Tourney How would you rule it? (1 Viewer)

[Poker Zombie]

In a recent home-game tournament, I was called in from another room to make a ruling at another table. Here's the situation:
Player A was in the Big Blind and was eliminated. The button passed and played B (formerly under the gun) paid the small blind, and Player C paid the big blind. I know that was wrong - but I wasn't there. The hand was resolved, and the chips pulled. Only then did someone notice the error, as the button passed into Player A's position, and the blinds were blinds again. This is where I (and now you) are called in.

I can see at least 3 ways this could be ruled. I will tell you how I ruled it later, but I want to hear the thoughts of the community first. Also, I wasn't 100% happy with my ruling (that's why I bring it up here). Although it shouldn't matter to your ruling, I will point out that we are now in the money (Player A bubbled), and there are short stacks at the table - who gets the blind next matters.

Tagging @BGinGA , because I believe he knows TDA rules better than anyone on the forum, and we use TDA rules when applicable.

 

[Jonesey07]

Oh, oh! I was there for this!

I'm eagerly awaiting some responses!

 

[saleen121212]

Following.

 

[JustinInMN]

The hand was resolved, and the chips pulled. Only then did someone notice the error, as the button passed into Player A's position, and the blinds were blinds again. This is where I (and now you) are called in.

Just to make sure.

By the hand is "resolved" do you mean played to completion? By "chips pulled" you mean the winner collected the pot?

Assuming so there's no way to take the hand back at this point.

Personally, if the error wasn't pointed out at the outset I don't know if there's any action to take.

If you are 100% sure you could leave the button for one hand and make player B the solo big next hand. That makes sure everyone pays both blinds. Then on the hand after player B gets the button, player C pays the small, and palyer to the left of C pays big, and life goes on as normal. But I would only consider that if we're 100% what happened.

But as for the initial hand with the incorrect blinds, once there's significant action, it plays to conclusion. To rule otherwise is to invalidate a hand based on whether or not players want to announce what they noticed.

 

[ChipEnvy]

Pretty much was Justin said... Play has already continued, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Tell people to pay better attention and move the game along.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Just to make sure.

By the hand is "resolved" do you mean played to completion? By "cops pulled" you mean the winner had the pot?

Assuming so there's no way to take the hand back at this point.

Personally, if the error wasn't pointed out at the outset I don't know if there's any action to take.

The hand following the hand where Player A was eliminated was completed, and the pot was pulled. Reversing that hand could not be undone. Taking no action would either mean that

• the button is in the correct spot, and Players B and C pay the small blind (Player B) and big blind (Player C) twice.
• The big blind moves, and player B pays the small blind, but does not pay a Big Blind this orbit.

Even "no action" requires a ruling.

 

[Forty4]

I think I would make Player B SB w/ button, Player C SB and Player D BB. The next hand order is restored. Player B got a bonus of skipping the SB value (he paid two SB’s unless your players are so bad that the money bubble happened on the 25/75 level).

 

[CraigT78]

I'm in the "it happened and it's over" camp and would let play proceed as it is. Remind the table next time to be more observant.

 

[Forty4]

I think he already inferred that the hand was over, no way to undo it. The question is NOW What.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm in the "it happened and it's over" camp and would let play proceed as it is. Remind the table next time to be more observant.

again, no action requires a ruling

• the button is in the correct spot, and Players B and C pay the small blind (Player B) and big blind (Player C) twice.
• The big blind moves, and player B pays the small blind, but does not pay a Big Blind this orbit.

 

[JustinInMN]

• the button is in the correct spot, and Players B and C pay the small blind (Player B) and big blind (Player C) twice.
• The big blind moves, and player B pays the small blind, but does not pay a Big Blind this orbit.

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for the late edit. Glad we agree the pot after the elimination cannot be changed. That's the most important part of the ruling imo.

If the players are 100% that's what happened I would leave the button and have B pay solo big next hand. Then B gets the button on the hand after that, having paid both blinds, even in reverse order. On that hand then C pays small after paying big two hands ago, and player to the right of C is the BB and life goes on.

If there is a shred of doubt as to what happened then I say the button stays as is.

Remind players the time to speak up about an irregularity is as it happens.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for the late edit. Glad we agree the pot after the elimination cannot be changed. That's the most important part of the ruling imo.

If the players are 100% that's what happened I would leave the button and have B pay solo big next hand. Then B gets the button on the hand after that, having paid both blinds, even in reverse order. On that hand then C pays small after paying big two hands ago, and player to the right of C is the BB and life goes on.

