Holy What Do You Do Ruling Batman!?

[dna4ever 2]

I've been TD for about 350 tournaments so far in my bar poker league and had a situation come up last night that I have never seen before and had zero idea what the correct ruling was so went with my gut, but still not sure if it was the right decision.SELF DEAL bar poker league, the dealer for this hand was a brand new player that seemed to be fairly new to bar poker, but not to the game itself.Player A Goes All InPlayer B Who Has Player A Covered CallsPlayer C Who Is Dealer Has A&B Covered CallsMain pot is pushed in front of player AFlop 4s Ts 2dPlayer B bets into the dry, Player C callsSidepot is createdTurn JsPlayer B bets again, Player C foldsPlayer B turns up the nuts with As QsDealer (Player C) then pushes the sidepot AND the main pot to Player B and grabs his cards, Player B's card, the board cards and turns them over and mixes them into the muck and the rest of the non dealt cards.Player A all of a sudden is like "WTF!!?" He still has his cards which happened to be TJ for potential FH opp on river.Absolutely ZERO opportunity to reconstruct the hand, pot was pushed.What is the correct decision here?I'm going to spoiler tag what I did below as not to influence what anyone might say:

I awarded the entire pot to Player B and Player A was eliminated. Obviously explained how crappy of a situation this was and it was an unfortunate dealer mistake and used it as an educational moment to explain how important it was that all 5 cards were shown anytime there is an all in player. I apologized to Player A, bought him a beer and hope he understood there was nothing that could have been done to reconstruct the hand and since action had occurred on previous streets the hand had zero chance of being replayed. Definitely a FUBAR situation.

[FCP Bob 1,320]

I hire a better class of dealer.

[dna4ever 2]

I hire a better class of dealer.

Wish that was an option! Deal rotates every hand and every player deals.

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Wish that was an option! Deal rotates every hand and every player deals.

I know I was joking.So we know that the one player had AQ the allin player still has his cards in his hand and we know what the board was.I guess we could remove all those cards from the muck and reshuffle everything else and burn and turn the river. It isn't ideal but it still gives the allin player the same statistical chance of hitting his outs based on the known cards.Or you can just tell the allin he is shit out of luck due to dealer error.

[dna4ever 2]

I know I was joking.So we know that the one player had AQ the allin player still has his cards in his hand and we know what the board was.I guess we could remove all those cards from the muck and reshuffle everything else and burn and turn the river. It isn't ideal but it still gives the allin player the same statistical chance of hitting his outs based on the known cards.Or you can just tell the allin he is shit out of luck due to dealer error.

I get the concept of what you are saying on the reshuffle, but I can't imagine ever reintroducing mucked cards back into play so they have an opportunity to resurface.The Or part is definitely the summary of what happened.

[yahaw 0]

I hire a better TD

FYP

[cdipierr 0]

I get the concept of what you are saying on the reshuffle, but I can't imagine ever reintroducing mucked cards back into play so they have an opportunity to resurface.The Or part is definitely the summary of what happened.

Having a LOT of experience in bar poker leagues (820 tournaments played, plenty of TD experience), it's more important to make sure the players have fun than to have pure integrity here. If you had professional dealers or if player A tossed his cards in and then realized he made a mistake, then eliminating the player is fine.But in a situation where it's a pure mistake like this, I'd do either:A) Give Player A the main pot minus the amount Player B paid into it. In other words, if Player A had 1k initially, he'd now have 2k + SB + BB. Player B would get his 1k back from that pot.B) Reconstruct the hand like Bob indicates.I'd also probably let Player A and Player B decide which of the two happened. Obviously if this was in a casino, it's different, but in a fun environment like this, you do what's best for the overall experience, and shoving a guy out of the tournament through no fault of his own is not it.

[Yoda 1]

I guess we could remove all those cards from the muck and reshuffle everything else and burn and turn the river. It isn't ideal but it still gives the allin player the same statistical chance of hitting his outs based on the known cards.

I go this way too. Give him his fair shot at the 4 outs. He is actually facing slightly worse odds with the other mucked cards mixed in; but he still gets his chance. Granted, it would never happen that way in a casino; but in a bar league or home game I definitely go this way.

[Balloon guy 158]

Tell Player A not to go all in with 10 J...problem solved

[dna4ever 2]

Tell Player A not to go all in with 10 J...problem solved

10 J is like a top hand in bar poker man!

[vonteego3 0]

You definitely made the right ruling, if your goal is to have that guy never play again or tell any of his friends anything positive about your league.Seriously, there were plenty of choices, and you chose pretty much the worst one possible.

[Balloon guy 158]

You definitely made the right ruling, if your goal is to have that guy never play again or tell any of his friends anything positive about your league.Seriously, there were plenty of choices, and you chose pretty much the worst one possible.

