So why does every single TD anywhere you play on any circuit require an accidental overbet to stay in the pot. It's happened thousands of times at the Venetian alone, I have seen it in person literally like 100 times, in level 1 or 2 of the tournament a player bets 250 and another player tries to raise to 650 and accidentally grabs a 100, 2 quarters and a 5,000 chip instead a 500 chip. Its obvious to everyone at the table, to the dealer etc. everyone in the hand agrees that they want to take the 5K chip back and put in the 500 chip. But the floor and the TD or whoever is highest up on the chain that given day always always always make the 5K chip stay in the pot. WHY? I'll tell you why, because in the presence of angle shooters if you make solid concrete objective rules that everyone has to abide by, you can offer the levelest playing field possible for everyone in the game. It's when you start making exceptions here and there and try to subjectively look at situations and say oh, this person accidentally put in a 5K chip or that person is an angle shooting scumbag and their bet has to stay.. this is where you get into trouble. The best possible way to make sure everyone has a fair level playing field, is to offer a concrete, objective explicit set of rules and not deviate from them regardless of the specific circumstances of the situation. If you deviate in this situation or that situation improprieties will take place or at least perception of improprieties. People will be or feel slighted. Everyone being subjected to the same standards, the same concrete rules etc. is the only way to protect the integrity of the game, period.

It's why obvious accidental raise stand, its why verbal is binding even when it's a mistake, it's why people are given penalties for showing their hand while action is pending even if its completely 100% accidental, its why Darvin Moon was given a penalty for not betting the nuts on the river when he was last to act (was there even a shred of evidence he was colluding there? of course not, couldn't be a more innocent person but he got a 1 round penalty.. care to explain that one?), its why people can only use English at the table in a hand and can't text in a hand and will be penalized if they do so. You can't be completely objetive over here and completely subjective over there. If one player is subjected to white magic, all the players need to be subjected to white magic.

aggie
"It says he MAY be entitled."

If the floor thought he was screwing around, he might forfeit his whole stack.. it's a judgement call.

@JCHAK - I'm not arguing with you anymore. You keep ignoring what I'm saying, which is that in this particular case, the ruling was actually in accordance with the damn rules.

In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE RULE IS WRITTEN WITH A DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY! Whether you like that or not, or bringing up other rules (that an accidental overbet must stand), has no ****ing bearing on this situation. In this spot, with this rule, ruling that only the call MUST stand is the way the rule is written (the all-in MAY OR MAY NOT STAND).

I can't figure out if you're thick or just not reading what others are saying. Nobody is disagreeing that other rules have no leeway or that there aren't angle shooters. Christ almighty.

Just so I'm understanding how you believe this could be used an angle*:

Example: Player A bets. Player B bluff-shoves, then...

Outcome 1: Player A folds quickly. Of course, this is the scenario Player B hopes for even if he is not attempting an angle.

Outcome 2: Player A immediately announces a call. Player B, not having had time to muck has now committed his stack.

Outcome 3: Player A tanks. Player B, now realizing that Player A might not fold, mucks his cards irretrievably. Player B has cut his losses, only committing the amount of a call, not a raise, thus saving himself some chips.

Outcome 4: Player A tanks. Player B attempts to muck his cards but fails to do so such that the cards are irretrievable. The dealer is able to hold the cards until Player A has made a decision.

Personally, I find it unlikely that a player would try something like this. There's a chance he gives up his entire stack in an attempt to shoot this angle (if he gets snap-called), and there is a chance he gives up his fold equity of a decent pot (if Player A would have folded had he not attempted to muck).

This said, I do agree with many of the posters before me... it seems like Player B should be subject to the amount of a raise, not the amount of a call.


*Note: this is a purely hypothetical situation. I am not in any way implying that I believe Andras Koroknai was attempting such an angle.

This was on the river. Final 2 tables of Venetian 2.5 K.

Player went all in and was called.

AI player said nice hand and threw his cards in the muck face down as the dealer did not protect the muck.

Players asked to see the winning hand. Calling player flips over A7 for a missed flush draw and Ace high.

AI player flips out claims he has a better hand. People say, "you have to table the hand dealer", "you should have protected the muck". Dealer freaks out and realizes he should have protected the muck and not let the AI player fold. Trying to correct his mistake and BEFORE the floor gets there the dealer quickly grabs what he thinks are the AI player's cards: AQ for a better A high.

Floor arrives.

Insanity ensues.

1 hr later they award pot to AQ.

A7 player calls gaming commission and supposedly gets a settlement from the Venetian because the AQ hand was never previously tabled and the AI player was never asked his hand by the floor before the dealer freaked out and flipped over two cards...

