Game is 2/5 NLH, 8 handed. Hero in hijack(7seat) raises to $15 with KQd. Cutoff, button and BB all call. Flop is 2 2 9, rainbow. Checks around. Turn is 9. BB checks, Hero bets $20. Cutoff and button fold.
Dealer pulls in pot and pushes pot to Hero. Hero gives hand to Dealer facedown. Dealer washes deck and was assembling to put into shuffler. Hero is placing chips onto stack. BB(3seat) then announces he is still in hand and shows 2c 7c, stating that he was planning on check-raising Hero with three deuces. Best estimate is that approximately 10-15 seconds elapsed after pot pushed to Hero until BB announced he still had a hand.
The dealer is a known good dealer who makes few mistakes. The BB's hand was positioned to the side/back of his chips. One player said (hearsay) that the BB
was texting when it was his action, which would explain the delay. BB demands that he be awarded the pot which is now in Hero's stack.
Floor called. Ruling?

Hand is over.
BB did not protect his action when it was his turn to act.
Hero keeps pot.
The cards he had are irrelevant. He needs to speak up when dealer is pushing the pot.

If this were at showdown, I would award the pot to villain. But because he did not call Hero's bet, and did not stop the dealer and protect his action, I would rule his hand dead.

The best the Villain can hope for is the house paying him the pot. Wish him luck on that, he'll need it.

That said, I've seen and heard of some really horrible rulings, so who knows what happened.

What ended up being the ruling?

BB waited too long, hero gets pot.

If it were at showdown, is there any time limit you would set on how long a player had at showdown before you ruled their hand dead? Or could we get to the next hand and the dealer realizes the deck shuffler is beeping and the player is like “oh yeah, here’s my cards from the last hand” and gets to do a super slowroll?

In most rooms a player has until the next hand starts to appeal. That's normally first riffle of hand dealt or pushing green button on shuffler. So it seems like he made it in time. As for the protecting action aspect, this can go both ways. Hero also has a responsibility to be sure that he has the last live hand before mucking, even though dealer pushed him the pot. It's not just the villains responsibility to catch the dealers error. If a Server walked up and handed the villain a drink, and he turned to tip her, never expecting the dealer would push a pot when he clearly was still in the hand, so he didnt stop the action, is it just his responsibility? Why doesnt the hero have an equal responsibility to say "hold it dealer, he still has cards" rather than mucking?

I've seen this ruled both ways. Sometimes the floor says villain should have spoken up sooner and protected his action. Others have said hero should have protected his cards and villain has last live hand.

I don’t think I’ve ever checked if my opponent still has cards before mucking after the pot got pushed my way.

Maybe I’ll change my mind if I ever see that situation ruled in favor of the guy who didn’t protect his action. So far I haven’t.

I think hero gets the pot since the other guy waited until the pot was pushed and hero’s hand mucked to say anything and protect his hand and action. It’s too late and opens up too many angles. However you never know how it will be ruled. If I was hero I am pretty sure I would notice whether the other guy did anything or not (ie folded) and would probably say as the pot is being pushed and before I muck my hand wait he hasn’t acted. Otherwise it can look like you may know he has a hand and want the pot pushed and everything mucked and you get the pot (since you don’t have anything). If I had to guess on the ruling they split the pot (a bad ruling to avoid controversy but I can see it happening).

Another factor may be how visible this persons cards were (the villain). If they were hidden/behind chips etc that makes an even stronger case he gets nothing.

Weird spot. Really weird spot. My first instinct is to say that the bb’s hand is dead. However, I cannot see myself not noticing that a player who has been actively in the hand hasn’t folded his cards yet.

Just because the player was bluffing that doesn’t mean he’s not entitled to the pot. If he had a 9 or 2 there, then it wouldn’t make sense to award the bb the pot. Therefore I still think what makes the most sense is that the hand should be ruled dead. If the room wanted to be nice they could think about paying him out whatever was in the pot as well for the dealer error.

Once the next hand starts, the previous hand is normally final. As soon as the dealer starts dealing from the made deck, the next hand has started

I think the difference here is that the BB never called the bet, and then the dealer went forward with action. I don't think you can argue that awarding the hand, pushing the pot, and mucking the cards is not significant action.

If action was closed, and it was a simple case of who had the last live hand, I think this goes to the BB. But in a case where action goes past a player, and he does not protect his action, and significant action happens behind, I am not sure how you can consider his hand live.

V did have a, 2 72

Also what would happen if V had said something in time. What’s the standard ruling if the stub gets mixed in with the burns

When the stub gets fouled, the standard ruling is basically "do the best you can". Recreate the stub as fairly as possible. Exclude burns and folded hands if you can. Shuffle if needed. Then continue dealing.

