All the provisions that DuMaa quoted refer to showdown but according to the dealer, theynever were at showdown. Showdown doesnt happen until there is a final bet and a call. According to the dealer, there was no call, therefore the showdown rules dont apply. No one is exected or required to table their hand if their bet is not called. So saying that the OP doesnt get the pot (even after it was pushedtohim) because he never tabled his hand is ridiculous. Even given the rules quoted, this was a terrible decision IMO because it appears you held the OP to the standards of showdown rules when the dealer both declared the hand was folded, AND physically pushed the pot to the OP, clearly indicating they were NOT at showdown, with no objection from the villian. No way should OP be the one punished for this mistake. He did nothing wrong.

Dumaa,

While I appreciate your response, why would your staff rely on the surveillance video in this instance? Of course it only shows one hand tabled. This is undisputed. As pointed out by others, the problem is that the pot was pushed to the guy that had made a bet after dealer declared the other player folded. No verbal ever shows up on a surveillance video.

Does your room allow a player to expose his cards when facing action in tournament play? Did surveillance show the player putting chips into the pot? Did the player respond in any way to the dealer saying he folded? Did you really offer him $50 in comps instead of his $300 entry back?

If these are mistakes your experienced dealer, floor and floor manager make, i would hate to see the mistakes of your inexperienced staff. Give the man his buy in back.

So much for this theory!

Can surveillance explain why the only live hand never put any chips into the pot? Can they confirm that OP's hand went into the muck AFTER being pushed the pot? Sorry, I'm not buying this as a good decision.

We were not at showdown yet IMO. The dealer confirmed that the opponent folded and was never corrected by the opponent. The dealer pushed the pot to OP and was not stopped by the opponent until AFTER OP's cards were in the muck.

Why would he object? He was awarded the pot and thought he won the hand. The opponent is the one who failed to object in a timely manner here.

I disagree. If they heard the same version that we heard here, they would not expect OP to have acted any differently.

You have your supervisor's back here and I get that. I can see exactly why he made this decision and I wouldn't fault him for it one bit because you can easily find a way to make this seem like it was the correct decision, but it was not (maybe, see below). You did the right thing in trying to make it right with OP, but instead of making it right, lets call it offering our apologies for the dealer's error. Should he get his buy in back? No, but something like what was offered seems reasonable. This was a super difficult spot and by no means an easy decision to get right and I don't wish for any supervisor to be in that spot. He made a decision that he thought was right and I imagine many a good suit would make the same decision. I don't fault him for getting it wrong. Here's the (maybe) part: Ultimately I would like to see the video myself to see how fast the dealer mucks OP's cards after/before/during pushing him the pot. That matters because this is when the opponent should be speaking up. I can see him not realizing there was a problem until the pot is pushed but he should literally be waiting for OP to show his hand so he should easily be able to stop the dealer from pushing the pot before it's too late. The ONLY WAY your supervisor's decision was correct is if the dealer mucks OP's hand before pushing the pot IMO.

The error made here was by the dealer who failed to muck the opponents hand when he thought it was folded. If that happens, this thread doesn't exist. Oh well, we all make mistakes and hopefully he learned from this one.

Not trying to bust your balls, but as the story is told here, this is my opinion.

You've said this a few times and I'm not sure the relevance. The only way retrieving V's cards out of the muck matters is if you had tabled your cards too and the pot was mistakenly pushed to you. If his cards get mucked first, what it avoids is the whole "he was the last player with cards" argument which essentially got him the pot wrongly.

He waited until your cards were irretrievable.

I and others told you why this is wrong in the duplicate thread. Are you not reading certain replies?

Funny, but I don't see it this way. As a player, it is fairly clear that The Dealer and floor made multiple mistakes, costing player equity (not money) in a $300.00 tournament, which in most casino is probably the big weekly tournament. Player gets offered 1/6 of the buy in in comps. In the main room I play, comps can be converted 3-1 for slot or video play with, let's say an 85% return. So in my room the offer has a real money value of $14.16. This is not a gesture I would be happy with - aamof, i would rather retain the right to ***** about the ruling than take 14 bucks and call it square. Maybe a return of the buy in is too much, but this offer is pretty ****ty.

Then, after learning of this thread, the Poker Manager basically says it was a series of understandable mistakes that the CO gaming folks would agree with if they apply a unique CO codified showdown rule (which is erroneous to apply as pointed out above) to the fact pattern and that it is the player's fault for not communicating with him. This failure to claim of responsibility is annoying and certainly would destroy any goodwill from the offer of cash (or comps, whichever it really was).

Part of sticking up for your employees is to rectify the mistakes they make without lying about the error.

Exactly, it has been rightly noted that showdown rules do not apply here. But the above reasonably shows that even if showdown rules are applied, OP should have received the pot. The statute cited does not support the decision.

Thanks, but I wasn't making a joke.

Look, you could take the ****ty offer AND continue to complain about the ruling really, but the truth behind it all is that the casino doesn't owe you anything. Their supervisor made a ruling in good faith and it didn't go your way. You can cry about it or move on with life. I'm glad you brought it to light here in the forums because it is good to hear about and discuss these things here. In the end, nothing more is likely to come from it no matter how far you try to take it. The dealer screwed up, but in reality so did you. When you asked the dealer if that was a fold, you should have asked your opponent instead. It's no different than asking the dealer how much the bet is and they give you an incorrect amount. You aren't off the hook for the rest, you still have to pony it up. In your case, your saving grace is that you let the dealer ship you the pot before mucking so your opponent had his chance to stop the dealer, but he failed. That is the biggest reason I would have awarded you the pot. The other part is that the dealer said it was a fold and he didn't speak up then either.

