I think that's typically the ruling for "a hand is still going on and someone doesn't have cards any more". The ruling in the thread is more of "a hand is over and someone still has cards".

Except nobody hid their cards as described. MP called by putting 4k out in plain view. He has done nothing wrong here.

I get that it can hard to see from seat 1 to seat 8 but it is as much on BTN to be aware of what happens before him. He is also responsible for stopping the dealer from mucking his card and pushing the pot when MP is still in the hand.

Fwiw, I would have no problem with BTN spending 5 seconds on "did he fold?" if he wasn't sure.

ok, that might be it.

I'm still having a hard time to see why it's that scenario and not the other.

It's that scenario because things can happen that make a hand seem over to a player (ie: dealer drops the deck, dealer starts pushing the pot, dealer flips over the board, etc.). If a player hands over his cards because the dealer's shoved the pot into his lap and mucked the flop, it should be treated significantly differently then if the player throws in his cards while the flop's still up, the pot hasn't moved, the dealer's holding the deck, etc.

The decision was made by the floor and he very likely applied Rule One.

It is rare that I disagree with you, but in this case I do. The dealer didn't pick up the MP's cards the first time through, as he should have if he thought it was a fold. Clearly at that moment when the MP slid his chips in, the dealer accepted that he was still in the hand, because he didn't collect the cards. The dealer completely forgot after it happened. It is possible that the dealer might have woken up a bit if the player had said call, but if he's so out of it that he forgot about the call seconds later, I doubt a verbal message would have helped.

The OP also indicates there was literally no time for the MP to verbalize much of anything. It isn't as if the dealer stood there for 20 seconds then pushed the pot. All of us have seen fast dealers that push pots the second the cards are on the way to the muck pile. This situation is the dealer's fault. I don't think a room really wants to insist that players have to be 100% sure the dealer knows they are in still in the hand.

"Dealer, stop. Before the action goes to the BB, I want you to acknowledge in no uncertain terms that I am still in the hand." If the dealer moves to the BB without acknowledgement, "Floor!"

I think the floor made the right call. Action was not accepted by the dealer, nor the button. Otherwise, the dealer should have told the MP the action was on him and the BTN should have said, "The MP is still in the hand." Since action was not accepted and the play can not be rewound, the bet is returned to the player.

I agree with not letting people win pots by hiding their cards, but from reading OP it looks like button let his hand get mucked while the $4k was still sitting out in front of MP.

Button wasn't paying attention and didn't make a reasonable effort to protect his hand.

I'm not really sure why MP is losing a pot because someone else wasn't paying attention.

Part of the theory of "protect your hand" is also "protect your action". You cannot hide your cards, and let three people behind you fold, let the dealer push the pot to the winner, let the board and the winner's cards be mucked, and then say "SURPRISE! I have cards--my pot!" Doesn't sound like this is what happened here, but that's how the only person holding cards can end up not winning the pot.

Sounds like another example of a dealer doing things in the wrong order adding to the problem. First you push the pot, then you tear down the board and muck the cards. Pushing the pot first helps give any player with cards that got skipped the chance to see it and stop it. If the dealer's step one in finishing up a hand is to kill the winner's cards, THEN push the pot, the damage is fast and permanent.

This was a nasty error where it's pretty hard to put the finger of blame on either player. So you're left just trying to minimize the damage and pick the path that feels fairest. So do you take back the pot from the guy who bet, saw people fold, was told by the dealer "you win, gimme your cards"? Or do you tell the guy who hasn't called, let the dealer tell the other guy "you win", take the other guy's hand, and start to push the pot that he's not going to get to finish playing the hand? Sucks either way. Floor aimed for a compromise.

I would think it's more reasonable to expect BTN to know that MP is in the hand than to expect MP to mindread that the dealer have forgotten about him.

Based on the description it doesn't sound like MP had an actual chance of stopping the dealer.