If there is a shred of doubt as to what happened then I say the button stays as is.

Remind players the time to speak up about an irregularity is as it happens.

There are Players D, and E involved as well. All were in agreement with what went down.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think he already inferred that the hand was over, no way to undo it. The question is NOW What.

Wanted to make sure. Some players are unaware of the concept of significant action and might insist the whole hand is invalid. Once there's significant action only a foul deck invalidates the hand.

Glad that didn't appear to be the issue.

If you get this part of the ruling right I think the button placement is rather insignificant by comparison. Make the correction if you are 100% sure, otherwise if there's doubt the button gets misplaced without notice on other occasions I am sure, in the scheme of injustices, this one isn't huge.

 

[Leonard]

My general thoughts would be
- as agreed on by everyone, the hand already played to completion remains unchanged
- the next thing is to make sure nobody missed paying a blind, or pays twice. To this end, I would put the button where it should be (as best I can determine) and have the blinds posted as usual. Anybody who missed a blind on the last hand has to post that as well - Player B in this instance. As I read it, Player B would be on the button but with a big blind posted, Player C would be small blind, and the player to his left would be big blind.

 

[JustinInMN]

To this end, I would put the button where it should be (as best I can determine) and have the blinds posted as usual. Anybody who missed a blind on the last hand has to post that as well - Player B in this instance. As I read it, Player B would be on the button but with a big blind posted, Player C would be small blind, and the player to his left would be big blind.

If you are going to make a correction, it seems to me the only hand missed was the hand where B should have been solo big. So I think that's why you leave the button and just play the solo big hand. Then you already had the "dead button" hand so B gets the button next.

The player order is otherwise the same for both hands, so I don't think moving the button to B would be better than leaving it for one more hand to play the missed solo big hand.

The player to A's right gets to act last twice if the button had moved correctly, so leaving the button maintains that.

 

[Numerobis]

It is also my opinion that the hand that was concluded would not be reversed, even if blinds were not posted correctly.

Now there are 2 schools for posting blinds after an eliminated player was in the blinds:

a) Player B posts BB alone (no SB) => this is how we play. If this is the way you play, my ruling would be that in the next hand Player B pays the BB solo (he has paid SB in the hand that came under scrutiny). The hand after this one Player B would be button

b) Player B posts SB and player C BB (like what happened in the OP), that way Player B gets away with posting the BB. I think this is the newer trend, and Pokerstars does it now, but I am not 100% sure.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It is also my opinion that the hand that was concluded would not be reversed, even if blinds were not posted correctly.

Now there are 2 schools for posting blinds after an eliminated player was in the blinds:

a) Player B posts BB alone (no SB) => this is how we play. If this is the way you play, my ruling would be that in the next hand Player B pays the BB solo (he has paid SB in the hand that came under scrutiny). The hand after this one Player B would be button

b) Player B posts SB and player C BB (like what happened in the OP), that way Player B gets away with posting the BB. I think this is the newer trend, and Pokerstars does it now, but I am not 100% sure.

Version B is typical in cash games, Version A is the TDA method. I know there is another "governing body" of rules (I believe it is led by Marcel Luske). I am not familiar with those rules, though I suspect more European casinos use them.

 

[BGinGA]

Without reading any responses after the OP's scenario and question, and without actually consulting a rule-book:

1. Player A was in the Big Blind and was eliminated.
2. The button passed and player B (formerly under the gun) paid the small blind, and Player C paid the big blind.
3. The hand was resolved, and the chips pulled.
4. Only then did someone notice the error, as the button passed into Player A's position, and the blinds were blinds again.

So, if what I reconstruct is accurate:
The button was originally moved from Player X (the previous button) to Player Y (the former small blind), and instead of having Player B post the Big Blind (with a dead Small Blind since Player A was eliminated), Player B managed to skip his scheduled Big Blind and posted the Small Blind instead (somewhat forcing Player C to post the Big Blind in error).

And now, after that hand, the button has moved from Player Y to the dead seat position (Player A), indicating (at first glance) that Players B and C need to post blinds (again), or the button passes to Player B (who ends up getting to skip posting a Big Blind at all). Yeah, that's a hot mess.... but easily correctable.

