semi serious home game. $100 buy in held once a week for many years. We try to play close to the book but also keep the game friendly and often rule in the best interest of the game. We allow lots of rabbit hunting and keep the game fun.

MP limps, his 2 chips land next to SB chips. SB has put in a number of small chips to cover his sb. There has not been the usual colour up, so there are small denomination chips still on the table.

folds to SB. SB and big blind are talking and not fully paying attention. SB folds and not realizing MP is in the hand he pushes all the chips to the BB. BB never looks at cards and mucks thinking the hand is over. Cards are not retrevable.

MP is still in the hand and is the only one that still has cards. His cards are back against the rail and he splashed the pot so his chips ended up in front of the SB.

MP wins the hand and should be awarded an amount equal to the big blind post plus the small blind post. These chips should come from BB.

Then, separately, MP should be cautioned (warned) to not splash the pot any more. (But he still wins this pot).

Buzz

MP gets a warning to not splash the pot. MP also gets the SB and BB's call of MP. BB gets his raise back and a warning to pay attention.

This is just one of many things that can happen when you allow players to carelessly throw chips in. I am very anal about this at our friday night game. I try to keep bets clearly seperate from the pot and I do mildly admonish pot splashers that this is not allowed. I also have lots of help from other players in our group who share my concerns.

In this case, since cards are not retrievable, last guy holding cards wins IMHO. Maybe lesson learned.

Yes, MP learns he can splash the pot and win, knocking an opponent out of a tournament, without any kind of showdown.

Yeah, in this case, I guess so, but really I meant a lesson for the group to discourage pot splashing and paying attention to the action better.

People here feel that even though someone (SB, not dealer) pushed the pot to BB and told him he wins (something like "take it"). He loses the pot having never looked at his cards.

He loses the "pot" not because he never looked at his cards, but because he mucked while another player's hand is still live.

And by "pot", I mean his call of MP, SB and any other chip in the pot. The WSOP had a couple of televised hands where similar instances occurred. Someone call/raise, BB went all-in and mucked. What is now a standard ruling, [and now even in TDA rules, I believe], is the all-in only loses the call and gets his raise back.

It of course would be different if MP was all-in and covered the BB. In this case, BB would be SOL and out of the tournament unless his cards could somehow be recovered. In our game, we would retrieve the BB's card provided he could name the cards. The dealer would then go muck diving for the cards. If not found, BB would again be SOL.

MP gets the pot.

SB folds.

BB didn't see another player put chips into the pot. That's on BB. Let him be upset at SB, but also let him take some responsibility.

Stuff happens. This is not a big deal.

Push the pot to MP.

Warn everyone about splashing the pot.

Remind everyone to pay attention when in a hand.

You may be enjoying each other's company and celebrating another Friday - cuz who doesn't like Fridays?? - you're still playing poker for money and, most likely, **** talking rights. You're responsible for your chips and cards when in a hand.

yup, MP gets the pot, remind players to pay attention to the game. Just one question, BB never noticed all those extra chips on the table. Normally it would look like SB raised with those extra chips

There are several mentions of splashing the pot, but the way I read the OP, that is not clear to me. MP's chips landed close to SB's, but what does that mean?

How far away were SB's chips from MP? Did they have to fly across the table, or were SB's chips somewhat out there as well?

Definitely MP's pot, but I don't see that as necessarily rewarding MP for doing something wrong.

Yes. BB voids his hand when he mucks it, whether he looked at it or not.

Buzz

Good point Eneely. Since MP was the only player that called, how could the chips get mixed up

Once again, no sympathy for BB from this corner.

Could be chips from antes strewn about the table? Could be a few stacks of smaller chips, there was mention of a color up that got skipped, and a splashed pile is hard to count? Circular table and chips splashed to the center, oval table and SB/BB headed into the turn, MP across from them around the turn?


If this was the rare occurrence, and people generally don't mind... keep on trucking.

If people do mind, then it's time for at least one person to take charge and remind folks where bets/cards belong and the dealer to at least keep track of the action one hand per orbit.

Curious to what the dealer was doing. Zoned out after determining that they were going to fold?

At 1st we ruled same as everyone in this thread. We had 2 tables going at the time and let senior players at the other table make the ruling.

After some discussion BB and MP offered that since there was no raise, only a limp, they would split the chips. This ended the discussion and allowed the game to move forward with everyone happy. "A best interest in the home game ruling." Which sometimes end up happening.

Just wanted to check in and see what outside opinions are on the hand. Especially since it was an unconventional ruling. We were all actually surprised we had never had this situation before. It seemed like a situation that would come up more often then we have seen at our game.

Cheers

I was dealer. I am usually a pretty solid dealer. I take dealing more serious then any of the other players at the game. I am often the one called on to make rulings. SB and BB were talking to each other about work. It happened very quickly because they were tuned into each other already. SB just pushed the chips and the cards went into the muck at almost the same time.

I saw it before MP and it was still to late. These things do happen on occasion. When they do we try our best to sort it out in a fair way.

There should be one TD (host?) that has final say over rulings.

Not a good solution. While this may have been early in the tournament and the amount of the SB, BB and limp that they chopped was insignificant, all players have a vested interest this matter.

For example, I wouldn't let the SB and BB agree to chop their blinds in an unraised pot or allow players make any other deals while in the hand.

I know this is odd. But the host is probably the least likely person at the game to make a correct ruling. I printed off a copy of RROP and brought it to the game. The host seemed almost offended. The host has a complex of not wanting to upset anyone and is neutral in almost all rulings. This caused us to come up with a different system. The most senior player/s not in the hand make the ruling. If there are 2 tables the table not involved is called on.

Most rulings are correct. On occasion incorrect ruling occurs. But I've never felt a ruling was horrible. I've always been able to live with the rulings.

We don't allow chops or deals. No deals in the money either. You must play it out.

Sometimes the host simply has the best place to play, size, available location , and so on. This does not mean the host is actually always the best person to make rulings pokerwise. You seem to have developed a structure to deal with stuff that works.

Hypothetical situation.

Same exact situation except it is dealer, not SB, that pushed the pot to BB when SB folds. If dealer missed MP limping in. What would the ruling be?

I can't call it a misdeal. Yet BB losing his chips would not be fair either.

My ruling stands. MP wins but BB gets his raise back.

(1) SB folds, (2) dealer pushes pot towards BB, (3) BB mucks, (4) and then it is discovered that MP is still in the hand?

This is slightly different.

However, it's still BB's responsibility to be aware that MP is in the pot. And if MP is still in the pot, then BB should not be mucking his hand unless he intends to fold.

Since BB has mucked his hand, he is not entitled to the pot or a share in the pot.

I think the rule is clear.

But if MP is agreeable to a split and it makes everybody happier, splitting the pot between BB and MP seems fair.

It is not fair to take this pot away from MP. (unless it's clear to all that splashing the pot is not allowed).

But MP still gets the warning to not splash the pot anymore.

Buzz

Every home game has it's own dynamic. If everyone's happy then it's good to go.

BUT if this game has been going on for years I'm sure similar situations have come up. The host should defer the role of TD to one specific person. Maybe an alternate in case that person is in a hand that is disputed.

Same ruling. It's fair because the BB did not follow the action. I know the dealer didn't either but this is a home game after all.

Absolutely NEVER a misdeal - PERIOD. The 'issue' didn't happen during the deal.

What raise?