Incorrect side pot awarded -what to do/rule after 10 minutes have gone by? (1 Viewer)

[SixSeven]

Curious on what other hosts would do in this situation. Private (Edit: Cash) home game. 10 minutes goes by after the main pot and the side pot are awarded. Players realize side pot was incorrectly awarded. Would you rule the player that had claim to the money not awarded to him was too late to receive it, or would you rectify it, even though the time has gone by and the game has moved on?

Details if interestedl:
2 stacks (player 1 & 3), about the same size, and a 3rd stack (player 2) 2/3 of the others go all in on the flop. They agree to run it twice. The first player wins the top board, and player 2 (short stack) wins the second board, but player 3 wins the side pot of for the second board (Edit: because he has more than player 2), so half of the side pot between player 1 & 3. But the none of the players or host realize that player 3 won the side pot of board 2, and player 3 walks away while they chop up player 3's stack including side pots for player 1 & 3. Everyone resumes play and 10 minutes goes by. Then Player 3 talk about it to the host and they realize Player 3 won the 2nd board as previously mentioned for the side pot. What would you do as the host? Say it's too late, Player 3 should have called attention to the error and now he has forfeited right to the pot he is owed? Feel it's your duty as host to rectify the situation and in game, calculate the amount owed to player 3, and award that? Does Player 3 have the responsibly to read the board correctly and point out he won the 2nd board, or is it everyone including the host to do that?

I feel everyone should be contributing to making sure the board is read right, and that the host has the responsibility to make sure pots are awarded correctly, but not sure about after 10 minutes have gone by what is the right thing to do. I have asked a couple friend TD's, and gotten two different answers. Thanks.

Edit: changed Player #2 to #3 and visa versa in beginning of post as I had inaccurately labeled the short stack as the player that walked away and not seen the board correctly.

 

[Taghkanic]

In most games that I’ve played, the general way this gets handled is zero tolerance: it’s too late to complain once a new hand is underway, let alone 10+ minutes later.

Seems draconian to me, but I can see why many rooms/hosts don’t want to go back in time and wrangle over pots that were settled.

It might further complicate things if someone who got chips s/he was not supposed to then got it in and won/lost some of those ill-gotten chips. If he doubles up or gets stacked, does that second pot have to be corrected too? Etc. etc.

All that said I would hope in a friendly home game that the player who was awarded too many chips would at least offer the guy who was shorted some sort of rebate.

I posted a few months ago about a situation like this a few months ago where I tabled my hand but was not awarded my share of a complicated split pot which we’d run several times. I protested the outcome before the hand was over but got shouted down by the table that I was wrong. Kept mulling it over and realized I was right, and raised it a couple hands later. The guy who benefited from the mistake then realized what happened, but to my surprise refused to send me the winnings back or even chop the difference. I didn’t insist and we moved on, but I thought it was kind of crappy of the other guy.)

(Compassionate PCFers said it was my own damn fault for not pulling out some nunchucks and going to war while the pot was still being chopped.)

 

[inca911]

With friends you try to make it right. In casino:

 

[Josh Kifer]

We've had this happen. We will stop the game, and everyone will chat it out, or replay the betting to the best of our abilities and rechop.

We friends. Better to try to make it right rather than bust everyone's balls every hand. If it's clear, it's clear.

 

[Beakertwang]

In a friendly game, I'd make it right. We had a multi-way double board pot (I was not in the hand) that led to some confusion. As I was thinking about it the next day, I realized the guy who got quartered was shorted about $80. I contacted the guy who did the quartering, and explained the situation, and he gave the other player $80 the next time we played.

 

[ArielVer18]

I feel everyone should be contributing to making sure the board is read right

This right here. Everyone share that responsibility. However, as soon as the next hand start, it's too late. Besides, Player 3 walked away, implying he didn't care.

Player 3 can try to file an appeal with the court of arbitration for sport

 

[doublebooyah85]

In a friendly game, maybe I’d wait until / thru the next hand. But 10+ minutes. Sucks…ultimately player’s responsibility.

 

[SixSeven]

In a friendly game, I'd make it right. We had a multi-way double board pot (I was not in the hand) that led to some confusion. As I was thinking about it the next day, I realized the guy who got quartered was shorted about $80. I contacted the guy who did the quartering, and explained the situation, and he gave the other player $80 the next time we played.

This is good and helpful. I think it should be made right afterwards if possible. It was a friendly game and the host went above and beyond in game to make it right.

But I also agree with @doublebooyah85 @ArielVer18, that they have a point, and after a 10 minutes, it is kinda late. I guess it is the hosts decision.

I was impressed to the length the host went to, to make it right.

 

[SixSeven]

We've had this happen. We will stop the game, and everyone will chat it out, or replay the betting to the best of our abilities and rechop.

We friends. Better to try to make it right rather than bust everyone's balls every hand. If it's clear, it's clear.

