What was Matt savages idiotic take on this hand as you so eloquently noted.m

Thanks for the intelligent response. I'm glad I amaze you though.

what angle? how to light $10k on fire.

Wow wtf is going on here? Where is the ambiguity in this situation? Where was the "difficulty of the situation" Gavin was supposedly laughing about? Baumann was on the wrong end of one of the absolute worst rulings I have ever heard of; I would never have let this issue drop if I'd been in her place. This is a disastrously bad ruling for the integrity of the WSOP.

It's really not.

In this case, signing for the higher score you're forced to take the higher score, but yeah.

At that moment, we have no idea if the had is two kings, or 76o. That information is not revealed. Had it been 76o, then what, you lose your tournament life anyways when you have not and were not getting called. The rule is discussed specifically in the WSOP rules saying that a hand not called yet, but has made a bet is entitled to the raise back only.

I thought they were in the money when it happened.

I don't see how this wasn't an accidental mucking/fouling of AK's hand. Certainly he intentional mucked his cards under the mistaken belief that everyone had forfeited cards and he won the hand. I haven't seen anything that shows he intentional mucked his cards with the knowledge that he was mucking before action was completed or angleshooting. I think we would have seen a different ruling if she had called or was placed in a position to make the call before a ruling was made. If I was her, I would have insisted that I be given the chance to act first - call or fold. What a shame he knocked her out in tenth.....

Now that video of this hand has been shown, are any opinions of the ruling different?

So why don't you post the video link?

I hadn't seen this thread before, but watched the broadcast and think that is a bad ruling, but that also it is a ruling that can't really be exploited or angleshot in the future and to the degree anyone tries it the risks far outweigh the benefits.

It really wouldn't be fair to the guy who inadvertently muck to have his tournament life ended on a technicality w/ all his chips going in w/o even seeing a board run-out or showdown, but at the same time it's stealing of lot of equity from the woman who was in the hand but just taking away 60k of his chips. I think the fairest thing would have been to ask the guy what his hand was and give the woman the option of whether or not to play the hand out against that hand or have him just forfeit the call. Barring that, use the retrieved card and then deal him another one and run those hands against each other.

You can't give the guy another fresh card c'mon....

Terrible ruling. He should've been out. It's been that way in poker since Day 1. If you have no cards and the other person does and you're both allin....she turns them up and wins. Very simple

So the floorman in the video says "If I call Jack, I know he's going to ask to dig those two cards out." This suggests the hand actually WAS retrievable, right? In this case, I think the right ruling is to retrieve the cards and play the hand out. If the hand really, truly wasn't retrievable (and couldn't be reconstructed by the cameras or anything), I think the ruling is fine.

BTW, I think it needs to be said again that Koroknai isn't stealing equity from Baumann here. Overall, Baumann still made money off his mistake. If he had realized Baumann had already raised, he probably would never have pushed in the first place, and would have only had to pay the small blind. There is no way in which Koroknai gains any sort of benefit from his oversight.

not that I necc. agree with this ruling, but it seems to me if you are going to interpret the rule this way then the correct ruling would be to force AK to pay a minimum raise on the original 60K raise not just a call of 60K