 |
|
The Hendon Mob
|
|
|
|
24 Jun 2010
|
|
|
| |
 |
This question was sent to us by Grant after an
incident at the BlackBeltPoker live event at The
Victoria Casino in London. After being called down
all the way to the river, the other player rapidly
throws his cards away and says good call. The dealer
mucks these and pushes me the pot and I push my cards
over the line face down. Note, I did NOT muck them, merely
pushed them out over the line to clear space for the new
chips, had I been asked to I would have opened the hand.
The dealer then pulls my hand into the muck and I go about
building my new stack. No sooner had they been mucked
than the other player pipes up that the pot should be split as
no winning hand was shown. Floor was called and the pot
split (I even lost the extra smallest chip as I had position).
The dealer’s exact words were "I mucked the winning hand"
After speaking with some of the event organisers they
agreed it was very close but probably correct, but shouldn't
consideration be given to the fact that he clearly
surrendered the pot physically and verbally, the dealer had
pushed the pot to me and the dealer rather than player
mucked the hand? Also the muck and deck had not been
shuffled together and had the floor asked I could have
identified my cards for them to be reclaimed from the muck
and showdown. |
MATT SAVAGE
Pretty ridiculous ruling in my opinion, the player had the
last live hand and should be awarded the whole pot. I
would be in support of the TDA coming up with a
standardized rule that make a wining hand shown in
called pots but as of now it does not exist.
THOMAS KREMSER
This decision is not understandable to me at all. I accept
the rule that the winning hand has to be shown but if this
doesn’t happen than it would never result that the player
will lose part of the pot. Grant was the last player that had
cards so he is entitled to win the pot. Grant released his
cards once the dealer pushed the pot to him. If the house
rule is like this thEn the dealer should be responsible to
turn over the cards of the winning hand and not the
player. It is the same like in an all-in situation in a
tournament where all hands that are involved in a
showdown have to be shown – it is also the dealer’s
responsibility to open all cards and to protect the muck.
DAVE SIMPSON
We also operate a rule where the winning hand must be
shown at showdown. Two live valid cards must be shown.
It is at all times the player’s responsibility to protect his
cards and reveal his hand to be entitled to claim any pot.
The cards, once mucked are no longer retrievable and
since no one was able to claim the pot it would be a dead
pot to be played for by only the players remaining at
showdown in the previous hand. Only with a 'last man
standing' rule could he have been awarded the pot.
JEFF LEIGH
I cannot understand this ruling either. It was a simple
scenario that a player concedes the pot; the dealer asks the
remaining player to open his cards to claim the pot, he
shows his cards the dealer passes the pot to him simple
eh? This must have been an inexperienced dealer and a
poor decision. Of course as a rule of thumb cards have to
be shown to ensure collusion isn't taking place, but dealer
error made a simple situation something else.
The other significant point was of course the decision
by the inspector to split the pot. If the situation is exactly
what the aggrieved party says it was (in many instances
there are variations of the story when you arrive at the table)
and for the purposes of answering this honestly let's accept
they were then the player who said “you win" had already
conceded the pot by his verbal declaration; the other player
should show his cards (to offset any collusion possibility)
but to then try and claim the pot is as low as you can get. If
he says nothing then the other player would have held on to
his hand as a matter of course. I do not condone the
decision made or defend it, plain and simple it was wrong.
JACK EFFEL
In this situation, the dealer was originally correct to push
the pot to the last player with a live hand since no cards
were shown down. The dealer could not have known if
he/she mucked the winning hand, because the winning
hand was never shown. Therefore, the last player to muck
with a "called" hand should receive the pot. At no time
should this pot have been split based off the information
given. Note: at the WSOP, a called hand must be shown by
either the bettor or the caller to receive the pot.
NICOLAS FRAIOLI
Even if that club has a rule that a winning hand must be
shown I won’t make a split pot. That is a particular case.
After being called the player surrendered the pot by
mucking his hand. There is no doubt that the other player
won the pot. Dealer should have opened the winning
hand instead of mucking it after giving the chips. I would
give the pot to the last player who still has cards and warn
him that he should protect his hand and tell the dealer
next time he must open the winning hand.
TAB DUCHATEAU
I don't see this as a very tough decision. Clearly the player
that folded his hand and said good hand was conceding the
pot. Clearly the player that was being pushed the pot was the
last player with a hand and should receive the pot. If it was
mandatory for that player to show his hand, the dealer
should or could have turned the hand up or told the player
that the hand must be shown before the pot would be
awarded. Award the pot to Grant in the interest of fairness.
MOB VERDICT
Our TDs are in almost total agreement that the pot should
have been awarded to the player to whom the dealer
originally pushed the pot and it will not surprise anyone
that we feel the same way. The called player has clearly
shot an angle by asking for a ruling based on the fact that
a hand should be shown to claim a pot. The TD at the time
appears to have ruled on this issue alone, but it is in fact a
secondary concern. The result is a decision that accords
neither with natural justice or the rules of the game.
The moment the called player mucked his hand the
issue of who should get the pot was settled.
Most of the TDs refer to the very important
principle that the last player with a live hand always
gets the pot. This holds true even in situations where a
player has been passed a pot and mucks his hand in
good faith not realizing an opponent still has cards, or
where the dealer pulls in an unprotected hand. In this
case the right player was 'last man standing' so what is
technically correct is also patently fair.
It should be noted that the 'line' - if it means
anything at all - is relevant to betting only, and pushing
a hand over it does not necessarily render the cards
dead or irretrievable. Therefore even if you were ruling
purely on the basis of whether Grant had mucked his
hand you would have to say that he had not.
As Thomas says, the dealer had the opportunity to
ensure that the winning hand was shown if this was the
house rule. Although as Dave says players need to
protect their hands, that is not relevant in this case
because even if Grant's hand was mucked it was
mucked last and only after - as Tab points out - the
bettor had quite clearly conceded the pot. If having
verbally conceded he had held onto his cards there
would have been an issue to resolve, but having
mucked first his subsequent stroke would never
normally succeed.
A TD can only rule on the question put before them
and it seems likely that the situation was not as clearly
described as it is here. Perhaps he gained the impression
that the hands had been simultaneously mucked.
We would allow the called player to keep the pot.
We would remind the players that winning hands must
be shown and remind the dealer that he should have
turned over the hand or asked the player to do so. We
would also have issued a warning to the player who
called for the ruling, with any further angle-shooting
resulting in a likely penalty.
This article first appeared on The Hendon Mob website.
|
|
|
|
|