Fairest way to rule:
The Button stays at the current dead button position (Player A's empty seat), and Player B posts a Big Blind with no Small Blind posted at all (essentially what should have occurred the hand before). After this hand, the button moves to Player B (With player C posting the SB and player D posting the BB), and all is right with the world -- everybody has paid the correct amount in blinds over the two hands in question, and future order is restored.


I will now go back and read the other responses and pull out the TDA rules.... but I don't think I'll find a better solution.

 

[BGinGA]

Okay, sticking with my original ruling.

And never even considered that the previous hand results should be altered... because with significant action, it would play out to completion even if the error had been noticed during that hand (unless noticed before significant action had occurred, as defined by TDA rules).

 

[RowdyRawhide]

In a recent home-game tournament, I was called in from another room to make a ruling at another table. Here's the situation:
Player A was in the Big Blind and was eliminated. The button passed and played B (formerly under the gun) paid the small blind, and Player C paid the big blind. .

If they didn't notice this ^^^^^

How the hell did they notice this, after the player is gone, why didn't they just move the button to player B and move on (not correct, but at least in my mind it would follow the same train of thought):

Only then did someone notice the error, as the button passed into Player A's position, and the blinds were blinds again. .

IMO this would have been resolution (my ruling when called into the room) to the improper blind posting originally, when player A busted the button was going to sit in the same place for 2 hands anyway. Even though blinds are posted in reverse hands, I think its the only way to handle it

make player B the solo big next hand. That makes sure everyone pays both blinds. Then on the hand after player B gets the button, player C pays the small, and palyer to the left of C pays big, and life goes on as normal.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If they didn't notice this ^^^^^

How the hell did they notice this, after the player is gone, why didn't they just move the button to player B and move on (not correct, but at least in my mind it would follow the same train of thought):

It was noticed because the player that was eliminated got up after being eliminated, then came back to deal for the table. She instinctively knew that after missing 1 hand (the errant hand where here empty seat should have been a dead small) that her now empty seat should be the dead button.

 

[DoubleEagle]

The hand that played with the wrong blinds should stand. The button should now be reset to where it would have been had the mistake not been made. That means there is a Dead Button and player "B" posts a "big blind only" since he has never paid the big blind. This will return the button to its proper place. Each player will then have the button at least once during the round and each player will pay the big blind.

The complaint will be that player "C" will pay the big blind twice and the player to "B's" right, the button, will get the button twice in a row. However, the player's inattentiveness caused the problem. They had the opportunity to speak up and and fix it at the time but they did not. There is no perfect solution, but the players brought this upon themselves.

 

[JustinInMN]

The complaint will be that player "C" will pay the big blind twice

That's not what will happen if you make the proposed correction. Player C paid the big blind on first hand after the bust out. (One hand early.)

Player B would be the solo big blind with the button in the same place. (One hand late)

Then when player B gets the button, player C would be the small blind, which that player had not yet paid. (Back on track.)

and the player to "B's" right, the button, will get the button twice in a row.

This is effectively what happens when using the dead button rule anyway. Whether or not the button is in front of that player or the empty chair to the right that player effectively gets last action twice if the button were moved correctly.

This is why I personally prefer the forward button rule to the dead button rule, but dead button has won the day in tournaments.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I actually have gotten out poker chips and a button to track everything that has been posted.

The ruling I made at the time, was the same as @Leonard . I moved the Big Blind forward, because in my book the Big Blind always moves forward, and the Button falls where it may (including dead). Everyone paid the same amount in that orbit.

Like I said, I wasn't 100% happy with the ruling. I knew that I would get the best insight here.

I think Justin's ruling is the most correct (and reinforced by BG), as it preserves the sanctity of "last to act", and makes sure all players paid a BB and a SB. Thanks for the input. I write up a newsletter each event, and this will be a subtopic in the next issue. I hate that my ruling was less than perfect, but I will always own up to it and point it out so that if the situation happened again, I can make the correct ruling and everyone knows that the ruling would be different the next time around.

The newsletter also gives me a chance to politely point out that the goof should not have happened. Follow the Big Blind, not the Button. The key players here have been playing with us regularly for 6+ years. Paying a small blind without paying a Big Blind should have been a giant red flag, but it was late by this point in the night, and mistakes sometimes happen.

 

[JustinInMN]

I write up a newsletter each event, and this will be a subtopic in the next issue. I hate that my ruling was less than perfect, but I will always own up to it and point it out so that if the situation happened again, I can make the correct ruling and everyone knows that the ruling would be different the next time around.

Don't be too hard, with out the benefit of time to think I might not have come up with this.

