Rules Interpretation - Vegas Tournament

[cdd1976 0]

Hello all - Long time lurker, infrequent poster. I have a question about a rules interpretation that went very poorly for a friend of mine playing a tournament in Vegas last weekend. This is not spam, I probably could search and find the answer, but I'd just appreciate a straight forward response if someone would be so kind.$115 tournament at Luxor. My friend gets to the final table with the chip lead, and is still in the lead when it's down to 5 players. He's in the big blind (chip stacks, amount of blinds not important to ruling), and everyone folds to the small blind (who is very near him in chip size). SB moves all-in. My friend (BB) looks down at pocket KK's, says "All-in", and pushes his stack across the line.According to friend, his cards are still on the rail, in the same place he keeps them at all times. He has pushed his entire stack across the line. At this point, the chaos ensues. Dealer reaches OVER the top of friends chips, and takes friend's cards. Friend says that he was momentarily confused about why dealer was taking cards, but as dealer threw cards in the muck, friend realizes what's happening and yells at the dealer to stop. Dealer says friend failed to protect his cards (which, mind you, were still on the rail, behind the line). Argument ensues.Question 1: What is the ruling at this point? To me, there is one of two possible outcomes: A. hand is dead, friend loses his BB, and play continues; or B. hand continues with friend as all-in, and the cards are dealt. Please comment on these decisions.Back to the story - during the ensuing argument, the pit boss is called. The pit boss rules that not only is friend's hand dead, BUT he ALSO loses his entire bet!! After counting chips, this leaves friend with 2 chips left, and he goes out a couple hands later in 5th place.Which leads to question 2: Is Pit Boss' ruling correct? Friend's hand is dead, AND he loses his entire all-in bet without the cards being played? Seems absurd to me.Thank you in advance for the responses to this question.cdd

[FullMontyM1 0]

If this all went down as you say it did, at this point your friend should ask for the pit boss' boss and demand a review of the security cameras.Monty

[Ouch-8s 4]

I don't understand - what was the reasoning for thinking the hand might be dead? Did he expose them before betting? Take them off the table? Put them over the line?

[Tiltinagain 973]

I don't understand - what was the reasoning for thinking the hand might be dead? Did he expose them before betting? Take them off the table? Put them over the line?

I can't imagine a dealer reaching over your chips and mucking your cardsfor ANY reason. More info might help

[aucu 3]

Sounds like a BS call.But BS happens all the time.Protect your cards as if someone is out to rip you off.

[jowest 0]

Don't play at the luxor it is rigged

[Canary3 1]

sounds pretty ridiculous to me.... You must be leaving something out

[sleepcamel 0]

I'm skeptical of the story...BB is the chip leader, SB is only two chips behind, so why is SB completely overplaying his 55 by going all-in? This only makes sense if the blinds are huge relative to his (nearly top) stack. If that's the case, then it's just a luck-fest at this point anyway, and he should be glad he's got a good story to tell.The whole thing sounds like a big exaggeration, like your friend did something goofy that got his cards mucked and then he got carried away retelling the story."Seriously, the dealer reached OVER my stack, moved my 10lb card protector, mucked my Cowboys, took a swig from my beer and punched me in the face. With my 10lb card protector. Then he ran it anyway and the board was a royal flush, but he wouldn't let me chop because I didn't have cards, even though I'd gone all in."

[FullMontyM1 0]

I'm skeptical of the story...BB is the chip leader, SB is only two chips behind, so why is SB completely overplaying his 55 by going all-in? This only makes sense if the blinds are huge relative to his (nearly top) stack. If that's the case, then it's just a luck-fest at this point anyway, and he should be glad he's got a good story to tell.The whole thing sounds like a big exaggeration, like your friend did something goofy that got his cards mucked and then he got carried away retelling the story."Seriously, the dealer reached OVER my stack, moved my 10lb card protector, mucked my Cowboys, took a swig from my beer and punched me in the face. With my 10lb card protector. Then he ran it anyway and the board was a royal flush, but he wouldn't let me chop because I didn't have cards, even though I'd gone all in."