Thanks @Josh Kifer this is helpful to know.

 

[SixSeven]

All that said I would hope in a friendly home game that the player who was awarded too many chips would at least offer the guy who was shorted some sort of rebate.

Yeah, that is right. I feel that several hands later that if it is easy to know how many chips were not awarded properly, then this.

 

[CraigT78]

We will make it right in a cash game. To the best of our ability.

Ten minutes later in a tournament is too bad, so sad.

 

[Budha]

We will make it right in a cash game. To the best of our ability.

Ten minutes later in a tournament is too bad, so sad.

This is an interesting distinction. In a cash game, my initial instinct was to try and make it right.
Those run it twice w/side pot hands can get complicated. Even with all eyes, mistakes can happen. So I agree with make it right if there was clearly an error.

In a tourney, hmm - I’d have to think about that one. But then again, I might call bullshit on running it twice in a tourney anyway so:

 

[JustinInMN]

Okay my best shot at reconstructing this.

2 stacks (player 1 & 3), about the same size, and a 3rd stack (player 2) 2/3 of the others go all in on the flop. They agree to run it twice. The first player wins the top board, and player 2 (short stack) wins the second board, but player 3 wins the side pot of for the second board (Edit: because he has more than player 2), so half of the side pot between player 1 & 3.

Without knowing the stakes I am just going to throw out some numbers for simplicity. Let's assume the 3 players went to the flop for 50 each. Then on the flop Players 1 and 3 are all in for 300 more, player 2 is all in for 200
Main pot contains 750, side pot contains 200 between players 1 and 3 only.

So side pot should have been split between Players 1 and 3 and main pot should have been split between players 1 and 2. But it sounds like the chips from the side pot went in some quantity to Players 1 and 2 and should not have.

Now I am trying to figure out what did happen based on this...

But the none of the players or host realize that player 3 won the side pot of board 2, and player 3 walks away while they chop up player 3's stack including side pots for player 1 & 3.

Why are they chopping up Player 3's stack? This leads me to believe there is some incorrect side pot procedure going on here. It's okay to leave everyone's stack and award chips at the end. But it's very important to award side pots first and the main pot last for this reason. The only way I could see this happening if this step was missed. As if everyone just looked for the best hand on each board without realizing that player 2 should have been excluded from the side pot. I think this is where the failure lies.

When side pots are present, they should always be awarded in order from the last pot created to the main pot at the very end. In other words players that have put the MOST money in always get their hands read FIRST. The players that have put the LEAST money in get their hands read LAST. No one should have been reading Player 2's hand at all until the side pot was settled between Player 1 and Player 3. Doing this saves the whole issue. (And of note, this procedure is necessary twice for each pot when dealing two boards, of course.)

So this is how it should have gone down...

Player 1 and 3 should settle on the side pot. Player 1 wins the first board, Player 3 wins the 2nd board, they effectively chop the side, or just simply pull 100 back from the bets if still in front of them so only the 200 that matches Player 2 remains in Player 1 and Player 3's wager stacks. Then settle the main pot. Recognizing the chop between players 1 and 2, you can divide player 3's 200 in half, and divide the 150 in the middle from preflop in half, and Player 1 and Player 2 can just pull their remaining flop wager back.

Since something other than the correct procedure happened, this is how I think this should be handled. Yes, to the letter of the rule Player 3 has declined his responsibility to protect his hand by walking away before knowing he had some portion of the pot coming to him, meaning he is accepting a risk of the pot being awarded incorrectly. That said in a home game, and also considering there was a likely breach in procedure with the awarding of pots, and if the players involved can reconstruct what happened with the awarding of the pots with a high level of confidence, I think it's in the best interest of the game to make the correction, if possible.

So my best guess as to what happened based on the original post. The "Chop up Player 3's" stack means he had a full 300 in front of him and Player 1 and Player 2 each took 150. If we are confident this is what happened, then each should pay 50 to Player 3. All of this being said, Player 3 should be warned to protect himself in the future as mistakes like this may not always be correctable, and in that case, the only possible ruling would have been the pot as awarded is final.

 

[SixSeven]

Thanks @JustinInMN for taking a stab at breaking down the description and explaining proper proceedure. In the effort of brevity, I shorted a few things in the description, like the hands involved and how the pots were split which might have left to a little confusion for you and your thus response. It was a quite complicated situation I tried to simplify for getting to the questions I had. But you answered the questions I had in the OP and that was what I needed to hear.

