Cash Game How would you rule on this PLO8 situation? (1 Viewer)

[MrCatPants]

First off, not my game to host, I didn't make the ruling, and I wasn't in the hand, so you won't hurt my feelings with your thoughts here.

PLO8 proceeds as usual to the river, and betting getting pretty high. 3 players to showdown, with a side pot only available to player 1 and player 3.

Player 1 announces, "I have a wheel" and shows his cards, showing the A3 that makes the wheel. Player 2 shows a boat for a high, no low. Player 3, who is a little toasty, flips his cards and says "I have a wheel, too" but his cards only show an A4, which doesn't complete the wheel - the 3 was necessary. So dealer asks where the wheel is, where's his 3? Player 3 looks at his cards, says I can't believe I did this, dang it, so dealer says the Player 1 scoops the side, and splits the main with player 2.

After the Player 1 has already added the 25s and 5s to his stack, and just has the 1s remaining to incorporate, the Player 3 picks up his cards, and evidently the 4 had been completely covering up the 3 when he showed, so he finds his 3 and tells everyone to wait, that he does indeed have the wheel and it should be a split pot.

First guy is pissed as he's already incorporated the chips into his stack, and it includes chips from both pots, and he has no idea what each pot was up to (was a few hundred total, with like 150ish in the side pot). So Player 3 does what he can to explain about the betting sequence, and how much should have been there. Betting sequence and amounts are disagreed with. Eventually they settle on Player 1 giving Player 3 $100 in chips as it's a conservative estimate of the side pot and a quarter of the main (even though it was probably a little low).

Thoughts on this? How should something like this be handled/ruled?

 

[Rhodeman77]

Dealer should have spread players 3’s cards out if he had tabled them to verify his hand. After that he should have mucked the hand immediately if there wasn’t a winning hand.

As played, I would reconstruct the betting to figure out the correct amounts that belong in each pot and chop it correctly.

 

[IaHawk]

1st recommendation, don't try and play split games with drunk people. If his cards were face up and not mucked, his hand was never dead and he deserves his share. I would think someone would know how much was bet on each street, I'd try and do the best and figure out how much was awarded to winners and split appropriately. If player 3 only showed 2 of his cards and his other 2 were down...I have less sympathy.

Other recommendation is to muck all non winning hands before you start awarding the pot.

 

[JustinInMN]

Yeah, I agree with the others, if Player 3 never mucked you should do your best to reconstruct the pot.

Proper showdown procedure as @Rhodeman77 describes prevents the issue in the future.

All tabled hands spread completely (this also serves a check on ensuring the proper number of cards in all games), all losing hands mucked before any chips move.

 

[JustinInMN]

If player 3 only showed 2 of his cards and his other 2 were down...I have less sympathy.

Agreed, I wouldn't count that as tabled, and that hand should be killed before any chips are moved.

 

[Josh Kifer]

At our house this has happened before. We do our best to reconstruct the hand, but if it's too late, the person who didn't show his complete hand is at fault. Always show all your cards and call out your hand.

 

[cwebb]

To win a hand, you have to show all cards.

 

[JustinInMN]

Always show all your cards and call out your hand.

To win a hand, you have to show all cards.

Agreed, and the OP can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read it, all cards were face up, but one card blocked the 3 that would have confirmed the split.

So in that situation I would say he tabled, and wasn't deliberately concealing cards, but someone (preferably someone sober) should have confirmed the proper number of cards were there before determining where to move the chips.

 

[cwebb]

It sounds like no player revealed all cards, just 2 out of 4. No one wins the pot, house gets it all. Lol

 

[JustinInMN]

It sounds like no player revealed all cards, just 2 out of 4. No one wins the pot, house gets it all. Lol

You know on a second reading, I can see where this may be ambiguous. So what do you say @MrCatPants players tabling their whole hands or nah?

 

[Gobbs]

Reconstruct the hand, award the pot properly, and definitely don’t tip the dealer.

 

[MrCatPants]

Agreed, and the OP can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read it, all cards were face up, but one card blocked the 3 that would have confirmed the split.

So in that situation I would say he tabled, and wasn't deliberately concealing cards, but someone (preferably someone sober) should have confirmed the proper number of cards were there before determining where to move the chips.

Correct on your read.

 

[MrCatPants]

It sounds like no player revealed all cards, just 2 out of 4. No one wins the pot, house gets it all. Lol

I see why it can read that way. Players 1 and 2 did show everything. Player 3 showed, but one of his cards was fully covered up by one of his others and no one picked up on it until the aforementioned pot splitting.

 

[MrCatPants]

You know on a second reading, I can see where this may be ambiguous. So what do you say @MrCatPants players tabling their whole hands or nah?

Personally I'm 100 percent supportive in my own game of players tabling everything. We play hold'em only so the quip is "takes two cards to win" and my players generally handle it for me in that way.

 

[JustinInMN]

I see why it can read that way. Players 1 and 2 did show everything. Player 3 showed, but one of his cards was fully covered up by one of his others and no one picked up on it until the aforementioned pot splitting.