Well played first postMonty

[jowest 0]

I'm skeptical of the story...BB is the chip leader, SB is only two chips behind, so why is SB completely overplaying his 55 by going all-in? This only makes sense if the blinds are huge relative to his (nearly top) stack. If that's the case, then it's just a luck-fest at this point anyway, and he should be glad he's got a good story to tell.The whole thing sounds like a big exaggeration, like your friend did something goofy that got his cards mucked and then he got carried away retelling the story."Seriously, the dealer reached OVER my stack, moved my 10lb card protector, mucked my Cowboys, took a swig from my beer and punched me in the face. With my 10lb card protector. Then he ran it anyway and the board was a royal flush, but he wouldn't let me chop because I didn't have cards, even though I'd gone all in."

Fresh out of the womb and already posting like a big boy. Did you post this all by yourself?Welcome

[tallytownFSU 0]

This does seem like some serious BS.The ONLY instance in live tournaments that I've seen where the dealer mucks a players hand, is when I was playing in one of the Friday tourney's at Bellagio a few months back, and some random player moved all in. Another player, who had his cards infront of his chips, picked his cards up like he was going to muck, and flipped them up across the line before any verbal declaration was made. TD was called and Jack said that any cards exposed across the action line without intent is a dead hand.That is the only thing that I think applies here.Depending on the truth from the OP, what I believe happened is the hand was exposed, and the dealer mucked the hand, whether or not the player had made a declaration.

[mclark340 0]

There are only two possible explanations:1. Your friend was in either the 1 or 10 seat and in fact did not protect his hand.2. This story is BSI suspect it is #1 and your friend just learned a horrible leason in Poker.If your friend did not have any cards...and the dealer mucked them...I would either claim (A) a misdeal (B) argue that I can not go all in without any cards. With no other action it is not reasonable to rule as the pitboss did (again assuming no other action).

[cdd1976 0]

I'll try to respond to the criticisms the best I can - given that the story is a second-hand account given to me. Thanks to those with serious responses.1. I'm not sure what the dealer's rationale was for reaching over the line. All I can tell you is that, according to my friend, he had not exposed his cards, nor had he moved them across the line. Near as he could tell, he thinks the dealer "thought" he would fold, as it looked like a classic blind-steal from the SB (who, after the fact, told friend he had AQ suited - friend had KK).2. I have a question for those who said he should have protected his cards better. How would he have done that? He was all-in, pushed all of chips over the line, and proceeded to have the dealer grab his cards and muck them. It's not like he could have put a chip on the cards when he was all-in? What could he have done better?3. The story is not fabricated, it is not BS, it was confirmed by the 3 other friends he had with him that night. 4. Again, I know nothing about the sizes of the stacks in relation to blinds, etc. at the point in the tourney when this happened. Friend's best guess is that SB moved all-in in a steal attempt, with a fairly decent hand with 5 people remaining.5. I am a relative newbie to the game, so how does Friend's seat in either seats 1 or 10 make any difference to the decision? Please explain.Thanks again to the serious responders to this question.cdd

[BeaverStyle 1]

I call bs on this story because:#1: If the dealer mucked your friend's cards, then the pit boss would have no reason to say you lose the chips you put in, because your verbal declaration announced you had pushed all in, and the dealer mucked your cards. Since it was a dealer mistake, shouldn't your bet be voided and simply take your bet back?#2: If this happened, then i wouldn't play at that casino again because that decision is retarded.#3: It's broccoli.