It’s a little bit confusing because the names are somewhat similar, but the guy you quoted isn’t OP

Besides that I totally agree with you and while $50 in comps doesn’t sound much, the majority of card rooms wouldn’t offer anything except a “sorry, bro”.

Suit, your last response wasn't to OP in case you hadn't noticed.

Yep, I did not notice. Saw J and some numbers. My apologies. Stand by what I said, just redirected at jjjou instead...

This is 100% on the dealer. you are trying to argue that JK killed his hand by allowing it to be mucked, but it is beyond reasonable to think that a player, after having confirmed action with the dealer, and the dealer confirming that action with no objection from the other player or any other player, should stuill be required to protect his hand after the pot has been pushed. This is 100% on the house, the player did what he was supposed to do.

It is somewhat insulting to say 'well, the player wasn't busted out, so, we're good right?'

I am sorry, as I know you are trying to be reasonable here, and other floors\dealers here are trying to see your side, but if I lived in the area, there would never be a chance to discuss this issue further, as I would never step foot in a casino that screwed a player over this badly. Again, it doesn't look like any of the sequence of events is in question. Player bets, othe rplayer commits ambiguous action. Original player confirms action with dealer. Dealer confirms, pushes pot, other player waits until original player discards, then objects. Floor upholds objection, offers a meal comp.

Yeah, would steer pretty far clear of a room that did this.

If dealer announced the action, it is your money. imo.

This. The more I think about this case, the more I don't like it. The CO "law" is being interpreted in a way that benefits the Villain here. It can easily be interpreted in other ways, specifically in the framework of whether we are at showdown or not. I would reason that we are not at showdown because there is not a reasonable understanding that the river bet was called. The floor basically believed the V and his potential colluders after the fact. Of course he's going to say he called once OP's cards were in the muck. Maybe the V knew from past experience that either the casino or this dealer specifically doesn't pay that close to procedures with regards to mucking losing/folded hands before pushing the pot.

If a player is calling a bet with a medium strength hand, why would he turn his hand over first? If a player made a call, why wouldn’t he put in a chip or more chips? If a player believes they deserve the pot, why wait until after it is pushed to speak up about it?

Dealers should always kill losing hands before awarding pots, but most dealers make a similar mistake at some point. I think the floor made an even bigger mistake, but it was in good faith. From the casino’s point of view, they did nothing unethical, even if it was a costly mistake for the player who wrongly was forced to give up the pot.

I think he has three options:

1. OP could get gaming involved to see if the casino owes him anything and, at mininum, get some satisfaction from hassling the poker personnel from the oversight and investigation even if he gets an unfavorable ruling.

2. OP can stop patronizing the casino in the future and bad mouth them and give his business to their competition.

3. OP and the poker manager could come to a resolution that both sides feel is fair and OP when telling the story would conclude it by saying they dealt with him fairly. I am pretty sure 14.00 wont lead to this result.

Sometimes being the only game in town gives you the ability to give lip service about customer service.

I can't imagine Option 1 gets OP anywhere.

That's a good point. On top of penalizing OP, this kind of ruling opens the door for angle shooting/freerolling. From villain's viewpoint, if OP ends up showing a better hand, he can say he folded.
...Or he can wait till last minute and said he had called once OP released his hand as the pot is being pushed his way.

I would start with option 3 and then go with option 2 if no resolution is achieved. He was offered $50 in comps, not $14. Idc how you look at comp value, it is still $50 worth of whatever it was. Option 1 would just be a huge waste of his time.

I have dealt with many supervisors that made incorrect decisions in my career where I have an upset player calling me to discuss it. Sometimes I offer a comp and most often I don't. In the case of the OP I wouldn't have offered any more than what he was offered. I have refunded full tourney buy ins before and this would not qualify for that. Just my personal opinion.

If this mistake crippled him in the tournament, why wouldn't you offer him a full or partial refund (I would actually still be pissed off, as the ICM value of his stack after a correctly executed hand would be much higher than refund value)? Do you feel like the player could have done anything to protect himself? He verbally asked the dealer what the action was, and did not release his cards until the pot was pushed to him. The dealer screwed up twice, and the floor screwed up the ruling, in my opinion. A $50 comp (and given the markup in casino's, a $50 comp is not the same as $50) seems almost insulting.

If I might ask, exactly how big a house screw up would you say qualifies for a refund?

I think it would set a very poor precedent if you refunded a player's buy-in for a mistake, even for something this egregious. You would be inviting anyone who felt wronged to demand a refund for things like mis-deals and premature turns and pots pushed to the wrong player not noticed in time. Word would spread and everyone would have their hand out for a free-roll. Heck, it might even invite angles because the angler knows that he might win out even if his angle doesn't work because he can show that he was wronged.

As I have already mentioned, the only thing OP could have done to protect himself is to ask his opponent if he folded and not the dealer. Two other players at the table heard his opponent say call. We are taking OP's word for it that he had the nuts. He could easily have had a losing hand and was freerolling for the pot. I have no reason not to believe OP's story. I agree the ruling was bad and wrong. The only issue in my mind is what happens now. Everyone will have their opinion on what they think is fair. I've given mine. It's a ****ty deal. Good luck OP.

I've given a full refund twice in my career. I honestly can't recall the reasons.

Correct. The player can verbalize fold, table his cards, and wait for his opponent to muck then say “check the cameras! Only my hand is tabled!”