Tourney Need a Ruling (plus a Devil's Advocate hypothetical) (2 Viewers)

[Stufflymcstuff]

and then just pray it doesn't come 2345 of that suit.

 

[Legend5555]

That is why I would penalize him by giving him the same suites as the player with the Kings so that he can’t have a potential gain if there is no way to know for certain what suites he had.

Hypothetically if he knew his suites and saw they were both covered by the other players Kings he could gain an advantage if he was given back a 6 (or 2) that is no longer the same suite as the Kings. There should be zero chance of a potential advantage from his actions.

The situation is so rare that I would only be concerned about this is it happened more than once.

 

[Legend5555]

one or both are different suits than the kings it’s literally the biggest benefit he can reap with that hand.

Obviously once you know what the suits are, not having them be there same as the KK is beneficial. But when you randomly give them out, you don't know what the person is going to get. So there is no benefit if no one knew the suits. That's how randomness works.

 

[bergs]

Obviously once you know what the suits are, not having them be there same as the KK is beneficial. But when you randomly give them out, you don't know what the person is going to get. So there is no benefit if no one knew the suits. That's how randomness works.

I understand how randomness works. Why should a player that speedmucked their hand get the benefit of randomness?

If that’s the choice honestly just award them pot and move on, fuck it.

Do you understand how fast the good vibe of a home game will go poof if you award 2 random cards to an idiot and he binks?

 

[LotsOfChips]

Call it the idiot tax, but if you can't clearly identify the cards after he mucked them (and then washed them into the muck), then too bad, so sad, the hand should be dead. If the cards can be identified (including suits), then they should be retrieved and re-tabled, in order to comply with the TDA rules in effect. (IMO)

Perhaps if someone else grabbed his cards out of his hand (or off the table in front of him after they were tabled), then maybe (and its a big maybe) give him 2 random 6's (and only then if nobody at the table can remember either of the suits).

Actions have consequences, and in this case it was Player A who created this shit-show (with an assist from Player B), so maybe he needs to suffer the consequences of his action. (IMO)

 

[IamMattDamon]

I understand how randomness works. Why should a player that speedmucked their hand get the benefit of randomness?

If that’s the choice honestly just award them pot and move on, fuck it.

Do you understand how fast the good vibe of a home game will go poof if you award 2 random cards to an idiot and he binks?

What kind of home game is filled with sore losers that can't take a bit of variance?

In the home games I play in, the most fun is whenever someone starts steaming after taking a bad beat. You obviously have a mandatory needle of the dude holding KK if he can't get it to hold in this spot. Each to their own I guess..

 

[bergs]

What kind of home game is filled with sore losers that can't take a bit of variance?

In the home games I play in, the most fun is whenever someone starts steaming after taking a bad beat. You obviously have a mandatory needle of the dude holding KK if he can't get it to hold in this spot. Each to their own I guess..

Do you see the difference between randomness in the course of a game and randomly assigning someone a hand after showdown and then running a board out for their tourney life?

We love the slow roll in my game too but this isn’t that, this is warping the rules in a potentially unfair way to the guy that obeyed the rules with KK.

 

[IamMattDamon]

Do you see the difference between randomness in the course of a game and randomly assigning someone a hand after showdown and then running a board out for their tourney life?

We love the slow roll in my game too but this isn’t that, this is warping the rules in a potentially unfair way to the guy that obeyed the rules with KK.

1-3% chance of losing (depending on the suits), 2% chops and 95% win knowing that the other two 6s are gone. I don't see the point for deserving immunity just because someone else did a mistake after the hands was tabled by both players. If anything, the dude who called out he also had 6s is the real buzzkiller here. I don't really see a randomness difference here, as we're talking between 1-3% equity of losing from worst to best case scenario. I can live with those odds holding KK here.