If I were in your game and you made the ruling you described I would've said "good enough." You had the right idea to ensure the blinds were equitable.

If you had made the ruling "we don't know for sure, move the button to the next seat" I would've said "good enough." On us to watch. And this was my first opinion before considering a possible correction.

The important thing is you avoided the ridiculous ruling of rolling the hand back (and I know there hosts out there that might have, though they probably aren't pcfers and are probably using interlocking chips, not even dice), and from the sounds of it, none of your players even suggested it, which is a credit to the experience of your player pool. (And a credit to the posters in this thread that we agree on this point as well.)

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I would consider two factors in decision:
1. Total cost of blinds
2. Hands played in position (button or effective button)

Given that A was eliminated in BB, he should be dead button eventually, allowing the preceding player to play "in position" two hands.

I would put dead button on A, and have B post BB alone. The following hand, give BU to B and post blinds accordingly. This results in everyone posting equal blinds and the player preceding A position twice (as it should be). The only difference is that the error hand was potentially 0.5BB heavy and the next hand potentially 0.5BB light.

*Edit: In addition, this eventually brings the BB to the correct position in the correct number of hands.

 

[Gobbs]

Easiest way to say this:

1. Played hand stands even though played out of order.
2. Play the skipped hand (with dead small).
3. Next hand should be what would have been correct for third hand after elimination.

 

[DoubleEagle]

That's not what will happen if you make the proposed correction. Player C paid the big blind on first hand after the bust out. (One hand early.)

Then I misunderstood the OP. Was a little confusing.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Without reading any responses after the OP's scenario and question, and without actually consulting a rule-book:


So, if what I reconstruct is accurate:
The button was originally moved from Player X (the previous button) to Player Y (the former small blind), and instead of having Player B post the Big Blind (with a dead Small Blind since Player A was eliminated), Player B managed to skip his scheduled Big Blind and posted the Small Blind instead (somewhat forcing Player C to post the Big Blind in error).

And now, after that hand, the button has moved from Player Y to the dead seat position (Player A), indicating (at first glance) that Players B and C need to post blinds (again), or the button passes to Player B (who ends up getting to skip posting a Big Blind at all). Yeah, that's a hot mess.... but easily correctable.

Fairest way to rule:
The Button stays at the current dead button position (Player A's empty seat), and Player B posts a Big Blind with no Small Blind posted at all (essentially what should have occurred the hand before). After this hand, the button moves to Player B (With player C posting the SB and player D posting the BB), and all is right with the world -- everybody has paid the correct amount in blinds over the two hands in question, and future order is restored.


I will now go back and read the other responses and pull out the TDA rules.... but I don't think I'll find a better solution.

I mis-interpreted the OP before my previous post.

@BGinGA was spot on. I posted the hand in the TDA forum and this is exactly what should have been ruled.

This is my explanation of what happened that I posted on the TDA forum:

Here's what happened. Seat positions shown are for the start of Hand 1.

Seat 1: Button
Seat 2: Small Blind
Seat 3: Big Blind
Seat 4: UTG
Seat 5: UTG +1

1. At the conclusion of Hand 1, the player in Seat 3 (big blind) was eliminated.
2. At the start of the Hand 2, the button was moved to Seat 2, with Seat 4 posting the small blind and Seat 5 posting the big blind (whoops!).
4. At the conclusion on Hand 2, the button was moved to Seat 3 as a dead button, with Seat 4 and Seat 5 now realizing they will need to post the small and big blinds two times in a row.

What is the correct ruling to resolve this problem?

From the TDA forum:

Sometimes, common poker rules are not found in the TDA Rules. In some cases, the relevant rule can be found in Roberts Rules of Poker (RRoP).

RRoP Version 11
IRREGULARITIES
1. In button games, if it is discovered that the button was placed incorrectly on the previous hand, the button and blinds will be corrected for the new hand in a manner that gives every player one chance for each position on the round (if possible).

So, to correct the error made in hand #2, in hand #3, the dead button would be seat #3 and seat #4 would be the BB, and there would be no SB. In hand #4, the button would move to seat #4, seat #5 would be SB, and seat #6 would be BB.

 

[JustinInMN]

RRoP Version 11
IRREGULARITIES
1. In button games, if it is discovered that the button was placed incorrectly on the previous hand, the button and blinds will be corrected for the new hand in a manner that gives every player one chance for each position on the round (if possible)

Thanks this was the language I was trying to remember. I guess it's not actually in TDA.