This is a valid point. What is actually missing here is the context of time and how it elapsed during the tabling of cards to the mucking of seat 8's cards. I've seen multiple dealers who could muck seat 2, push a pot and muck seat 8's cards in a second or two with no time for seat 2 to respond before it's all over.

In these situations it shouldn't be a race to protect and you shouldn't have to be faster than the dealer to protect your hand. Then again, you can't wait a minute later than speak up either. Without this context you can go either way. However, I think we have to weigh the balance towards seat 2 because what they did was normal and the dealer made a mistake by not paying attention. That dealer mistake shouldn't cost seat 2 his tournament life.

Nothing other than returning bets and considering the hand dead would be fair. The dealer mistakes were too egregious to punish 1 of these players seemingly at random.

Btw, I couldn't care less if this ruling could hypothetically be exploited by an angle shooter or cheating dealer

if the OP reported the hand correctly, then anyone who says this is ******ed.

what exactly does protecting your hand mean once a) every other players hand has been mucked and b) you've already been pushed the pot?

what more can he do? should everyone ask the dealer two or three times after every hand is over just to make really, REALLY sure its finally ok to release their hand

if anyone didnt protect their hand its the guy who threw his cards in to the middle of the table and then let them be mucked

To all those saying that seat 2 should have protected his cards, remember in a tournament an all-in heads up is required to table cards. Cards speak and an all-in hand can never be killed. The situation with the other player is that he was induced by the dealer to muck. You have to chop the pot imo.

If you take care to protect your hand, you never have to be quick. If you hold onto your cards rather than throwing them out into the middle of the table the dealer can never muck them.

weird. I wasnt aware that tabling your cards meant you had to throw them in to the middle of the table. protecting your hands includes not letting the deal muck them.

One player protected his hand, one didnt. Pot goes to seat 8

Agreed. This is entirely dealer error and should be treated as such.

I'm guessing that none of you three guys deal.

Take it from me: better than half the time a player bets all his chips, I have no idea that he's all-in. For reasons that defy my understanding, players don't want to say the words "all-in", and they like to use their hands to cover up the area of the table in front of them where their chip stack usually resides.

Right now, I work in a place that uses an "all-in" button in tournaments. Because I have to put out this button when a player goes all-in, I'm constantly asking raisers whether or not they have any chips left. I'm not "blind", as implied above. I simply don't have the x-ray vision required to see through the player's hands and arms that are obscuring my view of the empty swath of felt in front of them.

This is my first job with that all-in button. Absent that, I never ask if a player is all-in. It's on HIM to tell ME, not the other way around. Oh, you got reraised and threw your cards in face-up? I'm not going to ask 20 questions, I'm going to muck your cards and deal the next hand.

He also didn't say if someone was in seat 9, 10 or 1 still with cards. He could have been raising others out of the pot.

Seat 2 should get the chips, he did show his hand properly.

yeah, he did...


but anyway...

IMO has to be a chop. Seat 2, while not truly protecting his hand (and people know I'm a huge 'protect your hand' advocate), made a legal all-in raise, and after all action had been completed, tabled his cards face up on the table, as required by tournament rules.
IMO, cannot be eliminated from tournament for any mistakes that occur after this point.

Then all the more reason that what Seat 2 did was correct. Dealer should have been paying better attention. I know dealers get a bad wrap sometimes but Seat 2 did not have to announce 'All-in' and played it correctly. He shouldn't be penalized for it.

It sucks for seat 8 but he still mucked his cards during an AI.

Seat 8 didn't say a word either. His opponent is all in. His opponent tables his hand. And Seat 8 doesn't say a word when the Dealer mucks his opponent's hand. Didn't say a word when he was getting a pot shoved to him without "winning". Sure, "not his responsibility". Standard 2+2 ethics.

And you want the real scenario?

Seat 8 and Dealer are buddies. Dealer "accidentally" kills Seat 2's hand. Sooooooooooooooooooo sorry. My buddy wins.

Competely agree. Golden rule of poker. Seat 2 gets pot.

Completely agree. Golden rule of poker. Seat 8 gets pot.


Whoops. Both players did the right thing (obv could have done better)... so every option to floor is disgusting.

I don't hate chopping pot two ways. Horrible, but not super-horrible. I hate takesies-backsies much more.

Actually, Seat 8 did not muck his hand.

I agree, seat 2 does not have to announce "All in" but neither does he "have" to keep a hand or chip on his cards. But it's a good idea to do so. Saying "All in" would have prevented this ugly mess.

Seat 2 could have said something when the dealer took his cards, he could have said something when the delaer pulled his stack into the middle and then pushed it to Seat 8. He didn't HAVE to but then he gives up his chance at getting his hand back and competing for the pot.

Seat 8 raised and was then pushed the pot. His cards were taken after he had received the pot. WHat did Seat 8 do wrong?

99% of the time, a pot chopped by a floor without hands that tie for the win should noit happen IMO.

Players need to pay attention. Seat 2 had several opprtunities to verbalized his action and stop the dealer, he stood mute.

