This a ruling from an $1100 buy-in $1M guaranteed live tournament. I was not involved, this was told to me by someone in the hand. Feel free to add to details if you know what happened.

Blinds 1.5k/3k/3k, hero is BB with ~70k in seat 9. In EP are two pros (will call them seats 2 & 3). Both are local but known in poker world, both bracelet winners. Seat 2 covers, opens for 7k. 3-4 callers, hero completes with JTss. Flop 873 two spades (maybe 875?). Hero checks, seat 2 shoves about 2x pot. Folds to hero. While hero is thinking, seat 2 shows seat 3 his cards and mucks. Cards are partially mixed in with muck. Apparently no one else sees cards, including dealer.

Hero says he still has cards, floor is called. Don’t remember order of who said what in what order, but seat 2 says he has K6ss, seat 3 confirms, hero says his intention was to shove. They attempt to retrieve cards from muck. First card is the Ks, then three cards to pull 6s. Floor rules cards are live, and hero is obligated to call since he said that is what his intent was. Bricks out, hero is eliminated.

Thoughts on retrieving hand? And forcing hero to shove? Right or wrong rulings?

Terrible ruling. Never pull cards from muck unless they were actually tabled (and hopefully with camera backing, but at least dealer verification). If cards are alleged to be identifiable and retrievable, dealer or player should confirm which two they are. Ideally player also says to floor what his cards were at that time, and it should be confirmed that the retrieved cards are the ones the player identified. If not, his hand is dead.

You also can't hold a player to what he "intended" to do, ever. If somehow V's cards are returned to him, now action is on Hero.

What should have happened: Villain's hand is not identifiable (since it's in the muck) and is dead, but since his shove wasn't yet called, he is refunded his flop bet. Hero wins pot.

The villain mucked his hand because he assumed he won the pot, not because he thought he was beat. What should have happened is the Hero should have said he has cards and called the floor over. The floor should have asked the villain privately what the two cards were. If they were in the muck, they should be restored to the villain without showing anyone and the action is on Hero.

As it was played out, I'd treat it as the villain showing his cards and the action is on Hero. Forcing Hero to call is as bad a decision as awarding the pot the Hero because the muck is magical. The muck is a graveyard, not an executioner.

It doesn't matter why the villain mucked his cards. If they are not clearly identifiable, they are dead. You should never allow the player to "whisper" his cards to the floor, and then let them be live if they are found in there. If that is the rule, what would stop be from saying I folded the cards X and Y. But, what if I actually folded X and Z? But my partner signaled me that he folded Y, and that is a stronger hand, at this point, then my original X and Z. If the cards aren't clearly identifiable without the whispering and searching, the hand is dead. No exceptions, regardless of the outcome.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Had this similar situation a few years ago in Europe. I still can not believe player was allowed to whisper his cards to the TD and pulled them from the muck and restored the hand. Ridiculous in no situation should cards be retrieved from the muck !

holy **** is the floorman the guy’s brother or something? what a horrible, lopsided ruling...

“The muck is not magical” refers to the fact that in any well-run poker room, simply touching the muck doesn’t kill the hand. The cards have to be made irretrievable by burying them in a place that cannot be identified easily (unidentifiable). Not simply by placing them on top of or underneath the muck, but somewhere in the middle.

Where I dealt, the meaning of "identifiable in muck" meant the dealer could tell the floor "it's this card and that card" with certainty. Then the player would whisper his cards to the floor, and if they matched the cards the dealer had identified they were live. Otherwise the were irretrievable. It didnt even matter if the player claimed which cards they were in the muck. It had to be the dealer.

While not his “brother”, it’s close enough. What we discussed and feel is that ruling was made because: 1) Who the two pros are. Local, well known. Publicity for room if they go deep could have been a factor as well. 2) Hero is not outspoken or known enough in live community here to stand up to potential favoritism. 3) Floor was not experienced enough to make a ruling without being influenced by others involved in the decision and/or hand.

I feel this is a clear case where the all in player should protect his hand. And KITN to the the dealer for not knowing a third player was in the hand and stopping action. Also the player seems very scummy for not saying he was in the hand as soon as villain started mucking his cards.

Agree with (FossilMan) 100%.

Player's responsibility to protect his hand.

Also agree.

You can’t go to the graveyard and tell them to dig up various graves until they find what you claim is your grandmother’s golden wedding ring.