Canadian beer isn't that bad...

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Having a LOT of experience in bar poker leagues (820 tournaments played, plenty of TD experience), it's more important to make sure the players have fun than to have pure integrity here. If you had professional dealers or if player A tossed his cards in and then realized he made a mistake, then eliminating the player is fine.But in a situation where it's a pure mistake like this, I'd do either:A) Give Player A the main pot minus the amount Player B paid into it. In other words, if Player A had 1k initially, he'd now have 2k + SB + BB. Player B would get his 1k back from that pot.B) Reconstruct the hand like Bob indicates.I'd also probably let Player A and Player B decide which of the two happened. Obviously if this was in a casino, it's different, but in a fun environment like this, you do what's best for the overall experience, and shoving a guy out of the tournament through no fault of his own is not it.

I agree with this one.Try and make everybody as happy as possible.

[dna4ever 2]

Having a LOT of experience in bar poker leagues (820 tournaments played, plenty of TD experience), it's more important to make sure the players have fun than to have pure integrity here. If you had professional dealers or if player A tossed his cards in and then realized he made a mistake, then eliminating the player is fine.But in a situation where it's a pure mistake like this, I'd do either:A) Give Player A the main pot minus the amount Player B paid into it. In other words, if Player A had 1k initially, he'd now have 2k + SB + BB. Player B would get his 1k back from that pot.B) Reconstruct the hand like Bob indicates.I'd also probably let Player A and Player B decide which of the two happened. Obviously if this was in a casino, it's different, but in a fun environment like this, you do what's best for the overall experience, and shoving a guy out of the tournament through no fault of his own is not it.

I think the bolded is the key. I get so caught up on trying to run as close to a roberts rules system as possible. I really like the options you gave and I also like giving player A/B some input as I'm sure player B wouldn't have minded giving back a K or 2 as he also would have understood it was not Player A's fault. Kind of the old sales adage of people must weigh-in to buy-in.One of those spurt of the moment decisions that didn't feel right. If I thought it was completely the right decision I wouldn't have posted it here for feedbackGood input, and gracias.

[dapokerbum 0]

Didn't look at spoiler or any other replies ....Unfortunately, I would have to declare the entire hand dead and give everyone who put chips in the money back. i would then give the dealer a stern lecture and penalty of sitting out for an entire round. Then redeal and proceed as if it never happened.

[nutzbuster 7]

he is shit out of luck due to dealer error.

tuff nut for A. B gets to keep it all imo.

[GetSprung 0]

Didn't look at spoiler or any other replies ....Unfortunately, I would have to declare the entire hand dead and give everyone who put chips in the money back. i would then give the dealer a stern lecture and penalty of sitting out for an entire round. Then redeal and proceed as if it never happened.

Are you serious? This is an awful awful awful awful awful idea. "Sorry you got it in with the nuts, but we're punishing you and saving the other player!"The correct ruling for a bar league is definitely the one that keeps everyone happy. Recreate the board, reshuffle the muck, and proceed with the hand. Or if it is a super casual league ask the two players involved what they would like to do to make the situation right.

[Pivvy2001 0]

Are you serious? This is an awful awful awful awful awful idea. "Sorry you got it in with the nuts, but we're punishing you and saving the other player!"The correct ruling for a bar league is definitely the one that keeps everyone happy. Recreate the board, reshuffle the muck, and proceed with the hand. Or if it is a super casual league ask the two players involved what they would like to do to make the situation right.

I tend to agree Sprung. I am not trying to pick nits DNA, but why couldn't the hand be recreated. You knew all the cards (as you were able to post them here), so why couldn't you have pulled them out of the muck and then shuffled and then put out a river. I guess I just don't understand the thinking on the decision (and not just from the bar league perspective, mainly because I don't know why an all-in player who protected his hand is getting punished).

[nutzbuster 7]

I tend to agree Sprung. I am not trying to pick nits DNA, but why couldn't the hand be recreated. You knew all the cards (as you were able to post them here), so why couldn't you have pulled them out of the muck and then shuffled and then put out a river. I guess I just don't understand the thinking on the decision (and not just from the bar league perspective, mainly because I don't know why an all-in player who protected his hand is getting punished).

While I tend to agree to a point this would be harder to achieve than it sounds. Unless everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the board was recreated exactly, the hole cards exact, the pot(s) exact and video to support the claims, it is impossible for DNA to have ruled it any other way. Once those hands are mucked...tough shit. Next hand please.Poker is poker, and rules are rules, and I think in any real tournament or cash game setting Alan's ruling would be correct. You can't just make up special standards because this happened to happen in a Bar league situation? people are people and mistakes sometimes get made, and life sometimes isn't fair, etc.