His hand should have been dead there.


whatever

/derail

You obv. Missed the point. Read Wsop rule # 83 and 84 before getting your panties in a bundle and spitting off more diarrhea of the mouth-u sound retarded

You pretty much got it, i don't think he was doing this but that is completely beside the point. And why wouldn't someone try to do this? People bluff all in all the time with nothing, now they can use this to retract their bet if it looks like the opponent might call, they can just fold their hand and claim they thought their opponent folded, "what?!? I thought they folded, damn, seriously??!?!? they didn't fold?!?!? oh well, I guess I'll just take my chips back.... dang..."

If you don't think people would do this at the highest levels then you haven't been around scummy poker players enough. Even last year at the PP championship event a player UTG bet then Glantz went all in and the button was considering calling when out of nowhere the UTG player folds out of turn.... I've never seen a more blatant angle on TV, he said it was an accident and it obviously wasn't, he was trying to get the button to call by letting him know he was out of the way; is the TD supposed to come out and call him a liar? No, they just have to have rules in place to treat everyone the same in that situation and others like it.

I mean, i get what you are saying and think you have a valid opinion. I'm not saying the floor made a horrible decision here as i think they could have ruled either way and justified it. It's a judgement call and arguments can be made for both sides.

If a dealer had inadvertently mucked his hand and it was mainly a dealer mistake i would feel differently, but In this particular scenario i believe he should have been forced allin and out of the tournament.

Well, that's fair enough, obviously there's room within the rule for different opinions/interpretations. And I do feel badly OR didn't get a change for those chips when she was probably a huge favorite with KK.

I understand YOU aren't saying the ruling is bizarre/bad (although you wouldn't have interpreted the rule that way). Which is good (IMO), because there have been legitimately bizarre/bad rulings discussed so far, and which deserve a ton of attention so that they hopefully never happen again (the enforced all-in in the cash game being a good example). This just isn't one of those spots, IMO. Room to agree/disagree, but not weird at all.

I agree . . . under the circumstance (i.e. that the muck was made BEFORE the UTG player had acted) the ruling was made in the spirit of the game.

I disagree. You obviously aren't understanding the implications if you think that its ok to be inflexible on intent in other situations but allow flexibility in this situation. That's fine, its your prerogative to believe what you want and these forums exist to discuss differing opinions.

P.S. Please don't call me or any other poster for that matter "thick"; it's an offensive and derogatory term and completely superfluous. I am not thick, I am actually very intelligent, I have an MBA which should be at the very least a litmus test for not being "thick" or not being able to comprehend others' posts. We don't agree on some fundamentals of poker tournaments and the way they should be governed; insulting someone's intelligence by calling them a derogatory term is below the belt, especially for a mod. I agree to disagree with you, I understand your thoughts and your reasonings and believe they are fallacious in principle; I believe my reasonings are sound. No need for the name calling.

So, since you know this person, their opinion is "fair enough" and there's "room for interpretation" and you "agree to disagree"; but with my interpretation I'm "thick". Hmmm: "Subjective over here, objective over there" confirmed.

i was wondering why someone keeps pointing to rule #83. I guess it's an older set.

In the 2012-WSOP-Rules.pdf, it's rule #89:
89. All chips put into the pot in turn stay in the pot. If a Participant has raised and his or her hand is killed before... etc.

http://www.wsop.com/2012/2012-WSOP-Rules.pdf

Look, you deliberately keep misstating or misunderstanding what I was typing. Arguing with you is completely ****ing pointless when you keep raising issues that have no bearing on what I'm trying to state. Which I find infuriating, because you aren't at all addressing my actual point, and instead are just throwing more words and examples around that have no bearing on this situation.

But I'm sorry I called you thick (or said you were acting thick). I have zero interest in continuing to debate with you, as your insistence on misstating or misunderstanding what I'm trying to say is so frustrating that I don't see how we can argue reasonably. That wasn't the case with the other poster, who I felt heard and understood what I was saying. I don't think that's the case with you at all.

Once again, since you are clearly smart enough to understand this, THE RULE IS WRITTEN WITH FLEXIBILITY. IT'S NOT MY ****ING DECISION WHETHER TO APPLY THAT FLEXIBILITY, IT'S THE FLOORS. THE FACT THAT OTHER RULES HAVE ZERO FLEXIBILITY HAS NO BEARING ON THIS RULE HAVING FLEXIBILITY.

The only problem I see here is that if it looks like Player A might call, it will be harder for Player B to then claim "I thought he folded."

Oh, I'm not saying players are unlikely to do this because they are not shady. Please don't assume me to be that naive. I'm saying they are unlikely to pull this because in most cases, I think it's probably -EV. (Someone else could probably figure this out quantitatively.) An angle-shooter would know before making the raise that he intends to attempt an angle in that spot. Furthermore, he would have to be damn sure his opponent is about to call because he ultimately prefers a fold. Attempting this angle and cutting his losses would be an awful play if his opponent was actually about to fold.