Pre-flop with full table in charity cardroom. A couple limps, a raise, a couple calls and an all-in from the cutoff. The original raiser calls.

The cutoff had two or three racks of chips on the table. He was also going all-in blind every hand. (And believe it or not, people were limp/folding and raise/folding for some bizarre reason.)

When it was time to turn them over, the cutoff lifted his racks looking for his hand and it was nowhere to be seen.

I think what happened was the dealer threw him the cards, they hit the rack and bumped out forward toward the line. The dealer must have accidentally grabbed them thinking they were folded.

The pot was $~800.

What happens?

(By the way, I hate racks on the table. There was another instance where we played several hands with two cards just under someone's rack the entire time.)

Player with no hand loses. Protect your hand.

If he had made a bet or raise not yet called, he gets that back. But in this case he was called. Too bad for him.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I think the dealer did what he did and the players didn't say a word because the table was 100% diehard regs. It's pretty much why I didn't say anything. Thought it was interesting the guy with cards didn't say anything or object, but he looked pretty annoyed.

Seems like someone got robbed.

With an objection the range should include the player with cards (PWC) getting either the whole pot, or at least his bet and the limpers/blinds.

If I'm returning something to the no cards player (NCP) it's only the chips they started the hand with.


I know charity rooms are poker rooms. When I see it, I still first think about a fundraiser for charity and fake money chips. I would think there is still a governing gambling body, and I imagine they would be displeased to find that out.

No legit card room let’s players play from racks in a NL game. Something that might be perfectly fine in a limit game but a recipe for disaster in NL/PL games. If the room doesn’t have a rule regarding that, they need to implement one. If they do and the dealer ignores it, that’s obviously an issue.

As for the “ruling” it looks like the dealer just decides who gets money from the pot? If everyone is OK with that, I am a big proponent of “your money, your choice” but that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous rules-wise.

FWIW, in a card room regulated by a gaming commission that might be a pretty big deal. In a lot of rooms the player who should have won the full pot wouldn’t even be allowed to use chips from the table to return a percentage of the pot to the other guy.

L-O-L charity rooms. I have never played at one and every time I hear one of these stories it makes me glad I never did. Even when they had one closer to me, I always drove the extra 25 minutes to a casino.

This always cracks me up. The typical OMC reaction to a LAG is to get run over repeatedly, then when they get AA shove on the LAG and get a snap fold and then flip their hand over like they just actually accomplished something. The inability of even semi-competent low stakes players to properly adjust to a complete spazz has been a theme for as long as I've been playing.

Last time I played live there was a guy putting in massive overbets on the flop. Like betting $80 into $15. Everyone was just folding, and sometimes showing pretty good hands. He did it to me, I shoved on him, he called, and I flipped TPNK. He stared at the board for a minute then mucked. People were looking at me as if I had just called with the nut low or something.

For certain, and mainly based on the previous hands where RG (rack guy) was going AIPF, he gets his chips back .. somehow (from pot or rake). Yes, we have the hard liners in this forum but this is a Rule #1 in my book. Presumably (not really a stretch) this guy is action and good for the room and we don't want him leaving sour. In these types of rooms the 'real' cash Player pool might be only 40-50 Regs, so you do what you can to keep them all coming back.

Now you need to determine who picks up the blinds/dead chips. I actually applaud the Dealer for assessing the spot and acting quickly, with conviction, to move on to the next hand. Not necessarily to avoid any conflict, but typically if you act like you know what you're doing then those around you will be accepting (in the short run, See Catch Me If You Can).

We really have no basis for these two to be running an angle so the raiser can scoop up the dead chips from the Players who called the original raise. That would be a world class set up and angle shoot for sure.

So who is harmed here? If the raise/caller is accepting of the Dealer's 'offer' then we move on. The call/folders really have no say in the matter as they already released their claim to the pot.

While the rule set, if there even is one in some charity rooms, should state that R/C should scoop, we are in a charity/home game type of atmosphere where it does quite often come down to a 'table agreement' or Rule #1 rather than the letter of the law. So if R/C is accepting of the chop, then we just move on. If R/C wants the Floor, then he gets the Floor. What will the ruling be? Unclear and may change by the day/Floor/Players involved.

In Michigan, while Gaming has the oversight of the 'Millionaire Party' license, I'm not so sure a Player has the same appeal/claim process that they would have if this were to happen at a casino.

I could go on and on a bit (and I probably will), but I'm just going to say that if an appeal was possible it would be against the Charity, not the 'Supplier' who provides the operation of the game for the Charity. Then the Charity would have to try and either share or recoup any loss of appeal.

Charity poker in Michigan is limited to $20K in chips sales per 'period' .. and the Supplier's (operator) income is capped at around $1K per day IF the rake goes over around $2200. Otherwise they make less at a 45/55 split. My point is that we have discussed scenarios where the house would cover RG's chips and R/C would double up. But if we try to do that in this 'world' the $$ involved might flush a whole day's take down the tube and that's not really the spirit of why this game is going on in the first place.