[sandwedge 30]

As a TD myself, I haven't read the spoiler, nor any of the replies yet. I'll answer and then go back and read to see if I get it right...In my opinion the only thing possible is to divide the pot based on equity. The player with two pair had four outs, and thus an approximate 8% chance to win the pot. He gets 8% of the pot, the other player gets 92% of the pot.I remind the players that this is a human game, and honest mistakes are sometimes made, and this is the fairest ruling I can make based on the circumstances.Edit: Well, at least my answer is unique. In my defense, our rulebook addresses the fact that the floor has the power to determine when an equity situation exists and to award the pot accordingly.I also agree with the idea that whatever makes the players happy in this situation works for me. I made a ruling like that a few weeks ago.

[JSpencer 0]

As a TD myself, I haven't read the spoiler, nor any of the replies yet. I'll answer and then go back and read to see if I get it right...In my opinion the only thing possible is to divide the pot based on equity. The player with two pair had four outs, and thus an approximate 8% chance to win the pot. He gets 8% of the pot, the other player gets 92% of the pot.I remind the players that this is a human game, and honest mistakes are sometimes made, and this is the fairest ruling I can make based on the circumstances.Edit: Well, at least my answer is unique. In my defense, our rulebook addresses the fact that the floor has the power to determine when an equity situation exists and to award the pot accordingly.I also agree with the idea that whatever makes the players happy in this situation works for me. I made a ruling like that a few weeks ago.

I feel like that is a pretty awful ruling. I don't see the difficulty in putting the exact same board back out, re-shuffling the deck and dealing the river. This seems like the most fair way to go about it.

[sandwedge 30]

I feel like that is a pretty awful ruling. I don't see the difficulty in putting the exact same board back out, re-shuffling the deck and dealing the river. This seems like the most fair way to go about it.

First, we have to realize that this is a situation that has no perfect answer. As a player, I wouldn't object to your ruling, as I can see the difficulty of the situation.The problem that you face, though, is that there's a 36% chance (based on ten players) that the river card is going to be someone's mucked hole cards -- and you will definitely hear about it if it is. Whoever loses the pot in this case will feel robbed.I've talked it over with a few people, one of whom used to manage a very well respected poker room. His first reaction was to rule the same that you would. When I told him my ruling, he said he understood it and didn't have a problem with it. Then he told me of a hand he witnessed in a 30/60 limit cash game. Player A bets the turn on a 9 high board. Player B folds pocket tens. The dealer scoops all the cards and begins to push the pot, but player C is still in the hand. The floor asks players C if he wishes to call, and he does. The cards are shuffled together, and a ten hits the river. Player A shows pocket kings, Player C shows pocket tens, and even though he would have been drawing dead, he wins the pot.I've thought this through a good bit, and at this point, I'm fine with the ruling I would make. Before the dealer's mistake, each hand had a mathematical value based on it's chances of winning the pot. Dividing the pot based on that seems fair to me.I'll continue ponder the situation. I've reread our rulebook, and I'll go through Roberts Rules and TDA rules to see if I can get some insight.

[BaseJester 1]

Player A bets the turn on a 9 high board. Player B folds pocket tens. The dealer scoops all the cards and begins to push the pot, but player C is still in the hand. The floor asks players C if he wishes to call, and he does. The cards are shuffled together, and a ten hits the river. Player A shows pocket kings, Player C shows pocket tens, and even though he would have been drawing dead, he wins the pot.I've thought this through a good bit, and at this point, I'm fine with the ruling I would make. Before the dealer's mistake, each hand had a mathematical value based on it's chances of winning the pot. Dividing the pot based on that seems fair to me.

It seems to me that if we know the right pot equity for each player we can construct a functional deck and vice versa. In your example with the pocket tens, is the right equity 0 (considering that the two remaining tens are in the muck) or 2 outs divided by something?There might be some pragmatic value to the tournament director to obscure his choices for what cards to include by rolling them together into a number, but as a player I'd rather see a card dealt.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I'd make the ruling based on what we know, not what might have happened. Player A is basically a victim of a mistake. It happens. Only other option is to roll back the hands of time to before the hand occurred - return all chips and re-deal. But I don't like this very much.

[Merby 3]

Award the side pot to player B and award the main pot to both players A and B in terms of their equity at that moment (an estimate is sufficient -- Player A had 4 outs, so that is a little shy of 10% equity. )EDIT: I just read the other replies and am glad to see Sandwedge came to the same conclusion. In my opinion, this is the best option BY FAR. The hand ended on the turn and was unrecoverable -- the only option is to "cash in " the players' equity at that moment that the hand ended. Sadly Alan, I feel that your decision here was one of the worst options (especially in a bar league) as player A still had chips in a pot in which he had equity (however small). I do appreciate how difficult this situation would have been to make a ruling.