This happened to me over the weekend. I honestly wasn't sure whether I should start my own thread or put this in the "most absurd thinking" thread.

WSOP satellite. I have AKo and 10k chips with 500/1000 blinds. I raise to 2500.

Player behind me (our V, for the story), female, who I've never seen playing a cash game but is apparently a tournament reg, calls.

Small blind shoves all in. I snap call.

V grumpily says "fold," turns over pocket 88s, tosses them in front of her. They don't hit the muck.

SB shows AJ, I show AK, V says "How stupid can you be shoving AJ there?" Board runs out and AK stands as the nut no-pair.

Instead of pushing the pot to me, the dealer asks for V to give a chip count. I protest, saying that she announced "fold" and threw her cards away.

Much arguing ensues, with and without tournament director, with V now claiming that she didn't say anything, several players saying that they heard her say something, and both myself and the guy one behind V saying that we heard "fold."

V, in front of the tournament director, then says, "It was my intention to fold but I didn't say fold and I've had so many rulings go against me that I should be awarded this pot." (Most absurd thinking?)

So, professional and Monday Morning Tournament Directors, what's your ruling?

The dealer never mucked the 88? He just let them sit there? sounds like he thought 88 called, not folded. But from what you said, it sounds like a fold.

Also, why in the hell are you raising to 2500 when you only have 10bbs?

Absolutely obvious100% fold and if you did not get this pot you should never play at this casino again.












Also don't raise call 10bbs in this spot... Just jam.

all strategy aside, once the dealer started to burn and turn, you should have pointed out that she announced fold since her cards were still tabled. Since the cards remained tabled, it should have been a signal that the dealer thought it was a call.

Not that it's not the dealer's responsibility to clarify her action.

if this pot was still awarded to her after this admission, it would be one of the worst rulings ever, especially since other players also heard her say fold.

Please, elaborate.

by tabling a hand, it does not automatically mean call, especially when no chips go into the pot. A lot of people fold in this manner when it's heads up or facing an all-in to show a good fold.

I should learn how to read; I missed your second "not".

He said/she said...Sounds like you misheard her...

Give the lady her pot...She obviously tabled her cards for a reason...

Plus, you shoved 10bb and you had the sb covered. Why on Earth would she fold anyway?

she admitted she was folding or did you misread that.

So when the woman admitted her intention was to fold, she was lying?

This is clearly dealer error. The action should habe been clarifIed, but she should not get the pot, especially since she was honest about her intent.

+1 to the mention of people tabling cards to show soul read/tight fold/' I can't believe I'm folding my favorite hand to you, man'

Free info! ...Except when they end up taking the pot down after the fold

She shoulda said how stupid can you be turning over your AK without directing the dealer to muck my hand. Now I have an outside chance of angling this pot.
Procedure.

If the table agrees she said fold, it should be a fold correct?

Also she didn't verbally say "call," or put any chips forward. So what would make it a call in the dealer's mind?

Because when a player says a single word (often mumbling, often in a noisy room) "Call" and "Fold" don't sound that different.

Now of course if the dealer would have created a side pot immediately the problem would have come to light before the board ran out.

I see three options:

1. She folded. Next case

2. She did not fold. But she did not call. She allowed the board to be run out. Too late to complain. Next case.

3. She did not fold. But she did not call. Treat it like a premature burn/turn. Entire board will come back. She now has the option to call with about 45% equity.

No way does she get the pot without re-running the board.

Yes, to be clear to the non-trolls of this thread, SB had both V and I more than covered and a side pot would have potentially been required.

If you thought she said fold, you should have spoken up when the dealer proceeded to run out the hand with her cards still tabled.

KITN to dealer for not killing the hand if dealer thought she said fold

From a floor's perspective, this could have been really tricky. Vs hand is tabled, all the cards are out, and only two people claim they heard fold. One of those two is a player who would greatly benefit from her folding, so they are biased. In this spot, you'd have to just go with what the dealer took her action.

However once she admits she was trying to fold, the floor should laugh at her pathetic "Well, I've had a lot of rulings go against me....", kill her hand, push the pot to the best hand, and tell the deal away from the table to be less of an idiot.

Agree with Angus' post 100%. You could also argue if she never said "fold" that she should receive an orbit penalty for prematurely exposing her hand.

She is admitting that she intended to fold but that she never said "fold". So we can infer that she never said "call" either.

The ruling has to take into account that she is now committing to a call after having intended to fold at the time.

Personally I would not allow her to call at this point as it is illegal to show your cards in a tournament without committing to an action. So it is obvious that her intent was to fold. Similarly she did not stop the action saying she was thinking about calling. And finally it is completely unfair to allow her to take advantage of seeing both opponents cards before making her decision to call.

If it is established that she is calling, the board has to be run out again completely with all board cards shuffled back in, and including the burn cards (IMO). There is no way she gets to "win" with no risk. And she gets a one round penalty.

I would not accept a ruling that lets her win without a new board runout. I would ask for the TD and then gaming if that were the ruling.

I must've missed it, but what was the outcome of this situation?

I don't see how you justify a penalty for villain. She was last to act following 2 all-ins, she verbally stated her action, and then tabled her cards. It seems she said "fold" (she admitted as such) but the dealer heard "call" (based on not dealer's actions). Either way, she did nothing to warrant a penalty since, call or fold, she tabled her cards after closing the action.

I am awarding villain the pot because if villain lost I would force her to pay. Let's imagine it played out this way:

I can see the TD telling villain that she failed to protect her hand and that she needs to ship her stack to SB. I'm guessing that this is what villain was thinking of when she spoke about "rulings going against her".

Mistakes were made, but all players failed to protect their action (especially villain). Dealer ran out the board as if villain had called and the players failed to prevent it (although I recognise it's not easy reacting quickly).

I think this is different to the situation where the turn is dealt prematurely without action being completed. The final player did act, but the dealer misinterpreted (it seems) her action. Winding back the action to the flop is not terrible, but I don't like that ruling as it opens to possible angle shooting. What happens in the same scenario, but villain actually says "call". If someone says at showdown "She said fold", do we wind back the action?

Edit: there is a discrepancy in whether villain actually said "fold". I assumed she said "fold" since I'm willing to believe OP's report and it seems reasonable in context, but I accept that if she did not utter a word then there is justification for a penalty.

You believe she said fold but you want to give her the pot?

I'll accept criticism, I'll even accept abuse and ridicule, but please help me out by answering the following questions:

1. How do you rule when villain has best hand at showdown (as in OP)?
2. How do you rule when villain does not have best hand at showdown?
3. If the basis of the two rulings is different, please motivate why.

I think the ruling should be independent of the final board, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Yes, villain intended to fold and I'm assuming she also said fold but this would not be the first time that a player was held to an action that was not their intent (even in well-run rooms).

Was villain's action so egregious that you would have her free-rolled (i.e., she has to ship her stack if she has the worst hand but wins nothing if she has the best hand)?

My ruling: Villain folded preflop facing the reraise. She does not win anything if her two cards make the best hand. She does not owe anything (besides the 2500 she had previously called) if someone else has the best hand.



You answer one question.

Did villain call the preflop all in reraise? Please justify any "Yes" answer.

Bfc,

Villain folded pre. They can't win or lose anything further in the hand, regardless of how the board runs out. Nobody is suggesting that V would have to pay for a call if they'd lost, so they aren't getting freerolled, they're just folded.

First let me ask a question of you: Can you explain how a player who claims they said "fold" gets to showdown? Because if they can't, then your questions don't make much sense.