Online it would not be possible to muck the hand after the money went into the middle. And in live poker it's not allowed to perform this action to protect the integrity of the game. If that's the way you bust it wasn't meant to be that night. I guess we can just agree to disagree, and that's perfectly fine.

PS: I've floored live tournaments for 5 years.

 

[Frogzilla]

Solved it!

Get 4 color decks. Then people will remember their suits

 

[Legend5555]

I understand how randomness works. Why should a player that speedmucked their hand get the benefit of randomness?

If that’s the choice honestly just award them pot and move on, fuck it.

Do you understand how fast the good vibe of a home game will go poof if you award 2 random cards to an idiot and he binks?

So if he and everyone else remembered the suits, should be still be penalized and not be allowed to win with a flush? Because that's in effect what you are saying.

He's not the only person that made a mistake here. The other player shouldn't have said he also had 66. And the dealer shouldn't have mixed the cards into the muck. What's their punishment?

I don't think punishing people for making their first mistake of a particular type is a good idea. Not everyone is super knowledgeable about the game and it's procedures. Punishing someone for frustration or not having a clear understanding the rules is just mean spirited and not a good way to run a consistent game IMO.

Now if the the player does the same thing a second time, then yeah, I'm going to figure out a different way of handling the situation.

Edited for bad swipe typing errors.

 

[Taghkanic]

………

How hard is the distinction between “showed” and “tabled”?

If a player picks up his cards, flips them around for everyone to see, then fires them into the muck, is that absolutely different than tabled?

 

[Taghkanic]

Separate issue / observation:

We seem to be trusting the memory and integrity of the third player who said “I had 66 too.”

Maybe he had 55 or 77 or 6x and misread it.

Maybe he is just fucking with the guy who flashed his 66.

Or (to the extent that we are concerned about chip dumping), maybe he is in on the collusion, providing cover for the mucker.

Those scenarios are all pretty unlikely, but to the extent that we are looking for the theoretically sound decision, that third player’s claim need not be accepted as gospel.

 

[Frogzilla]

………

How hard is the distinction between “showed” and “tabled”?

If a player picks up his cards, flips them around for everyone to see, then fires them into the muck, is that absolutely different than tabled?

Yes it’s different than tabled and for many scenarios that distinction is important.

For someone illegally mucking their hand in a tourney all-in situation, might be the same result, give him his 6s back and a penalty

 

[Frogzilla]

Sorry man, I appreciate you chiming in but I really don't want to have a discussion about the EV of breaking rules or various etiquette breaches.

I was channeling “devils advocate” hard, as requested in title

The devil likes to angle

 

[CrazyEddie]

That makes no sense. They are random.

Poker players are bad at math.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Sounds like a terrible way to run a tournament with casual players who don’t understand the rules.

Nothing magical about a tourney. Casual players in a casual game can screw around and have fun in a tourney just as much as in a cash game.

 

[Hornet]

Nothing magical about a tourney. Casual players in a casual game can screw around and have fun in a tourney just as much as in a cash game.

I’m not saying there’s anything “magical” about a tourney. In my experience, tournaments are more fun and enjoyable for all when you follow certain rules, like don’t talk about your cards while the hand is still going. My main point was that the rules shouldn’t be determined based on what most people expect them to be. That just leads to problems imo. There’s a reason many rules are in place that casual players may not be aware of, but can still lead to a better tournament experience for all.

 

[CrazyEddie]

………

How hard is the distinction between “showed” and “tabled”?

If a player picks up his cards, flips them around for everyone to see, then fires them into the muck, is that absolutely different than tabled?

I don't think that matters in this particular scenario. The action was complete with the players all-in; at that moment, the players had an obligation (under TDA rules) to table their hands and let the board run out. Whether he "showed" or "tabled" his cards before tossing them into the muck is irrelevant, and for that matter it would likewise be irrelevant whether he mucked them without showing them. If the cards could be identified and retrieved, then they should be, so that they can be tabled and the board dealt out.