If you know your grandmother is in grave #57 and cemetery administration has records of that being the case, feel free to dig.

The muck contains the cards of 8 players and a burn card, 17 cards total. Hero has two cards and there are 3 cards on the board for a total of 5 cards. That leaves 30 cards in the dealer’s hand. Let’s assume villain indeed had the king of spades. We don’t know his second card. But we know whatever he says, there’s a >1/3 chance that card is actually somewhere in the muck.

Say villain claims his second card was the 6 of spades and we find it somewhere in the muck. What are we doing if seat 5 claims he folded that card preflop? If the answer is “seat #2’s hand is dead” we basically gave every other player at the table the opportunity to kill his hand. If we say play on, seat #2 might have cheated his way into a way stronger hand than he had.

Clearly identifiable should mean “we know where the cards are” and not “if the cards he claims are somewhere to be found, game on”.

In all likelihood, this outcome was not unfair, insofar as it is overwhelmingly likely that K6ss was the first player's actual hand, and that JTs actually was going to go all in. So, as far as outcomes go, it doesn't seem like a huge miscarriage of justice, and kudos to JTs for admitting his intent and not trying to angle.

That being said, Greg and Dinesh are on the money. The hand has to be dead (cards are not retrievable if you have to keep looking until you find the cards specified), and hero had not committed any action to be bound to.

In this case, the correct outcome (the outcome that would have occurred had no misunderstanding occurred) ;likely happened, but holy jebus that was a bad ruling.

This seems more or less correct to me, not that anything vaguely touching the muck is dead.

Getting 4 guesses at second card is over the top, and forcing a call is way way way out of line.

I feel once the cards hit the muck and can’t be easily retrieved, should be a dead hand. Not sure the official rule but wow this is really messed up. Showing hand to one player then accidentally mucking.... this player got very lucky in this situation as if I was hero, I would be complaining to the floor. Hand should be dead.

While TDA rules and RROP don't actually define what constitutes "clearly identifiable" I think the very use of that phrase precludes the option of a player naming his cards and then searching the muck for them. Because if that were the standard, there would be no need for the "clearly identifiable" standard at all. After all, if all it took to be clearly identifiable were for the player to be able to name the cards he mucked, almost 100% of mucked hands would clearly identifiable. Only a player who forgot his cards would be out of luck, and he could still guess and hope for the best.

If searching the muck were allowed, there would be no point in teaching poker dealers to make sure they mixed the cards into the muck. The whole point of that is to make them not clearly identifiable. That's a moot point if the Term "clearly identifiable" included searching the muck.

Maybe he remembers one and is somewhat confident the other one was a black 6 or 7. There’s a pretty good chance one of those cards is in there. If not, maybe we find a black 8 and ask the player if it might have been that one?

I am not accepting that ruling, particularly the part about you being forced to shove. I am calling for the TD and going as high up the chain as I can. This is the most BS floor ruling I have ever heard of in tournaments.

1) If they have to go fishing for several cards in the muck before finding the right one then its clearly not identifiable.

but fine, whatever they found the cards he said he had, its the follow up ruling that is most egregious.

2) What does your stated intention after the fact matter? Villain acted out of turn, mucked his hand, and was forced to reveal it in order to retrieve it, all without you having acted. Now you casually mention that you were planning to shove while his hand is buried in the muck and after retrieving his cards from the muck, the floor decides that this is a binding verbal action???

I guess keep your mouth shut and avoid friendly small talk, everything you say can and will be used against you, even if villain's hand is buried in the muck at the time.

What Series is this at so I know to avoid it for my summer trip in a month?

If I was hero I would have no problem with what happened.

My guess is that Hero was asked what he wanted to do before the hand was announced and they went searching for it so that if Hero was going to fold then they would award the pot to Villain. Maybe Hero didn't know and thought that he would win if he said he was going to call the shove. Or maybe Hero had wanted to call the shove all along. Either way he gets to call.

The search for the cards in the muck is unusual. I have never seen it happen. My thoughts on this are that the dealer failed to protect the muck. And the player did not protect his hand. I would have no problem if the hand were declared dead. But the circumstances are slightly unusual. Another player saw the hand so that while it wasn't tabled, it was known. The fact that the hand was retrieved relatively quickly from the muck meant that it was virtually certainly the correct hand. I would also feel partially responsible as Hero for not warning Villain not to discard his hand. For me that is close to an angle.