I agree with RR (obviously, I've repeated most of what he said) here but it would be a hard decision for many people to understand.

Seat 2 failed to protect his interest in the pot by not speaking up.

Everyone is at fault. Too many people ITT are trying to assign blame and then make a ruling based on who deserves the most blame. I like Gobbo's solution provided that the stub is still intact. It'd take a lot of balls to take a chance on lying when the muck is a mere 18 cards.

Seat 8 does have a responsibility to stop the dealer if he sees the dealer making a mistake. Seat 8 just "saw" seat 2 muck face up. Seat 2 was better positioned to stop the dealer than seat 8 as seat 2 knows he didn't fold and seat 8 may or may not be able to see that all of seat 2's chips are in the pot. Also with throwing the cards to the center of the table, If I was playing I would know who the other player in the hand is, but would seat 8? Maybe he thought it was the 3 that threw them forward. It can be hard to tell where cards came from.

Maybe the dealer and seat 8 are buddies, that is more of a reason for seat 2 to protect his hand.

chop pot 2ways.

For those who advocate "back it up, chop it up", I absolutely hate this. These guys were so deep into this hand it should be resolved without chopping the pot, returning bets, etc.

And in some jurisdictions (like Colorado) you CAN'T back it up/chop it up after sig. action. As solution must be found.

This was pretty darn ugly though...

This is the key. We're not talking about the final table of the WSOP ME or the $25k Players championship. Therefore, a room has to make a choice of philosophy.

The first is doing it completely by the book. If the room is following RRoP, then technically a room can declare that any forward movement of cards is a fold. That's the only clause they can use, because Seat 2 did not say fold, nor put his cards in the muck.

If that's the ruling, the room should not be surprised that they have lots of angle shooters and rules nits. Not that I would be in Seat 2's position, but I'd afterward make it my business to declare anyone else's hand dead where the cards moved forward face up. The floor complains, I'd ask to see the gaming commission and tell him he can explain to them why they ruled firmly in my case and gave another player slack.

The second is that I realize that I'm in a small room with people who are playing mainly to have a good time. With 18 cards in the muck, Seat 8 should be able to identify the cards and have the floor pull them out. I'd tell Seat 2 he needs to say all in when he is. Then deal it out.

Most people at the table would accept that as fair and the tournament would move on. Even Seat 8, while disappointed, would acknowledge that he wouldn't be complaining if Seat 2 had never let go of his cards and that the hand would have to be played out.

Just depends on what type of room you want to run.

both players get the entire pot. Loss comes from the casino.

I think this is a perfect example where the casino screwed up. When someone is paying for your services, and you do not properly render the services, you give money to the customer.

Its amazing that no one ever considers the casino giving you something. When a restaurant screws up your order they give you it for free...

It's a tournament, there is nothing for the casino to give. In the old days if a dealer error caused an issue, the dealer paid it out of their pocket.

slow down there, it's a tournament, not a cash game, as mentioned in the first line of the first post.

This is a really crappy situation, unfortunately, I don't see any other way to with it then you have to protect your hand, the dealer is in the wrong, but without retrievable cards, there isn't a fair solution for the 2 seat.

To RR, and other saying seat 8 wins. There are lots of ways to rule on this hand, but I am certain that seat 8 winning is incorrect 100% of the time.

Player 2 was all in. Thus ending any action that player 2 can take (player 2 CANT FOLD now).

Player 8 raised (called).

Player 2 tabled his hand face up.


No matter what happens from this point on, including player two standing up and taking a dump in the middle of the table, player 2 has a claim to the pot.

Player 8 never tabled his cards - has no claim to the pot.

Options for ruling are:

1. Strict interpretation - entire pot (minus seat 8 raise) goes to seat 2.

2. "Fair" ruling - misdeal, action is backed out, play continues.

3. "fair-er" ruling - misdeal, action is backed out, play continues, room refunds seat 8 and seat 2 their entry fees and allows them to continue.

4. Seat 8 gets pot -- huh? seat 8 doesnt have a hand. -- remember seat 2's cards CAN be retrieved from the muck they were tabled, and technically seat 2 cant fold, no action to him.

5. Seat 8 tells floor exactly what his cards were -- if those exact cards (rank and suit) are in the muck, then tally-hoe, play continues. ---this is a slippery slope - see WSOP when that french girls AA was mucked and floor couldnt find them.

6. Chop it...meh....i like backing it all out and giving the blinds back their money more than this...and if i was seat 2 with a tabled hand, i probably protest chopping it.


Numbers 1,3,6 are the only "reasonable" options in my opinion, and years of seeing bizarre **** happen live.

Seat 2's hand was not obviously the winner, so it can be killed. It isn't that we want to kill seat 2's hand, but when a player (seat 8 in this case) is pushed a pot, at what point can he give he give the dealer the cards to deal the next hand? At some point we need to go to the next hand.

Note: if seat 2's hand was seen by all and is the nuts, they get the pot because it was obviously the winner.

Sure it was "obviously the winner". What other hand was there to contest it?