I'm leaning towards @bergs interpretation, though. The rule (and principle) is that if the cards can be identified and retrieved, they should be. If the only thing that anyone can recall is that they were sixes, that's not enough to identify the cards, assuming that there are indeed more than two sixes in the muck and that the muck was well-mixed. As much as I agree with @Legend5555 regarding randomness and how choosing cards at random given that they were of unknown suits would be fair and equitable, I think the more important principle in play here is knowing with certainty which cards were in the hand, rather than using only such information as is available ("they were sixes, not sure which suits") to reconstruct possible scenarios and assign them equal weight using the concept of "randomness == uncertainty".

 

[legonick]

Once the hand is in the muck it is over.

100% this. Dude shouldn't have mucked.

If I was in your shoes, I would have said something like, next time don't muck the hand! I would not have forced a run-out, because once the hand was mucked, the hand is over.

 

[upNdown]

He's not the only person that made a mistake here. The other player shouldn't have said he also had 66.

That's just an etiquette thing. I've never heard of a rule that forbids somebody from announcing their folded cards, after all the action is complete. I mean, I guess it could be done as an angle to get somebody to toss their cards before the board is run, but that's sort of the point of an angle - they're unfair things done within the rules. So I wouldn't say the other 66 guy made a mistake, nor should he be punished.

 

[IamMattDamon]

That's just an etiquette thing. I've never heard of a rule that forbids somebody from announcing their folded cards, after all the action is complete. I mean, I guess it could be done as an angle to get somebody to toss their cards before the board is run, but that's sort of the point of an angle - they're unfair things done within the rules. So I wouldn't say the other 66 guy made a mistake, nor should he be punished.

Of course it's not punishable, it's just a major buzzkill. We've all been there, all-in for your tournament life with AQ vs 88. Suddenly, a wild idiot appears spewing out something like "I also had AQ". If you have to tell them that, at least wait until the hand is through.

Rule 16 of the Poker TDA rules states:

16: Face Up for All-Ins. All hands will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete. No player who is either all-in or has called all betting action may muck his or her hand without tabling. All hands in both the main and side pot(s) must be tabled and are live.

To me it's clear that both hands were tabled. I would discuss the situation with the dealer that should have information about exactly what happened. I would maybe ask a few other players for confirmation as well. In this particular situation, rule 16 trumphs rule 14 regarding mucked hands, considering the hand was actually tabled before it went into the muck. Even if it's in the muck it's not considered 100% unretreivable, so you have to make a judgement call. The added information about the other player who folded 6s is sort of irrelevant, but it can act as an explaination for why the other player mucked (thinking he was drawing dead),

It's not like you're punishing the player holding KK here, like many of you make it seem like. What you are actually doing is to protect the all-in player, while you at the same time follow rule 16. Rule 14 does not hold true as the hands were tabled first. The dealer will in most cases also know exactly where the mucked 6s are at in the muck, since most of them put the cards mucked in descending order.

 

[Legend5555]

In the grand scheme of things, no matter how hard I lobby for my position here, it is a home game tourney. You can do what you want within reason as long as everyone is generally okay with the decision.

I play with a group that is comprised of a lot people that used to be regulars in my bar game league 10-15 years ago. I ran that somewhat close to TDA in many spots and they all got used to it. So my group probably wouldn't bitch too much about my interpretation if that were to happen in my game. Though, I also can't imagine this ever happening in my game.

 

[legonick]

Of course it's not punishable, it's just a major buzzkill. We've all been there, all-in for your tournament life with AQ vs 88. Suddenly, a wild idiot appears spewing out something like "I also had AQ". If you have to tell them that, at least wait until the hand is through.