However, as Floor I would let the player know that if the hand he had declared was not in the muck he would be getting a one round penalty and if it ever happened again a ban (I would start with 24 hours). And then I would ask if he wanted to continue.

In this situation it would make no sense for Villain to lie about his hand especially because another player had seen it. I know I would appreciate it if this had happened to me (by the same token I wouldn't expect to be bailed out if I failed to protect my hand).

I want to say this never happens to me but there have been times over the years where I lost track of a player in the hand who was covering their cards with their hands - but not to the point where I mucked my cards. It happened prior to the turn so the turn got called back. Still my lesson from all this has nothing to do with what the Floor did (which in real life will probably never happen again). It is that I should at all times know exactly who is still in the hand.

That alone would already be a horrible ruling. Hero is the only one with cards and villain’s hand is not clearly identifiable. What hero had planned on doing doesn’t matter.

What if he declares that his intention was to fold? Would villain even need to recover his cards from the muck?

Also, most importantly, he hadn't decided his intention, he was still thinking when villain acted out of turn and mucked his hand. Hero shouldn't have to declare any action until the ruling on the mucked hand is made. If the hand is dead, then hero wins the pot, and if the hand is live then now the action is open and hero gets to make his decision with the knowledge of what villain has (his penalty for acting out turn).

Unfortunately these situations still happen .. Regs/Pros can influence a Floor into a Rule #1 situation, if that was even the case. It appears that Hero was 'OK' with the proceedings or else they may have asked for a 2nd Floor to come over.

While I agree that 'clearly identifiable' may not be so cut and dried in this spot, we do have 'additional' information provided by Seat 3 and the action is such that Hero closes it via all-in or fold. Quite the perfect storm that left the door of death open for this holding.

I don't necessarily agree with 'forcing' Seat 9 to call, but I don't mind Seat 2's cards becoming exposed during the process of identifying them and letting Seat 9 act from there.

It's pretty easy for an inexperienced/influenced Floor to rush into a situation where multiple rulings are needed without thinking where to start and how to proceed from there. They first should've handled whether or not the holding was still live and then decided what to do with the action (if live) or what to do with the bet and pot (possibly separate issues).

IMO once the 2nd muck pulled card is not part of the stated holding then it's a dead hand and Seat 9 gets what's in the middle for sure. Then we can move on to what do we do with Seat 2's all-in bet. I'm inclined to let Seat 2 take back any uncalled chips and we move on.

We probably want to do our best not to openly discuss Seat 2's holding while we search for it to maintain the integrity of the action, but if Seat2 volunteers it and Seat 3 then pipes up offering it to Seat 9 then so be it.

The timing of Seat 9's statement about calling is important as well, but it's not all about Seat 9! This is a tournament where all the Players have a vested interest in the ruling.

This particular spot does have some Rule #1 characteristics, but the Floor shouldn't have allowed the Player's 'status' in the room influence a ruling .. but we all know it happens. GL

If the floor's intent is to rescue the hand from the muck then yes Villain would not need to recover his cards if Hero is folding.

I don't agree with this. I think Hero gets to act without knowing what Villain had just like he would have if Villain still has his hand. Which might have happened. I still don't know if Hero knew Villain's two cards before saying he would have been all-in.

I read the story as he casually mentioned that he was going to call after thinking that Ks6s was in the muck, and then the floor was holding him to that statement once the cards are recovered.

We are getting the story secondhand so we likely arent getting the most accurate version.

I guess if the floor had hero declare his binding intention before any ruling on villains hand was made or revealed, like a provisional in golf, then its all fine.

I am still of the mindset that hero's action needs to come after the ruling on villain's hand is made, since villain acting out of turn is what caused this issue. Obv the floor should try to solve that problem without making villains hand public knowledge.

I guess I should clarify that revealing villain's hand should not be a punishment. But if his hand gets revealed during the process of recovering it, then so be it.

Completely insane ruling. First hero's intent is not relevant, you get to know whether villain's hand is live at minimum before deciding what to do, perhaps with exact knowledge of his 2 cards because he all ready showed another player.

It wouldn't be crazy to rule his hand dead and the shove binding.

Def 'not' crazy to have the hand ruled dead as played out in the OP.

I think it 'would be' pretty crazy to hold a Player to losing uncalled chips into someone else's stack. But that is the decision of the TD in this spot.

One could open the chip dumping angle if they wanted. GL