TDA:

The time for villain to speak up is as soon as he sees the dealer start pushing the pot to his opponent.

But he was texting, so he didn't notice. That's on him; and he shouldn't be rewarded for not paying attention.

Hero, too, has an obligation to speak up if he sees villain still has cards, but according to OP, they might not have been visible from his seat.

I'm awarding the pot to the hero and telling villain to pay more attention to the game than his phone (doubly so if one is not allowed to be on the phone while in a hand at this particular venue). He waited too long to protest.

This is a good lesson for him to learn.


--klez

Rough for sure.

We expect people to know who has cards at all times. Sometimes a player has cards where they aren't easily seen. But after a pre-flop raise and three callers, we expect people to really know there are four players.

Having to declare the BB with a dead hand for not calling the bet or stopping the action (pull in pot, ship to HJ, get cards from HJ) seems the fairest of the ways to move forward considering what has happened.

The rule is that the hand is irretrievably over once the shuffle starts or button is pressed, not once the pot is pushed.

Having said that, practicality demands that this should only apply to issues that happen at showdown, when hands are tabled. Or anything that can be resolved by the camera.

It can't really apply to issues that occur while players are still holding their cards untabled, and in particular to cases where a player keeps his cards hidden or otherwise action passes by him. Because the winner can't be expected to protect his hand once the pot is pushed to him.

If we did expect that, he would never give them up, and we could never proceed to the next hand. He has to be able to relinquish his hand once the pot is pushed to him, and we can't hold it against him that someone else has a live/hidden hand after that fact.

In these cases, or for any issue with a similar context, I agree that the player has to raise an issue before the pot is pushed and the winning player relinquishes his hand and it is in the muck or otherwise unidentifiable and irretrievable. Once both of those things have happened, it is too late for the player who was skipped, and I would have to rule his hand dead.

No, I mean, what if the HJ had a 9 or 2. Especially if the HJ had a 9, that would be a total freeroll for the bb.

Ruling should be hero gets pot; im all for enforcing rules to everyone in every situation to deter angling

However in a $30-$50 pot are we really going to take this pot at the risk of scaring off a rec?

Table was pissed bc the pot was small and op had a chance to rectify it pretty easily

—-

On a side note whats with a percentage of the poker population that is drooling at the thought of winning a hand by having their opponent muck at showdown or during hand.

I would like for it to be an unwritten rule that if your opponent shows the winner and somehow his hand gets foiled that people just do the right thing and ship the pot to the winner even if they get a ruling in their favor.

If we want to be nice then the onus is on both parties to be nice. Hence, it would make sense to suggest splitting the pot and moving on. If bb wants the entire pot and does not get the ruling - its on him.

the bet was never called

how can anyone win or share a pot when they didn't call the bet they were facing ?

If you are the only player that has cards, you usually win the pot.

Is floor supposed to tell the last player with a hand that he needs to verbalize a call in order to collect the pot now?

We certainly can’t award the pot to the guy with no cards. If we did that, you could just announce a bet and then muck your hand to collect the pot before the other player even has time to react.

'Doing the right thing' is sometimes not allowed in a regulated casino. Players usually can't transfer chips at the table. Even if the Floor implies that this would be a good gesture on Hero's part you never know who else is sitting at the table or observing that would have a hissy fit and get Gaming involved.

This pot really needs to go to Hero. Yes, it's a 'Dealer' mistake, but Players are responsible for protecting their action. Sure, Hero could've/should've spoke up about there still being a live hand. Players have been pushed a pot at Showdown with the worst hand without speaking up 'all the time'. I don't want to suggest I know what was going on in Hero's head, but it's possible that Hero took advantage of the spot just as much as it could've been he forgot or didn't see V's cards.

IMO V actually made his case worse by stating that his plan was to c/r. If he had a plan, then he should've been paying attention in order to execute it. The Floor(s) really shouldn't take the holdings into consideration when making this ruling, but if I know a Player was sitting there with trips and couldn't be bothered to follow the action I would be less inclined to feel sympathy for them.

If allowed, I would love to see Hero give V back 'his' portion of the pot and we're ready to move on. The house can also decide what it wants to do, if anything, for V. But I certainly don't think that V is owed the whole pot when this spot could've been prevented.

If Hero's holding is declared unidentifiable, then we can't try to put the hand back together. I'm glad to see more Rule #1 thoughts in this thread than others trying to squeeze portions of the spot into hard rulings. GL