Rule 16 of the Poker TDA rules states:


To me it's clear that both hands were tabled. I would discuss the situation with the dealer that should have information about exactly what happened. I would maybe ask a few other players for confirmation as well. In this particular situation, rule 16 trumphs rule 14 regarding mucked hands, considering the hand was actually tabled before it went into the muck. Even if it's in the muck it's not considered 100% unretreivable, so you have to make a judgement call. The added information about the other player who folded 6s is sort of irrelevant, but it can act as an explaination for why the other player mucked (thinking he was drawing dead),

It's not like you're punishing the player holding KK here, like many of you make it seem like. What you are actually doing is to protect the all-in player, while you at the same time follow rule 16. Rule 14 does not hold true as the hands were tabled first. The dealer will in most cases also know exactly where the mucked 6s are at in the muck, since most of them put the cards mucked in descending order.

Good point, this is interesting.

So the 66 should not have gone into the muck, this becomes a ruling over what the dealer can do with mucked cards. Can he flip them face up to retrieve the 66, but revealing what other players folded? Should he attempt to do so without showing the entire table (but then, retaining the advantage for himself assuming this is a self-dealt game)? Thoughts?

 

[bergs]

Good point, this is interesting.

So the 66 should not have gone into the muck, this becomes a ruling over what the dealer can do with mucked cards. Can he flip them face up to retrieve the 66, but revealing what other players folded? Should he attempt to do so without showing the entire table (but then, retaining the advantage for himself assuming this is a self-dealt game)? Thoughts?

If he’s going through the muck to find the sixes and I were playing I would prefer he did it face up for all to see, though I don’t think short of a WSOP final table this would give anyone a significant advantage to possibly see (without certainty) other mucked hands.

Then again, any two is good for you-know-who (beaming).

 

[glynn]

this becomes a ruling over what the dealer can do with mucked cards.

The dealer would not be the one going through the muck unless the dealer happens to also be the host or whoever is designated to make floor rulings, or if the dealer has been given the go-ahead by that person.

The concern about information being revealed — let alone effectively applied — should be balanced by how incredibly rare this event is. (Not to mention, if it can be determined with any amount of confidence that e.g. Seat 2 folded 8h3s, then we can probably tell which combo of 66 was mucked by Player A. We have significantly reduced our concerns!)

 

[IamMattDamon]

Good point, this is interesting.

So the 66 should not have gone into the muck, this becomes a ruling over what the dealer can do with mucked cards. Can he flip them face up to retrieve the 66, but revealing what other players folded? Should he attempt to do so without showing the entire table (but then, retaining the advantage for himself assuming this is a self-dealt game)? Thoughts?

Floor is obviously the one to go through the mucked cards to retrieve the 6s, No issue with floor turning the cards around for all to see either.

You basically ask the dealer if they have an order they put mucked cards in to make this job easier. If the dealer confirms descending order, floor can gather the mucked cards and go through them from the bottom to easily locate them (should be one the first two 6s from the bottom). This will reveal as few cards as possible. If it's a chaotic muck with no order, gather all the 6s, shuffle them, deal one and muck one. That's both random and fair.

 

[Machine]

ask the dealer if they have an order they put mucked cards in

The nature of the muck, is the cards are all 'mucked up', meaning waste or trash, intentionally mixed.

No one should be discarding hands in an order that can be retrieved, that is the nature of the muck.

 

[buzzmonkey]

The nature of the muck, is the cards are all 'mucked up', meaning waste or trash, intentionally mixed.

No one should be discarding hands in an order that can be retrieved, that is the nature of the muck.

Individuals should be discarding cards to the dealer. It's the dealer's job to make sure they enter the muck.

 

[Machine]

Individuals should be discarding cards to the dealer. It's the dealer's job to make sure they enter the muck.

We agree, its also the dealer's job to make sure the muck is mucky =D.

Case in point, the dealer should not have entered this hand into the muck, but as s/he did, s/he did a wonderful job of mucking the hand.

 

[IamMattDamon]

Case in point, the dealer should not have entered this hand into the muck, but as s/he did, s/he did a wonderful job of mucking the hand.

*she/he/hen/it. Isn't that the kind of world we live in now?