While I fully appreciate some folks' decision to 'not' go to Charity Rooms for this very reason, I will also offer up the fact that sometimes it's OK not to go 'all out' and simple just play the game for fun .. and charity. Sure you still want to win, but let's not burn the house down for a (maybe) non-professional Dealer's mistake. If R/C presses this issue it will typically affect the room for a bit. R/C puts a target on their back (perhaps). The RG may not come back for X amount of time, killing some much needed rake producing action. And the Dealer will be watched/critiqued like a hawk when this might just be a part time gig for them.

And believe me, if a Player were to shake Gaming's tree over something like this it puts the room at risk long term. GL

Think basketball .. This isn't the district final with fans/refs/benches/tickets .. This is a pick up game at the park. You figure out a solution and 'next game'.

I've see the worst, most out of line behavior in the charity setting. I attribute it to no real underlying presence of security/authority.

One of the craziest things I've seen was a player stone cold threatening to beat a female player's "b1tcha$$" outside. If that wasn't shocking enough, he was allowed to keep playing the session and was allowed back afterward. (I literally sat down at the table 1 minute after he said it, but I did get to observe the aftermath in detail.)

I totally understand how important it is for smaller rooms to keep the regs happy. But if that means severely compromising the integrity of the game we have a problem.

You're basically saying it's "in the best interest of the game" to steal money from one player to keep another player happy. That's certainly how a lot of players feel but should never be official policy in a public card room.

Yes, Rule #1 can be described as 'in the best interest of the game', but I think in this spot it's much broader than just maintaining the integrity of 'poker' itself .. it encompasses the Charity, the Dealer, the Players and the spirit of what the room is trying to accomplish as an entity.

So who is stealing from whom in this spot? Player from Player, Dealer from Player, Room from Player .. is everyone at the table an accomplice for not speaking up?

There is a recent thread about a Button Straddle Player who made a bet and didn't have cards. It will be interesting to see if the comments (even my own) are of the same tone as in this one .. basically the same thing with even more extenuating circumstances. GL

The 'Dumb Situation' thread was slightly different because the raise wasn't called before the Player realized he didn't have cards. IMO there's no difference in my ruling since there's been no additional action taken.

The only way a Player loses his chips is if we can 'prove' that he was acting with the knowledge that he didn't have cards and that other Players were affected by those actions. GL

Don't really understand the situation with charity rooms, but since players real money is at risk, I dont support rulings based in anyway on what is good for the charity or room overall. IMO rule 1 has always been about cases where a technical following of a rule results in an unjust outcome to one or more players in that particular hand at that particular time.

That said, while the obvious rulebook outcome is the player with the last live hand gets the pot, I could see giving the cutoff his chips back, under the rationale that since he didnt have cards, he is not entitled to take any action, so his raise is voided. The rest of pot then goes to the last live hand. No way I'm giving cutoff any of the pot from other players. If you're going to give him his all in back bc he doesnt have cards, then he cant win chips bc he doesnt have cards. Either he's in or out

Dealer is out of line. Not impressed by his choice to make the decision himself. If the players decide that’s what they want to do, that’s personally fine with me.

If I was in the shoes of the guy that called the all-in, I would give the guy his chips back. That might make me a sucker, but I do think people giving insane action should get more leeway than others. What I object to is compelling the player that called to give that leeway.

If I got called over as a floor though, that would be really tough for me to rule in the blind all-in guy’s favor. Reason being he had a reasonable chance of winning all that money without even having cards.

"Charity rooms" are essentially identical to casino cardrooms, but a portion of the rake goes to a charity. They're typically hosted in pre-existing venues, like bars, so there is absolutely no security. One of the places I reg'd at, before it got shut down for stealing money (lol), was rather dangerous, but was also why I went to it religiously.

Answer20 can for sure explain the essence of a charity room better than I.

What's to stop a player colluding with the dealer to just muck opponent hands so his buddy instantly wins the pot

"Oh sorry"
------

I hear the case for "the opponent guy called, it's in the rules he should win the pot"

But couldn't you also say "the opponent should know that player didn't have cards and thus the bet was invalid"

The threat of being fired. What's to stop you from stealing from your customers?

But I'm not sure that you know what you are saying. The hypothetical you describe has been possible during every live poker hand that has ever been dealt. Do you know it to have happened?

The player would be responsible for knowing how many cards each other player holds at, say, a ten-handed Omaha game. Also the freeroll opportunity is not nearly equal. You're not thinking this through.

My iron grip over the two cards that are required to be dealt to me every hand are what prevents that. Seriously the guy did nothing to protect his hand whatsoever.

This +1.

This +1.

I see not holding charity rooms to the same standard, but dealer can at least call floor right?

Do charity rooms even employ enough floors to handle these problems or can dealers resolve them on their own?

There is almost always a Floor/Manager scheduled into each shift. They may also be the break Dealer and/or 'stuck' in the box until a tournament table breaks. If there is no Floor, then typically the Dealer is an experienced one and 'should' know Flooring basics.

Typically the Floor also answers the phone and runs the list .. the Charity pretty much only handles the cash and chips.

In an interesting Gaming rule .. Only the charity personnel, minimum of three on site at all times, (and Players) may transport cash and/or chips between the cage and tables. The only time a Supplier employee can handle chips is while in the box. GL