I imagine action went something like BTN raise in seat 1, seats 2 and 3 fold, the dealer mucks the hands and scoops the pot (chips in front of seats 1,2 and 3). This means that the dealer never changed his position to look towards seat 8. The dealer will have had his back turned to seat 8 the entire time and thus I think it's more reasonable to expect BTN to realize that something is wrong than it is to expect that from seat 8. If BTN is aware that seat 8 is in the hand, he should also know that the dealer never turned his attention towards seat as that would require the dealer to change his position and turn his back to BTN in seat 1. BTN didn't speak up and just accepted that the dealer mucked his cards.

I think we can all agree that the mistake lie primarily with the dealer, but if you want to look at which of the player who actually had a chance of speaking up and realize that something was wrong I think it is much more reasonable to say that BTN didn't protect his hand than it is to say that MP didn't protect his hand.

Without being there to see what the floor saw and hear what the floor heard, it's hard for anyone to know exactly what happened or why the floor made the call that he did.

There could have been any number of things that swayed the floor to make the decision he did.

If someone asks me to comment on a floor decision where I work, I refuse since I was not there. The floor who made the decision had more info than I could hope to have hearing about it 2nd or 3rd hand the next day.

From the viewpoint of the BTN, he might have not raised if he knew that MP was still in the hand. He sees the blinds fold and the dealer is pushing him the pot, why not give up his hand?

The dealer failed here obviously, but if there is a sudden flurry of folds all at once, maybe he just didn't notice the MP still had cards. Still a dealer error though.

Wow, I disagree with a lot of folks ITT, folks with whom I normally agree.

Give button his raise back, ship the blinds plus 4k from the button to MP caller who has cards.

If button doesn't like the fact that dealer took his cards and mucked them, give him the standard "Why Protecting Your Cards Is Super-Important When You're In The One Seat" speech.

EDIT TO ADD: On second thought, since it happened BEFORE the raise was called, give button his entire bet back, ship the blinds and antes to MP.

So, to protect my hand in seat 1, when you're shipping me the pot, can I hold my cards every time and ask you to verify that seats 10, 9, 8, and 7 all mucked? And you won't get all cranky and be "I'm shipping you the pot, of course those seats folded!"?

Best I can understand OP says the dealer mucked Button's cards and then starting shipping the pot.

Which is the entirety of the problem here. If button holds onto his card until the pot is coming his way obviously its MP's responsibility to speak up.

Its entirely different if MP sees the pot being shipped, waits for button to muck, and then speaks up.

Why button would win a pot for not protecting his hand and MP would lose one for doing nothing wrong I don't understand.

The posts so far show exactly who's right: Noone.
* Button gave up his cards because he was getting the pot shipped. His view of MP having cards was likely obstructed so how's he supposed to know different? Say what you want, but everybody itt would the same thing.
* Action was on MP and he was likely focused on what he wanted to do, maybe counting his stack for the 10th time in the last 5 minutes, maybe cutting raising chips. Also, he was likely as obstructed by the goings-on with Btn as Btn was.

Some kind of equitable split is about the best you can do here, be it the button or mp getting his limp/bb back, and the other getting the dead money. I could even see them chopping the dead chips, or leaving them in dead for the next hand. It's like playing poket jacks: there's no right or wrong move, they're all fine, and they're all wrong.

The only one who definitively screwed the pooch is the Dealer. You can't penalyze her, unfortunately, not within the game. And no, I'm not suggesting she get written up or fired or screwed out of the dealer add-on money. It's a simple mistake, and anyone's capable of a lapse.

For the record - I wasn't looking at how it unfolded between the dealer and BTN. I was UTG+1 and was having a conversation with player in seat 7 when I saw MP react and then looked back - and at that point, I saw chips being pushed to BTN. When Floor was called over - that's when I learned that BTN's cards were in the muck also...

What I know for sure is that soon as action got to MP, he reached for calling chips, and then reacted verbally when he saw what was happening. Dealer, when explaining to the Floor, mentioned he completely forgot about MP being in the hand.

Couldn't tell you whether BTN also was confused about MP (doubtful, but then again, we get tunnel vision sometime), or if dealer mucked his hands or if he saw chips being prepared to being pushed to him and sent his card in the muck...

It wasn't a huge deal for anyone really - just wanted opinions on what options Floor had...