To clarify a couple things:

V didn't turn her cards over in front of her, she exposed them and then pitched them forward, where they landed, face up, towards the muck but not in the muck. So they were over the line, not being protected in any way by V. Since I heard her say "fold" and watched her physically throw her hand toward the muck, I felt her action was clear.

Of the 10 players at the table, 2 (including me) heard her say fold. 4 other players heard her say something. The only person who claimed she didn't say anything was the V.

Results:

Initially the TD ruled that she got the pot because there was "too much action" but once we all went through the details about 5 times (including me pointing out that the V was now saying "I meant to fold but I guess I didn't") the TD then awarded me the pot and gave the V a 1 round penalty, which the V fought and got to come back to the table after 2 hands.

What did the floor originally give her a penalty for?

Probably for arguing for the pot in the first place and allowing him to make a stupid decision that he had to reverse.

Thank you. I concede. I don't, however, think my questions are unreasonable and I'll explain my thinking.

To preface, I interpreted OP's description "V ... turns over pocket 88s, tosses them in front of her" as that she tabled her hand. The subsequent clarification that she tossed them face down makes the ruling fairly clear - she folded. However, along with several other posters, I answered as if she tabled her hand and I will continue from that hypothetical scenario.

My argument is she got to showdown because the dealer was under the impression that she got to showdown and was about to award her the pot. It's not unusual (in poorly run rooms) for the dealer to run out the board without first pulling in villain's call and making the side pot.

Dealer thought villain was all-in and it's not unlikely that SB thought she was all-in. From SB's perspective, play proceeded as if he got called in two spots and the dealer ran out the board. Dealer then went to award the pot under the assumption that three players were in the hand. If I am SB and I have the best hand at showdown then I am expecting to receive villain's stack because, from my perspective, she made it to showdown. Are you really letting villain keep her stack?

To reiterate, I am talking about the scenario where villain mutters something that dealer interprets as call, villain tables her hand, dealer runs out the board. The subsequent clarification that OP mucked her cards face down makes makes this a non-issue.

What clarification? The cards were tossed face up.


And, I am sorry, but the dealer was just plain wrong. Nobody else at the table thought the villain had called. No utterance of the word "call". No chips pushed forward.

Maybe you are happy blindly following what the dealer says, but I am not.

And if I were either of the SB or OP, I would not have expected her stack if the board had made me the winner.

Actually we don't know this. We are told 2 players say she said fold. We can figure that that the dealer thinks she said call. 2 other players said she said "something". She admits she didn't say call. What any other player at the table thinks happened is not known to us. We can assume that they did not speak up or the OP would have mentioned it, but we can't know why they didn't speak up. Some may simply feel its not their business because they aren't in the hand. Some may not want to upset a friend by saying something counter ..... or they may agree with what was said or not have been paying attention

that one is on you. when the dealer did not immediately muck the 88's before he started dealing the flop, you should have immediately told the dealer to stop the action and fold her hand.

also, how did this all happen without the dealer getting the chip counts correct before he started dealing the flop? There is no way that you all three had identical chip counts, and there was absolutely going to be a side pot, so why was that not dealt with immediately?

were you trying to run an angle here? and scoop her money if you won the pot, but then protest when the dealer didn't muck her hand?

but yeah, when the dealer started dealing the flop without mucking her hand, the dealer is in effect ruling that she called.

a strong dealer would have clarified that before dealing the flop. If the dealer doesn't take control of the game, you should.

A lot of dealers will take a shortcut here and not spend time to create the side pot in case the player who covers wins. You've really never seen this happen before?

Yes, because when someone says "fold" and discards their cards face up towards the muck and they happen to not hit the muck, doesn't put an additional chip in, talks while the board is run out about how stupid the SB is for shoving AJ (implying that she was forced out of the pot), then tries to collect the pot anyway, I'm the one running the angle.

Thanks for your input.

Thank **** you got the pot, id have been super tilt. Sounds like the TD is super ******ed if you had to tell them the story that many times. Really glad i dont frequent the wsop.

Imagine if you were foreign/bad at english and incapable of telling the story correctly, I GUARANTEE YOU that the TD would have awarded that bitch V the pot.

OP, did this at the WSOP at the Rio in Las Vegas, or a local venue somewhere else in the US running a WSOP satellite?

I assumed a local venue because the WSOP doesn't start until later this month but I guess they could be running some satellites at the Rio.

Local venue. Probably won't be shipping the wsop this year.

It might be worth noting that this was a winner take all (most) event, as they were only giving away one seat. 2nd-10th got $632.

Actually pyro it was the MM satellite, but same difference.

I think this was an angle by the V. her stating she has lost multiple rulings before tells me she has tried this same angle before, or at the very least, she is consistently shooting various angles and getting them shot down.

So her plan was to somehow make the dealer think she called and yet still not make the pot right, and then when she won she was going to tell the floor she intended to fold?

Not really hard to believe no matter how dumb it sounds because it almost worked.

I am avoiding saying too much about V (she seemed nice enough) but as a (primarily) 2/5 cash game player who doesn't do a lot of tournaments, I find the whole culture of people who play nothing but low stakes tournaments fascinating.

WOW.

IMHO:
Dealer thought she called (didn't muck, asked for count),
BUT didn't ask to have other hands exposed before running the board (standard for tourneys).
Not unusual for 3 handed action like this to be sorted out after the action is complete.

Players who saw the exposed cards sitting there as the board is run out? If you thought it was a fold, speak up. If you waited to see if you had a winner, then speak up...

V - WOW WOW OMG. If she didn't say fold or call (as she claimed she intended to fold), then why isn't she speaking up as the board starts to run out?

NOBODY did what they should have done to protect their cards and/or action. No claims of harm after the fact.


Now, what to do in a similar situation if V claims she called... ship her the pot. What other ruling could you make?

As played, I'm OK with the ruling, although I don't like ruling it differently based on one players admitted intent.

Would I have V ship chips if she had a losing hand? Yes. Makes the ruling even more shady.

Maybe because they had already flipped them over ...

And the "How stupid can you be shoving AJ there?" indicates to me that V was ticked she had folded her 88.

Again, I am a cash game player and comparatively inexperienced with live tournaments (although I am more knowledgable than many of the lowball donkament players I have encountered). I generally think the dealers in my room are some of the best of anywhere I have played.

That said, action was very clear to me. It was very clear to other players at the table. It was even clear to the V until she attempted take-backsies.

For me, the bottom line is that without a (to the dealer) clear verbal declaration or commitment of at least one more chip, assuming a call from V is ridiculous. TDA rules are consistently conservative w/r/t what constitutes a call or a raise in non-all-in situations (oversized chip rule and the rule about multiple chips having to exceed more than double the raise to count as a raise). If TDA rules generally assume this situation to be a call that is illogical.

Agreed - I have only played a puny 5 casino tournaments (lifetime), and I saw this once, maybe twice.

Sure am glad to hear the pot was eventually awarded to OP hero. If I were the OP and pot was not awarded to me I would have steamed for months.

The real answer here is regardless of the player says fold or not, in a tournament of a player exposes a hand without action, the hand is dead. It's like not being in your seat before the last card is dealt.

See this makes sense.

As a general point of logic, tournament rules seem to trend towards the most conservative action, i.e. the action that commits the least amount of a player's stack. If blinds are 50/100 and someone throws in a 5000 chip, it's a call. If someone raises from 300 to 600 and someone puts in 2 500 chips, that is still a call (because TDA says one chip must cover the initial raise). If someone tables their cards, doesn't put in any more chips, and does not make action clear to the dealer, by the same logic it should be interpreted as a fold.