?

Yeah you know me