Hey all, dumb thing happened tonight and I wanted to see if anyone had thoughts on the best way to handle this.

BTN straddle to $25, folds to me, I open KJo to $75, folds to BTN who makes it $250ish. I push my cards to muck since this is an easy fold...

But wait a minute, BTN doesn't have cards. His hand is already in the muck. I pull my cards back, say everyone has folded, the pot is mine. BTN protests, says he didn't intend to fold, it was the dealer's error to muck his cards, he had AA. Half the table takes his side, says BTN clearly did not want to fold. I respond that I have no idea whether that's true or whether this is some weird angle. His cards got mucked, and I win the pot, unfortunate situation but that's the way it is.

Floor is called over. I offer to let BTN take his $25 back and the $15 in blinds, but say I refuse to give up my $75 when the rule is clear. He says I'm a bad person unless I give him all the money. Okay then. Floor rules in his favor? Table starts cursing me out and saying I'm scum, I childishly respond with some choice words (I should probably have more composure...) as I get up to leave.

Anyway, I appeal the ruling, say I'm going to file a complaint with the gaming commission. Supervisor comes over, checks the tapes, they apologize, ruling was incorrect. Floor also personally apologizes to me. They pay me my money.

Any thoughts on this weird situation? I thought the ruling should be pretty clear, but the table was pretty adamant that I was a massive jerk for pushing this. BTN was a LAGfish who donates a ton. Should I have let this go in light of that? Suppose that, hypothetically, BTN were someone I trusted a bit more and I knew they wouldn't try to angle me, should I let this go in that alternate scenario?

Did the Button have cards when he raised? If so, rule in the button's favor. If his cards were already mucked, then his bet is invalid.

Cards were already mucked by the time he put the bet out.

So the button who is last to act has a dealer take his cards before he acts and put them in the muck. The dealer ignores he did this, accepts the villain's bet and signals the action is on you. You miss that the cards were mucked and then muck yours without having the pot pushed to you. You offer to give him his money back and the blinds during the dispute?

While anything is possible, I think we are missing several significant parts of the story.

Unless I am missing something significant here, the question shouldn’t be if you can keep your $75 but if you get his $250?

Ultimately it’s on button to protect his hand which he failed to do.

How can BTN 3bet u if he doesn’t have any cards?

I don’t think you’re entitled to the 250 dollar bet, but you should get the blinds and straddle. Offering to chop the pot was nice on your part. I don’t think you did anything wrong besides the obvious. Management also got it right. The floor… well at least he apologized.

Yep. Management did right only if they gave you $5 + $10 + $25 + $75. Why would you offer the blinds?

Was someone suggesting that you lost your $75 bet to a guy who raised without cards?

Using TDA rules, you never called his $250 bet before it was discovered he did not have cards, so whether or not his cards were swiped before or after he made that bet, that extra amount should be refunded to him. (if they were swiped before he made the bet, then as others have pointed out he cannot have made a bet so he doubly certain should get that amount back.)

Most rulesets are clear that players must protect their hands. He didn't. Subject to the above, the pot is yours as the last live hand. It doesn't matter what he claims to have had.

A bit hazy gray for you to pull your cards back and make a claim when you know you were folding to his raise (had he had cards), I think many of us would have just let it go at that point as if we hadn't noticed his cards were gone, but to each his own, you were within your rights to do it.

And some might even argue that BB might have seen his cards were gone and made his 3 bet as an angle, knowing he wins the pot if you fold, and he gets his 250 back even if you don't because he didn't have cards when he made the bet.

You shouldn't need to refund the blinds to him (with or without his straddle), and offering to do so is above and beyond, especially after the ruling. (Offering it before the ruling, if you're not sure you would succeed in the ruling, is more like bargaining than being generous, but still is not required).

BTN being good for the game may explain why table was against you. Generally it's considered bad form to needle the guys who make the game work, even if it's within the rules. And they'd rather he have the money than you.

Finally, yes, try to keep your composure. Getting angry rarely improves the situation (for you, or anyone). But that is the least concerning element of this story.

Yeah, that was the table’s unanimous view, the dealer’s decision, and the initial floor ruling. Obviously nonsense and quickly overruled.


Some really good posts in here, so I appreciate the perspectives. At the time, it was tough for me to know for sure whether it was an innocent mistake or a potential angle. If I knew it 100% was not an angle, I think I probably would have just let the man have the monies. But how can I know.

There should be zero chance that you lose any of your $75. The question comes in what to do with the Straddle and Blinds.

IMO you letting him keep his Straddle and you taking the Blinds is the best way to handle the spot. I'm really not sure where the rest of the table/Dealer and original Floor are coming from. You do have the last live hand and you should have a right to any 'pot' that is deemed to be in the middle.

Since a Player without cards shouldn't be held to any actions 'after' they get mucked, and in this case actually closed' 'action', then the OP gets the pot. GL

FYP

I don't think you can legally raise without cards. Give the raise back ($225ish) to button and scoop what's left. Anything after that shouldn't matter.

Is it possible the story is:

You raise, he 3b, you fold, he mucks as he believes he won and you grab your mucked cards back and declare victory?

Ohhhh this would be very bad and OP is scum

That would be very bad and a lifeban worthy maneuver, but nah, not what happened. His cards were definitely in the muck when he raised, although I didn’t initially notice. I think it was the dealer that pointed it out, and then the argument broke out.

(When they eventually paid me, they went to the tapes and confirmed his cards were in the muck when he put in the raise.)

Did BTN know he didn’t have cards?

Did BTN pretend that he knew? .-.

So the dealer took the BTN's cards mucking them, then allowed him to bet and put the action on you? And after you folded, notices he doesn't have cards, The dealer wasn't Dory from "Finding Nemo" was she?

Feels like an angle to me. Glad you stood up for yourself.

Exactly what I was thinking. The real scum bag is the guy who bet $250 without cards. Was he trying to be funny? Luckily no one knocked him out.

It's still not 100% clear to me what happened and what everybody's intent was, but I think there is a clear answer once that is established.

Scenario 1: Villain mucked his hand AFTER OP mucked his- clear angle by OP. Villain gets pot, OP gets some sort of punishment/stern warning.

Scenario 2: Dealer mistakenly mucked villain's hand BEFORE his final raise, and villain is oblivious- villain gets refunded his total bet (less the $25 straddle) and OP gets everything else in the pot.

Scenario 3: Dealer mistakenly mucked villain's hand BEFORE his final raise, and villain knowingly makes the raise with no cards- villain gets refunded his total bet (less the $25 straddle) and OP gets everything else in the pot. Depending on the villain's motive (presumably somewhere between joking around and flat out cheating) he gets warned/punished accordingly.

With scenario 2 being the most likely, I don't understand how someone can be so terrible at protecting their cards. Even people who don't put something on top of their hand, or hold their cards at all times, at least generally are keeping track of them and would be quickly aware that they were missing.