[FullMontyM1 0]

I'm not convinced of the veracity of this story.. but in the spirit of fair play

2. I have a question for those who said he should have protected his cards better. How would he have done that?

If someone tries to touch my live hand, I stab them in the hand with the nearest sharp object. Failing that, I smash their hand liberally with my fist.Monty

[pmk-one 0]

The hand is dead as soon as the cards touch the muck and your friend loses his chips . . . period.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...1&st=&p=entry

[cdd1976 0]

For those of you calling BS to my story ... humor me, pretend it happened, put yourself in my Friend's shoes, whatever, but please give me a response of some sort.Somehow, I just can't accept the "his cards hit the muck, his hand is dead" explanation without returning Friend's chips to him. I agree in the first instance, that if the dealer screws up, mucks the hand, and the cards hit the muck, the hand is dead. However, if that is the case, I cannot see Friend losing all of his chips. Seems to me that if an all-in bet is made over the top of an all-in bet, a showdown has to take place. Correct me if I'm wrong ...Second, Friend would probably acknowledge that he should have done more to protect his hand, ala stabbing the dealer's hand when he reached for Friend's cards. Friend admits that after making the all-in bet, he leaned back in his chair before turning his cards over, why he did, he doesn't know. In the confusion of it, he didn't think to stop the dealer from grabbing his cards. Assuming all this to be true for the sake of argument, I still think that at worst, the correct decision is to declare his hand dead and return his chips, minus his blinds, or alternatively, to flip both hands over and play the hand. Correct me if I'm wrong, and thanks again for "humoring" me if nothing else.cdd

[SopotBoy 0]

Id make the same ruling in my room. If the dealer mucks an unprotected hand It is dead and non retrevalble and yes he does lose his chips. I've had to make this ruling more than once. Everytime its the same ruling hand is dead you lose your chips. Why is it so hard to protect your cards? I see my dealers remind players to protect their hands and they do for like one hand then it's back to not protecting it again. Then they get really pissed when their hand gets mucked. No.1 Rule in live poker PROTECT YOUR HAND AT ALL TIMES!!Your friend deserves to lose his chips and the tourney sorry

[mosley 0]

OP, what do you mean when you say your friend "turned his cards over"?edit: oh, he didn't get that far... nothing

[Royal_Tour 0]

For those of you calling BS to my story ... humor me, pretend it happened, put yourself in my Friend's shoes, whatever, but please give me a response of some sort.Somehow, I just can't accept the "his cards hit the muck, his hand is dead" explanation without returning Friend's chips to him. I agree in the first instance, that if the dealer screws up, mucks the hand, and the cards hit the muck, the hand is dead. However, if that is the case, I cannot see Friend losing all of his chips. Seems to me that if an all-in bet is made over the top of an all-in bet, a showdown has to take place. Correct me if I'm wrong ...Second, Friend would probably acknowledge that he should have done more to protect his hand, ala stabbing the dealer's hand when he reached for Friend's cards. Friend admits that after making the all-in bet, he leaned back in his chair before turning his cards over, why he did, he doesn't know. In the confusion of it, he didn't think to stop the dealer from grabbing his cards. Assuming all this to be true for the sake of argument, I still think that at worst, the correct decision is to declare his hand dead and return his chips, minus his blinds, or alternatively, to flip both hands over and play the hand. Correct me if I'm wrong, and thanks again for "humoring" me if nothing else.cdd

I wont humor you with much,but the fact that a dealer reached over the stack to grab his cards cuz they were "unprotected" is completely 100% ridiculous.1st off, he pushed all his chips in the middle, that means he is guaranteed to be in the hand, and all cards will flip up once betting is finished, if he is called. If not, his cards wil be mucked and he will win the pot.Also, I'd like to add that "protecting" your cards is something you do when your hand can be mistaken for folded cards, with your entire stack in front of your cards, they are not to be killed, dealer can say, Please have them in clear site, thats allthis is broccoli

[Suited_Up 2]

Id make the same ruling in my room. If the dealer mucks an unprotected hand It is dead and non retrevalble and yes he does lose his chips. I've had to make this ruling more than once. Everytime its the same ruling hand is dead you lose your chips. Why is it so hard to protect your cards? I see my dealers remind players to protect their hands and they do for like one hand then it's back to not protecting it again. Then they get really pissed when their hand gets mucked. No.1 Rule in live poker PROTECT YOUR HAND AT ALL TIMES!!Your friend deserves to lose his chips and the tourney sorry