For the record, Player 1 had KT for top two pair on a flop KT4. Player 3 had AA, and Player 2 had AJ. KT held for the first board, and on the 2nd board the turn and river were the Q & Q. So Player 2 made Broadway, but no one saw that Player 3 made a higher two pair with AA and QQ over K & T's. That is why there was the mistake in awarding pots. No one realized Player 3 had a higher 2 pair (because it wasn't something people think about with a paired board with an over pair & it was lost in the moment of Player 2 making the straight with a gutshot). Player 1 took the side pot on both boards, (even though I said in the OP that Player 1 & 2 chopped up player 3's side pot). Then there was realization 10 minutes later Player 1 should have only gotten the side pot for board 1. Hopefully that helps explain it better. Thanks @BGinGA for thumbing up @JustinInMN answer!

 

[JustinInMN]

Thanks @JustinInMN for taking a stab at breaking down the description and explaining proper procedure. In the effort of brevity, I shorted a few things in the description, like the hands involved and how the pots were split which might have left to a little confusion for you and your thus response. It was a quite complicated situation I tried to simplify for getting to the questions I had.

I do appreciate and understand the value of brevity, obviously I just don't always practice it and I do drop more than the occasional wall of text on PCF threads .

Player 1 took the side pot on both boards, (even though I said in the OP that Player 1 & 2 chopped up player 3's side pot). Then there was realization 10 minutes later Player 1 should have only gotten the side pot for board 1. Hopefully that helps explain it better. Thanks @BGinGA for thumbing up @JustinInMN answer!

I see, this detail helps, so if Player 2 never got any money from the side pot, there probably wasn't a procedure issue like I explained in detail before. If true, then it means the only correction to make was Player 1 paying Player 3 the amount of half the side pot. I still would probably be comfortable with that decision if everyone has a high confidence in those events. But again, Player 3 should be cautioned about his share in the responsibility to read his hand correctly.

I suppose it's still somewhat true that Player's 2 outdraw did in a sense overshadow what should have first been a comparison between Player 1 and Player 3's hands.

In general, when making rulings, I like to make sure the correct hands are rewarded as much as possible, but I do recognize if the level of certainty was lower, the only choice would have been to let the chips stand as originally awarded. And the more time that would have passed, the less confidence there would have been.

 

[allforcharity]

10 minutes ago, might as well have been 10 months ago. Can't wind it back. That's why it's important to get it right the first time and not rush too quickly into the next hand, especially if the pot is substantial. I suppose split pot games generally can devolve into this sort of thing.

 

[BGinGA]

Thanks @JustinInMN for taking a stab at breaking down the description and explaining proper proceedure. In the effort of brevity, I shorted a few things in the description, like the hands involved and how the pots were split which might have left to a little confusion for you and your thus response. It was a quite complicated situation I tried to simplify for getting to the questions I had. But you answered the questions I had in the OP and that was what I needed to hear.

For the record, Player 1 had KT for top two pair on a flop KT4. Player 3 had AA, and Player 2 had AJ. KT held for the first board, and on the 2nd board the turn and river were the Q & Q. So Player 2 made Broadway, but no one saw that Player 3 made a higher two pair with AA and QQ over K & T's. That is why there was the mistake in awarding pots. No one realized Player 3 had a higher 2 pair (because it wasn't something people think about with a paired board with an over pair & it was lost in the moment of Player 2 making the straight with a gutshot). Player 1 took the side pot on both boards, (even though I said in the OP that Player 1 & 2 chopped up player 3's side pot). Then there was realization 10 minutes later Player 1 should have only gotten the side pot for board 1. Hopefully that helps explain it better. Thanks @BGinGA for thumbing up @JustinInMN answer!

And fwiw, Player 1 had Kings and Queens on that second board, not Kings and Tens (KT on a KT4QQ board).

 

[Franzister]

Dude your recall for a poker hand with 2 run-outs and 3 players is impressive. I can't remember a hand I fold preflop the second my cards hit the muck

 

[springbox]

In a friendly game if all players involved in the hand can agree on the circumstances of the hand I'd suggest they'd rectify it to what 'should' have happened. But rules are rules, if one of the players from the hand insisted it's been too long to review the hand I wouldn't try to force them to pay up.

At a casino or more competitive event I wouldn't expect any restitution after the next hand started. Or in a tournament I think it's too late, stack sizes will have a more substantial effect on how future hands played out, there's no way to go back and rectify that, and changing stack sizes has a much bigger impact on people's expected outcomes than it does in cash games.

 

[Bill_Man618]

In my opinion once the next hand starts it’s to late to unwind. In a friendly game I’d rule as the floor that the hand is settled and won’t be unwound, but if the 2 players want to do a different deal I wouldn’t stand in their way either. If I was the player who got the wrong pot is prolly chop it with the guy who was owed to be nice. In a casino though I’m just raking it and saying tough shit man.

 

[ontheriver51]

I think it's just too late for anything to be "mandated" by the house/dealer/whoever. If the winner wants to return the money, it's a cool thing to do, but shouldn't be requried

 

[gnasher]

The problem you have is there's no way to turn back the game state. But in a friendly game you should be able work it's out between you.