Given that, my thought stands. Anyone attempting to table their hand should have it read and be awarded their share of the pot.

Player 3 probably should have done better to make sure all cards were read before the pot awarded. The delay probably cost him an accurate count of the pot. But I don't really have a problem making a ruling with the best effort to correct here.

But the key lesson from this post is chips shouldn't move until the showdown is complete, including the killing of the losing hands.

 

[JustinInMN]

Personally I'm 100 percent supportive in my own game of players tabling everything. We play hold'em only so the quip is "takes two cards to win" and my players generally handle it for me in that way.

Agreed and this is one example why, tabling partial hands should not be enough indication to claim any share of the pot.

 

[BGinGA]

Nobody to blame here but the the dealer, although player 2 should shut up until it's time to show down cards for the pot he's in contention of winning.

Upon completion of all river betting:

1. dealer requests that side pot players (player 1 and player 3) show hands (all four cards) to determine side pot winner(s)
2. dealer announces winner(s) of high hand and low hand of side pot, after reading all four cards of each player
3. dealer mucks the losing sidepot hand if appropriate (it may not be, if a split pot)
4. dealer awards side pot to the winning hand(s), splitting first if necessary
5. dealer requests player 2 to table his hand; player 2 shows hand (all four cards)
6. dealer announces winner(s) of high hand and low hand of main pot, after reading all four cards of each player
7. dealer mucks the losing hand(s)
8. dealer awards main pot to the winning hand(s), splitting first if necessary
9. dealer mucks winning hand(s)
10. dealer moves dealer button
11. dealer collects board cards, burn cards, and the muck and begins shuffling

Following proper dealer protocol always makes these types of threads needless. In this case, post-chaos, the dealer should reconstruct the betting to reproduce the two pots (main and side) and follow the steps above.

 

[JustinInMN]

Nobody to blame here but the the dealer

I agree with most of your post except this. Yes you are correct proper procedure as you laid out prevents the issue. However, player 3 didn't really look out for himself either until it was almost too late. He didn't table in hand in a readable way.

I get it, these types of mistakes don't happen often with dedicated dealers, but in self dealt games, the reality is you face a wide range of skill levels and players should be aware enough to that theyust rely less on dealer perfection and more on making sure they protect themselves.

The main action player 3 could have taken to prevent the whole this spread his whole hand right the first time.

Hopefully both player and dealer learn something for next time.

 

[BGinGA]

The main action player 3 could have taken to prevent the whole this spread his whole hand right the first time.

Hopefully both player and dealer learn something for next time.

Granted, but that does not excuse the dealer from failing to properly read and announce player 3's hand -- if there are only three cards, the hand is dead, and if he sees all four, he should announce the player's hand (win or lose).

Carelessness on the part of the player, negligence on the part of the dealer. Theoretically, the player shouldn't have to do anything except turn over his cards. Cards speak, and it is the dealer's responsibility to give them a voice.

 

[Josh Kifer]

A

Granted, but that does not excuse the dealer from failing to properly read and announce player 3's hand -- if there are only three cards, the hand is dead, and if he sees all four, he should announce the player's hand (win or lose).

Carelessness on the part of the player, negligence on the part of the dealer. Theoretically, the player shouldn't have to do anything except turn over his cards. Cards speak, and it is the dealer's responsibility to give them a voice.

At a casino, totally agree. At a home game, it's a dance with everyone to make sure people get paid correctly. As a dealer I can only do so much if people toss over the wrong cards. I try and make everyone flip over everything, but mistakes happen.

 

[BGinGA]

Even passing the deal comes with responsibilty, and not getting paid to do it is no excuse. Players choose to pass the deal to avoid paying for a dedicated dealer, so in effect, they all share in the cost savings by not having to pay for it (thus they are getting paid).

Do the job properly -- for the hand they deal, they are in charge and should command and run the table exactly as a dedicated dealer would.

Pass-the-deal home games can run just as smoothly as dedicated-dealer games if following proper protocol, and there really is no excuse for not requiring it.

 

[ekricket]

There are no perfect games with perfect players and perfect dealers. No matter who claims to have a perfect game, home game, casino game, WSOP game, it don’t matter, there is no perfect game.

Players fuck up
Dealers fuck up
Floor managers fuck up

So there is no “fault” to lay blame at, there is just a situation to fix. You fixed it right given the circumstances.

 

[Gobbs]

Theoretically, the player should be able to lay his hand down, walk away, and feel confident he will get awarded the pot correctly by the dealer. Granted, I would never recommend doing that, but the player's only responsibility is to table his hand. That happened here. Nobody to blame but the dealer. It is, most certainly, the dealer's fault and I don't care if the dealer is a dedicated dealer, a compensated dealer, or a player whose turn it was to deal. Take responsibility and do it right.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Attempt 1: Reconstruct betting and award correctly.
Attempt 2: Make best guess of starting stack of player 2, and subtract what is left. Award 3/4 this amount.
Attempt 3: Do as OP states and award a nominal amount with profuse apologies.