1/2 game. Several players see the flop. ~$12 in pot.

Seat4 bets $10 on the flop. Everyone appears to fold quickly. Dealer ships pot and Seat4 mucks cards (roughly simultaneously).

Seat8 says, "wait, I still have cards".

Notes:
-Cards are not retrievable.
-Seat4 got phone call after cards were dealt (I guess it's allowed)
-Dealer is about to get a fill and is also slightly distracted.
-This is the 2nd time Seat8 has said "I still have cards". I couldn't tell if he covered with his hands, or he was just too slow for everyone else (probably both).

Ruling?

The fair thing would be for them to split the pot.

If he is found to be covering his cards, his hand is dead and pot goes to seat 4. Note that this would be a rare ruling. Note also that if he is covering his cards, unless it is his first hand, he should have already been warned not to do this.

Otherwise, it's a judgment call based on what happened and how fast. How much time after action passed seat 8? Did other players fold after him? How did seat 4 muck his hand irretrievably so fast? Dealer should kill losers, move board, then push pot, then kill the winner with the board. We have this procedure in place for a reason - it helps protect against this scenario.

It's hard to speak in generalities about this situation, but I'll try. In general, last person with a live hand wins the pot. But also in general, you have to protect your action. But also also, seat 4 needs to protect his action by knowing who else is in the pot. So it could go either way, depending on context.

Luckily it's only $12, so everyone gets a good, cheap lesson.

Under most situations, I would rule that the hand is over but the player with cards gets the money back that he's invested in the pot (sounds like $2 here). Since it's happened more than once, I'd warn Seat 8 about covering his cards. I'm not sure how Seat 4 getting a phone call matters. Not sure how a fill coming in matters either but maybe a word to the dealer about being more focused.

OK unless he is covering his cards with his hands, how else does he end up with cards after the pot is pushed in two seperate hands? He is either doing it on purpose or being oblivious to the flow of the game for several well known reasons. One warning , the first time , should have been enough. I think the Dealer/Floor should consider killing the second hand. Of course house rules might preclude this.

He didn't get warned the 1st time since it didn't result in as big of a problem as this. I don't think the dealer/floor really took that into account much.

It's also possible that the 9 or 10 seat is just folding out of turn too much. I couldn't really tell how hidden his cards were since I was in seat 1.

It was a few seconds before I heard him speak up. It is possible that he was trying to get the dealer's attention sooner, but wasn't noticed.

I believe that the 9 and/or 10 seat did muck out of turn.

Also, there is now $22 in the pot, not $12.

A huge key for me here is how many players were in the hand 'after' Seat 8 ... Seat 8 is allowed a 'reasonable' amount of time to stop action, but 'significant' action may have taken place and thus Seat 8 loses his rights to the pot.

Was the board 'mucked' as well? As stated, it's tough to offer a firm opinion without being there.

I'm a very deliberate player. I certainly don't think I stall, but I don't really make 'waterfall' decisions as I've had plenty of 'seller's remorse' when I've insta-mucked a hand along with the rest of the table when a player makes a polarizing bet. I make the players on my left very aware of this fact just by the way I play IMO. Just last night a straddle player shoved $240 into five $10 limpers. Normally I would just insta-fold with 66, but I took my time and evaluated the player's demeanor and the way his voice was different when he shoved. Yes, I could've been crushed but I put enough AK/AQ/22-55/AJs/ATs into his polarized range and made the call. He turned over 44. I Flopped a set anyway, but the point is ... take 'some time' to think about every one of your decisions. GL

If he was not warned not to hide his cards with his hands the first time, then whether it is deliberate or oblivious would be hard to tell the second time. Dealers get busy and distracted , but knowing who still has cards in a hand is an important part of the job regardless.

Seems like a weird spot for seat 8 to angle with only $2 invested.

I agree with Dinesh on the breakdown of what-ifs.

Seat 4 is only potential loser in the ruling, and fortunately its the difference between winning $10 or $5. Split, warn and move on.

Splitting the pot is rarely a fair ruling. It's a "the floor has no clue what to do" ruling.

Agree with dinesh here. It really depends on a lot of factor. I think pushing the entire pot to either play here is much better than chopping it.

Floor gave the $22 to Seat8. I thought he should only get $12, and Seat4 should get his $10 bet back since it was never called.

I think that ruling opens the door to regular angling in this fashion.

That is a hella bad ruling. As you and others have said, the $10 was never called, so if you do manage to rule that seat 8 gets the pot, he should not get that $10.

Lots of info missing that could sway a proper decision. Agreed that it's a cheap lesson for the table.

Because the pot was pushed, I'm declaring seat 4 held the cards long enough. Seat 8s hand is dead.

Now I know why seat 8 likes to keep his cards hidden. smh

I have said this before, but it really doesn't work in the long run to punish someone for giving up his cards after being pushed the pot. If you do that, the only way a player can protect himself is by taking ridiculous measures before giving up his hand which would slow the game to a standstill. In almost all cases the player pushed the pot shoud keep it.

QFT.

Nobody wants a game where the dealer sits there for 10 seconds after saying, "speak now if you disagree with the awarding of the pot to Seat X or forever hold your peace."

One of two things are happening. Either the player is hiding his cards, which means he should get a warning about doing that, which his punishment this time is to lose the pot. Or the dealer is getting sloppy which means the floor should be spoken to (away from the table) that the dealer needs some re-training about making sure everyone has folded before awarding the pot. Some dealers are so intent on getting as many hands dealt as possible that they get sloppy.

Only ruling options that should be considered:

Ruling A - Seat 8's hand is dead. Seat 4 gets the pot.

Ruling B - Seat 8 gets the pot minus the $10 that is returned to Seat 4.


I would almost always go with Ruling A here, but there could be spots where B is used. This is a judgment call for the floor to make.

This is just terrible.

I can't tell qhether the responses after this meant that giving $22 was a bad ruling (but $12 would have been OK) or that giving $12 would have been a bad ruling too.

I think $22 was bad, but $12 would have been fine if the house detwrmined (e.g., video) this was plurality dealer error.

The house should be held accountable for dealer errors.

If this were the case, you could say goodbye to live poker in casinos.

Why?

Because it costs way more to hire near perfect dealers, and to police/insure against players angling casinos out of dealer error repayments, than players would be willing to pay in rake.

But if you don't pay for that, you will pay the same in the long run through losing pots to dealer error, right?

Not if you protect yourself by paying attention. The house paying for all dealer errors would mean many things.

-One/several errors big enough could put the house in the hole.
-dealers would be fired for making a big enough or multiple mistakes. Dealer turnover is an expensive thing for casinos
-It would encourage players to try to get dealers to make mistakes.
-players would pay attention less, knowing that any mistake will be made up by the house.
-imagine a dealer makes a mistake and the wrong player profits. He keeps his mouth shut and the correct player realizes it a couple hands later, then the house pays the correct player. Good way to scam the house. It will just never happen.