Actually, this is a 2 part question, as there were (at least it seems to me that way) 2 different issues to the ruling.

Playing 1/3 at the Rio.

There are 4 limpers, the small blind folds, and the big blind raises to $18.

The first limper calls, the second limper goes all in for an additional $25 or so, the next 2 limpers fold -

and now the second limper realizes that his cards are missing. He's drunk, and while I didn't see what happened clearly his cards got mixed into the muck somehow.

The dealer says that he should have protected his hand and that the money stays in the pot.

The big blind now wants to re-raise all in to isolate (actually would have done this anyway, not that it matters) for an additional $200 or so.

The first and second limpers are screaming that this is unfair, etc. FLOOR!

The floor rules that:

A. The second limper can't get his cards back, but only has to call the raise.

B. Since it is only a call, the big blind can't re-raise.

Seems to me that the entire amount of the all in from the second limper should have stayed in the pot, with the big blind still being able to reraise - but I'm not sure.

Opinions please.

Thanks.

Floor got it right. The second limpers raise shouldn't have had to stay in, just the call should have. And, since that's a call, big blind can't raise again.

I think the all-in shoudl have to stay. Players folded to that bet .....

That being said one common rule is that if the bet has not been called when the loss of the cards is noticed, the player can take back his raise in this scenario

Even if the all-in raise stands as a raise, the BB can't re-raise, as the all-in was less than a full raise and therefore does not re-open action to the original bettor.

Actually, the raise would have been enough to reopen (I'm reading it as an $18 bet, and an all in for $25 MORE for a total of $43 or so). Still, once it's been ruled a call only, not much BB can do, as he can't raise his own bet.

Whoops!

Reading is hard.

Yeah, I can see it going either way. If the player gets his bet back, then it's a call. If he doesn't, then it's a raise. Nobody called his shove, but people did fold to either. I'm not getting too bent out of shape either way.

Protect your hand. This includes paying attention to your opponents and stopping mistakes from happening. Had this player prevented the drunk's hand from being mucked, he would have been able to isolate. So not only did the drunk not protect his hand, the BB didn't protect HIS hand, either.

I agree with psandman that the reraise caused action before it was noticed he didn't have cards. To me, that means the reraise stands.

I think the floor got this right.

First, the drunk apparently discovered the missing cards before his all in was called. Without the call, the all in should not count.

While there are a couple of rules that would apply here, the one that is most on point is Rule #1.

I agree that the action changed due to the all in bet but the fairest thing to do here is let the 2nd limper take his all in back, leave the call to $18 out there and move on.

If you are a player who folded to his bet (which he now takes back) does this seem very fair to you? You lost your equity in the pot because you folded to a bet that nobody else had to call and the bettor got to take back?

A live hand got mucked, it's a bad situation already. What is truly in the best interest of the game? What is fairest to the most people?

The 2nd limper has no hand AND lost his $18 call. If 2nd limper also has to leave the $25 all in bet in the pot, those two folded players are still out of the hand, their equity is still gone.

Keep in mind that their equity here is only $3 each.

Leaving the all in bet by the 2nd limper in the pot re opens betting and the BB is probably going to take down the pot with little or no risk by coming over the top.

How many people at the table will feel good about that decision?

I'd love to know how you know what these player's equity in the pot is?

While it is true that there hands are gone even if you leave the all-in bet in place .... that was a matter of there choice as a natural part of the game. They were facing and choose to fold rather than call that bet. But there was cost in the form of risk to the player who made the bet ..... in this case you remove the cost of making that bet.

When bad things like this happen there is no answer that can put everybody back into the spot they should be in ..... but the loss should be most heavily felt by the player who caused the problem.

Okay, they had invested $3, we do not know their equity.

The 2nd limper is already being punished by losing his $18 call of the BB raise. If you leave the re raise in, the 1st limper is going to face an all in bet of ~$200 more. He's getting punished along with the 2nd limper.

Now you have the 1st limper mad about the loss of his $18 (if he folds as I suspect he would). The 2nd limper is pissed at the lost of his stack and his live hand that was mucked.

Either way, two players are upset. It would seem that the 1st and 2nd limper's would have more to be upset with.

Keep in mind that no matter how strongly we agree that the failure to protect his hand is key to this scenario, the player will probably never see it that way.

I have to think that the decision the Rio Floor made was the least onerous. Accepting the fact that no solution put forth so far is ideal.

But I'm going to think about this and maybe tomorrow I'll have a different opinion.

I'm grateful this is just a (hopefully) friendly discussion and we aren't really facing this in our own rooms.

Agree the floor got it right. The guy with the missing cards, there is no angle here. Its not like he was facing a re-raise of his raise, no one had called his raise yet either. That money can come back, and should. When someone makes an idiot mistake like this, do what you can to minimize the effect. That is fairness.

I agree with many of the others, this actually seems like the fairest outcome, although I can understand the two folders feeling put out if they would have called had they realized this.

Interesting spot, though.