Then you suck at running a poker game.If he says "ALL-IN"... Chips are assumed to be in the middle... if he pushes them in the middle on top of declaring all in.... How can you take his cards away? He's all-in. His cards are live... there's no need to protect them anymore, they can be flipped up and he's showing it down against the other player.Where exactly are you supposed to protect them? Your chips are in the middle... the dealer should be dealing a flop, not grabbing cards. And even if something happened before the chips went in... Then it's a dead hand and not an all-in... therefore he should still have chips.In this instance, you can't have both. You can't go all in AND have your hand killed... If this did happen, it's the biggest blunder I have ever heard of in my life. Which is why so many people are calling BS... but to say you would make the same ruling is pretty retarded.

[cdd1976 0]

Suited_Up: I agree with your analysis 100%. I must not have explained the situation very well previously, because it baffles me that people can say on one hand, you declare all-in, push your chips, and then have your cards mucked by the dealer, but on the other hand, in doing so, you haven't protected your hand? I didn't get it.To Royal Tour: I think the distinction that I may not have portrayed very well is that the entire table had folded to the SB, who pushed all-in BEFORE friend, who then all declared "all-in" while pushing his entire stack over the line, from the BB. Therefore, there was no betting left to do, it was complete at that point. Why he didn't immediately flip his cards, I don't know, but that slight error in procedure shouldn't warrant a loss of all of his chips.I think Suited_Up hits it on the head with his last line ... you can't have it both ways, in that, you can go all-in and then have your hand killed. If I'm wrong about this, someone's going to have to come at me with proof more than what I've heard so far. And for the nth time in this post, the activities described herein were confirmed by 3 different people, so it's not broccoli, it's not exaggeration, it actually happened. Thanks again - keep the insight coming. As I said earlier, I'm new to the game and enjoy hearing people's takes on different situations.cdd

[Royal_Tour 0]

Suited_Up: I agree with your analysis 100%. I must not have explained the situation very well previously, because it baffles me that people can say on one hand, you declare all-in, push your chips, and then have your cards mucked by the dealer, but on the other hand, in doing so, you haven't protected your hand? I didn't get it.To Royal Tour: I think the distinction that I may not have portrayed very well is that the entire table had folded to the SB, who pushed all-in BEFORE friend, who then all declared "all-in" while pushing his entire stack over the line, from the BB. Therefore, there was no betting left to do, it was complete at that point. Why he didn't immediately flip his cards, I don't know, but that slight error in procedure shouldn't warrant a loss of all of his chips.I think Suited_Up hits it on the head with his last line ... you can't have it both ways, in that, you can go all-in and then have your hand killed. If I'm wrong about this, someone's going to have to come at me with proof more than what I've heard so far. And for the nth time in this post, the activities described herein were confirmed by 3 different people, so it's not broccoli, it's not exaggeration, it actually happened. Thanks again - keep the insight coming. As I said earlier, I'm new to the game and enjoy hearing people's takes on different situations.cdd

Uhh ok, i pretty much said the exact same thing that Kurt said.. (suited up)but thanks for finding a distinction between the two, thats probably the reason your story is retarded

[cdd1976 0]

And the flaming begins ... I guess I'm a noob who's not in the "in crowd" on FCP, but whatever. royal called the topic broccoli, said that the action that I described was ridiculous, and basically took the position that friend lost. Suited took my side of the debate and agreed with me. Boy, if that isn't a distinction, I don't know what is.I'm done with thie topic. Thanks for the insight.cdd

[Suited_Up 2]

And the flaming begins ... I guess I'm a noob who's not in the "in crowd" on FCP, but whatever. royal called the topic broccoli, said that the action that I described was ridiculous, and basically took the position that friend lost. Suited took my side of the debate and agreed with me. Boy, if that isn't a distinction, I don't know what is.I'm done with thie topic. Thanks for the insight.cdd

It appeared that way, but I don't think he was disagreeing with you. He just meant the whole situation was broccoli, that the situation was ridiculous, not that you were lying. Just that if it's true, it's pretty messed up. I just said it more clearly, lol.