-
PCF is an Amazon Associate and an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Player shows down three card hand at Florida $5k tourney (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BKisback
- Start date
Hand immediately dead, right? Was fouled. It is up to the player to ensure he has exactly 2 cards before significant action occurs.
RocAFella1
Royal Flush
Pineapple?
I didn't know honest........ oops 
His hand is clearly dead.
He claimed he thought he had KK. But I don't see how he can claim that he saw both of his kings without noticing that there was a third card.
He says the ace was on the bottom of the three-card pile. How do you peel back the top two cards without seeing a third underneath?
The only way I can imagine this happening is if the ace was either on top of the other two, or sandwiched in the middle.
If the ace was on top, it is possible (though still improbable) that he peeled back the top two together and only saw the underside of the middle card, a K. Then peeled the bottom card, and saw another king.
Ditto if the ace was in the middle. He could have peeled the top K, then accidentally peeled the bottom two cards together, again only seeing the lower card (the other K) with the ace sticking to the top of it.
Both are still improbable to me, since it is hard for cards to rest perfectly on top of each other.
The totally implausible scenario is that the ace was on the bottom and he did not notice it. In that situation, he would peel the top card, then the next card down, or vice-versa—but for him to see those were kings, he would have to separate the ace on the bottom from the king above it.
I think he was lying. Or really, really inattentive at best. Deserves the penalty. Anyway the rule is the rule. Dead hand.
He claimed he thought he had KK. But I don't see how he can claim that he saw both of his kings without noticing that there was a third card.
He says the ace was on the bottom of the three-card pile. How do you peel back the top two cards without seeing a third underneath?
The only way I can imagine this happening is if the ace was either on top of the other two, or sandwiched in the middle.
If the ace was on top, it is possible (though still improbable) that he peeled back the top two together and only saw the underside of the middle card, a K. Then peeled the bottom card, and saw another king.
Ditto if the ace was in the middle. He could have peeled the top K, then accidentally peeled the bottom two cards together, again only seeing the lower card (the other K) with the ace sticking to the top of it.
Both are still improbable to me, since it is hard for cards to rest perfectly on top of each other.
The totally implausible scenario is that the ace was on the bottom and he did not notice it. In that situation, he would peel the top card, then the next card down, or vice-versa—but for him to see those were kings, he would have to separate the ace on the bottom from the king above it.
I think he was lying. Or really, really inattentive at best. Deserves the penalty. Anyway the rule is the rule. Dead hand.
Re-watched the deal and he was dealt "two cards." The way he peeked at his cards makes sense the ace was in the middle. You can also see that when he peels the cards at show down the ace was in the middle. Had he looked back at his cards he may have realized he had 3 cards.
I honestly don't think he knew until showdown. No way he's peeling one card at a time if he knows he has 3 cards.
RocAFella1
Royal Flush
Gotta clean that hooker juice off the cards...
Its fine that he didn't know. I believe it wasn't an angle, but that hand is still dead.
So why did he say it was on the bottom?
I'd chalk it up to the heat of the moment and being flustered but still don't believe he knew until showdown. I fuck up what I'm saying all the time and that's talking to myself.
joeyshin
Royal Flush
I agree it’s a dead hand but any combination of his cards still wins the hand. Either way it’s dead.
OP
OP
I can't decide if I think he knew he had three cards or not. I've never seen that happen in twenty years of playing poker, albeit part time, recreational. It's unfortunate if he really didn't realize he had three cards, but it's the only ruling they can make.
I’ve seen it happen at least twice, in cardrooms with professional dealers. So it does happen.
I haven’t watched the video, but I can’t believe he knew, because he clearly knew the rule, based on his immediate reaction.
Edit: to clarify, I don’t know if I’ve actually seen a three-card hand make it to showdown; I just remember seeing people get screwed by the rule. Like, bb doesn’t touch their cards until action is on them, and since action had taken place, their hand is dead, they lose their blind.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
You didn't count your cards correctly.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Though about a minute later he's arguing "how is that not a split pot?"
Which is a statement of incredible ignorance regarding rules because there is no provision to "just split the pot" in any ruleset for any circumstance. If the hand is fouled, then all players receive a refund. That's the closest thing I can think up. But fouled means there is an issue with the deck (a duplicated card, for example.), not that someone holds the wrong number of cards.
I just assumed that he was an asshole.
reminds me of a hand I was apart of years ago in a local casino. My friend bets on the river and is waiting for opponents action. Goes to check his cards, and as he is peeling them, one of his jacks literally breaks in half. The card just split in two. Just nuts. Now that is something I will probably never see again. Floor said its a dead hand and I got to laugh at him the rest of the night. (of course, the jacks were good)
RocAFella1
Royal Flush
Yet another way to lose with pocket jacks...
Yeah, that’s fair of course, I think the floor was right, it’s just a rough situation to get stuck in. Given how everything played out, I genuinely don’t think he was trying some angle. Seemed like he actually didn’t realize until showdown.
Kain8
Flush
Only once in my dealing career did I unintentionally, and for the life of me don't know how, dealt 3 hole cards to one player. Thankfully it was discovered preflop with no action yet when he spoke up so it was just a misdeal. We had a good laugh about it at the table commenting on how my dealing seconds is coming along nicely!
It’s all on video…the pitch (looks surprisingly normal), the peel, the showdown.
From pitch it’s obvious that there are two cards exactly stuck together perfectly.
From peel, it looks like he peels both cards at same time and quickly. Worth noting at this point that this is a streamed RFID table, and streamed RFID tables use very stiff RFID cards. They feel weird. They feel super stiff. You get warned not to over squeeze your cards by the room because they are expensive to replace.
From showdown we find out the Ace is the middle card…not the bottom (the one impossible to hide in the peek). Player misspoke. Video is super nice to have here
Starts immediately at the pitch:
From pitch it’s obvious that there are two cards exactly stuck together perfectly.
From peel, it looks like he peels both cards at same time and quickly. Worth noting at this point that this is a streamed RFID table, and streamed RFID tables use very stiff RFID cards. They feel weird. They feel super stiff. You get warned not to over squeeze your cards by the room because they are expensive to replace.
From showdown we find out the Ace is the middle card…not the bottom (the one impossible to hide in the peek). Player misspoke. Video is super nice to have here
Starts immediately at the pitch:
Question, if, for example, I'm on the button, and by the time I've peeled my cards and realized that I've gotten three, the first to act raised, does that raise make my hand dead, or, is that still a redeal?
If there’s been significant action, which there has, your hand is dead. As I said above, be seen it happen to the big blind. Ever since then, I’ve always made sure I only had two cards, even if I’m not peeking until it’s my turn.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Oh yes, I do agree with everyone, he didn't set out to shoot an angle here. But players are responsible for protecting their hands, and knowing you have been dealt the proper number of cards is part of that responsibility.
Last edited:
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
That's actually a really punitive ruling. It's clear what he held and I don't think a broken card materially changes that, nor do I think allowing the hand to stand opens up any avenue for cheating.
If someone finds a thumbnail damage in a card during a hand, it doesn't kill the hand, the dealer just sets the card aside for the hand and orders a new setup from the floor. I don't see why an accidentally torn card matters, it's identified as to who held it. I don't see why killing the hand was at all necessary.
Maybe if as a floorperson I thought he did it on purpose for some reason, I could justify killing the hand. That's a big maybe and doesn't at all sound like the case in your story, though.
ya. makes sense. we never questioned it. He was annoyed. I thought it was hilarious. There might be some rule to the effect of, if you are playing with a damaged or marked card, it's a dead hand. just to protect the integrity of the game I guess.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
