I don't see how this can be called a dealer error. An error would be scooping up a protected hand, or scooping up an unprotected hand when the action was not yet on that player. The dealer has no obligation to prevent, and sometimes can't prevent, someone from fouling his own hand.

As a courtesy, the dealer might try to prevent someone from mucking unnecessarily (as sometimes people do in unraised pots on the BB before the flop). Sometimes it happens too fast for the dealer to do anything. Is the dealer supposed to have cat-like reflexes to block a card mid-flight on the way to the muck? In this case, one card was deemed irretrievable. We don't have enough details to know if this was because it was buried in the muck. If it was buried, it may have been pitched with such force that the dealer could not have stopped it even if he tried.

But ultimately every player has the obligation to 1) follow the action, and 2) protect his own hand.

I don't agree, the dealers primary responsibility is not to keep cards out of the muck, players can fold at any time they want. It is the dealers responsibility to keep track of the action, and the players responsibility to keep their hands out of the muck if they wish to continue.

I thought that the "gross misunderstanding" rule governing no limit betting applies. Here is what I found in Roberts Rules on the internet:

"12. Because the amount of a wager at big-bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. A "call" or “raise” may be ruled not binding if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered, provided no damage has been caused by that action. Example: Player A bets $300, player B reraises to $1200, and Player C puts $300 into the pot and says, “call.” It is obvious that player C believes the bet to be only $300 and he should be allowed to withdraw his $300 and reconsider his wager. A bettor should not show down a hand until the amount put into the pot for a call seems reasonably correct, or it is obvious that the caller understands the amount wagered. The decision-maker [floor person, tournament director] is allowed considerable discretion in ruling on this type of situation."

I believe this general rule applies if a player does not realize that someone bet in front of him as in the Andras hand. Maybe I am crazy since all of the tourney regs thought that Andras should have been "forced" to be all in.

lol, i was wondering this too, kept rewinding

Great show otherwise!

I don't think this rule applies because direct effect of his misunderstanding was him mucking his hand before the action was back on him. We can never know for sure what the size of his bet would have been if he'd noticed the EP raise.

But this rule from the 2012 World Series of Poker® Official Tournament Rules seems to be directly on point:
I don't recall anyone referring to this rule during the show. It seems at least as relevant as the "all chips put into the pot in turn stay in the pot" rule.

Now, I really don't like the way that this is worded, because it could encourage angle shooting as mentioned on the show. You raise, and get a reaction, and if the reaction is unfavorable (meaning you didn't want a call be it becomes apparent that the person is leaning toward calling) but you can muck your hand before the raise is actually called, then you get to benefit from the information without suffering the consequence of having to put the raise in.

Another problem with the wording is that I think it clearly was intended to be dealing with the situation in which someone else (either the dealer or another player) fouls your hand. But the rule as worded just says "Participant," which includes you, the player with the hand. As worded, the decision seems to have been correct.

Well, this is where the dealer probably erred. As Gavin said on the pokercast, it was clear that Andras did not realize that there was an EP raise before he announced all-in. Before the big blind folds (or even before Andras announced all-in), the dealer needs to point out to Andras that there is a raise in front of him.

Seriously, I thought that dealers are supposed to announce action. I am not a live player so if I am wrong, be gentle.

(Despite my posts, I am not really trying to defend Andras. I am just trying to understand what the proper procedures should have been throughout the hand by the dealer and the floor staff.)

I'd like to know what exactly it was that made it clear. Obviously it was clear after he mucked, but what did he specifically do before mucking, even before the BB folded, that would have alerted the dealer that he didn't know there was a raise?

The policy differs from cardroom to cardroom. In Vegas, my experience has been that the dealers announce the action. In Los Angeles, it is hit or miss. There may even be differences within a cardroom. A dealer at Commerce told me that they are supposed to announce the action in the lower limit games (e.g., $8-$16 LHE and below), but not in the higher limit games unless a clarification is requested. Maybe that dealer was mistaken, so I don't know if that is the official house policy. I'll actually ask the next time I'm there (probably a little more than 24 hrs. from now). I actually prefer it when the action is announced because it makes for a more orderly game--the current controversy being a case in point. But if it is not the policy of the cardroom and/or tournament, then the dealer did nothing wrong.

May I vote this the second worst pokercast episode thread of all time?

On this subject, I am also distressed they did not "live stream". However what ESPN did that was different, was they had cameras all over the place, and when really "interesting hands" did not reach show-down, the players' cards were set aside face down and shown to a hand-held camera. Therefore, I expect that many hands that were not played with hole-card cams, will be televised as if they were. This will be a big improvement over the past highlight only seasons.

However, I can say that the interesting 3 and 4 bet pre-flop confrontations that ended before the flop, were not filmed. So that dynamic will be lost on TV, except on the hole-card-cam tables.

Much of my own journey throughout the final two days was played in such "non-newsworthy" hands... but as you know, progressing through the last couple of days of the tournament while rarely being in jeopardy is a good thing, if not TV recap friendly.

In the Pokercast, Smith states that the dealer did announce Gaelle's raise.

I think the rule relied on was:
including the discretion that "may
be entitled to the raise back" affords. It would have been interesting and probably better for her if she had said call.

At the risk of boring the one person still reading this thread, my concern had nothing to do with smoothness. One host said, "there has to be exceptions to every single rule..." and the other host comments, "right." This point was reiterated on air.

I would not expect the hosts of the Pokercast to cheat at poker just one time because it is a big tournament and I would not expect observant religious people to cheat or get around their faith just one time because it is a big tournament. If you make the "freedom of speech argument," then sure, the hosts can say what they want. But the whole freedom of speech argument is a pretty low threshold for hosts of a very popular podcast. The hosts influence the conversation in a much larger way then most other poker players and fans of the sport. They missed a huge opportunity to be thoughtful and empathetic. They can be fun loving, poker playing dudes and empathetic.

No!

No voting for you!

Trup QQ imo.

Comparing cheating in a tournament where each and every player that signed up knowing the rules to something like religion where everyone has their own interpretation of the rules and their consequences isn't a very good way to make your point.

To be clear, obviously Mike and I can't understand the motivation of JN because neither of us deeply believe in something to the point where we suspend logic and reason when governing our behavior.

Now, before you or others take issue with that statement, it's merely my opinion that religion isn't logical. I have no problem at all with others that do suspend reason to believe. I have friends and family that are religious and I love them very much.

You have a problem with us suggesting he can make an exception this time, but you ignore the fact that many religious people do in fact make exceptions all the time for many reasons. Since this is so obviously true, why can't we suggest it for JN?

As you've stated you listen to the show, I'm surprised you would have us be less than completely honest with our feelings this time because there is a religious element. What about the other 300 times we've made fun of someone's decisions?

I realize we aren't going to get anywhere because it's not really an issue where people change their minds because of a post or two, but I just wanted to explain a couple of things that you have mentioned in your posts. Likely that were going to have to agree to disagree.