Hand from the UKIPT High Roller Satellite, £230 BI for a £2.2k ticket. After late reg has closed but not near the money.

Context - BTN was obviously very drunk. I had made a couple of hero calls vs him and he was pissed off with me generally because I was outplaying him.

I was in HJ and min open. BTN announces all in. Blinds fold, I call and turn over my hand.

BTN then announces that he's only been given one card. Dealer then quickly gives him a second card and I insist that the floor is called before anything else happens.

Floor establishes that BTN did indeed only have one card when he went all in.

What should be ruling be?

lmao I had a player go allin with NO cards once, and 2 players called. Cant remember how that ended as I was racking up.

Per TDA rule 37, hand is dead:

Stupid rule, as are many of the TDA rules. Are you still going to make his chips go in after killing his hand as well??
Whoever wrote that rule doesn't even understand how poker works, thinking the player with the button could check as his first action.

Just give him the second card and then deal out the board. Even if he never says he's short a card, personally I think he should be able to play the one card.

Sharp Post.

TDA uses the ‘hand is dead’ for most rulings that require a brain for making tough decisions..

The way I see it, the hand should continue.

The other player was disadvantaged by only having one card, yet decided to proceed with the hand anyway.

Poker is a game of observation, and so as the other player in the hand, it is up to you to spot and react appropriately to errors or anomalies, even if they are the dealer's fault. The fact that you didn't notice that the other player only had one card is on you. Granted, the dealer made a mistake by not dealing them a second card, but the players are responsible for making sure the game is played correctly.

Given that a) the button player consciously decided to play at a disadvantage, b) you did not spot the error before any action took place, c) the next card in the deck would have been the button player's second card anyway, and d) there is no more action possible given that the other player is all-in, I see no reason not to finish the hand.

If this situation happened to any other player, their hand would be dead. Why should the button get treated differently (and better) than any other player?

You raise a valid point with regards to the discrepancy between player positions and the way they may potentially be treated in this situation using my theory.

However, I would point out that by allowing the button player to continue playing even whilst at a disadvantage, this must surely be considered as being treated worse than other players, not better?

My knowledge of the rules of tournament poker is not deep enough to accurately comment on what would happen in similar situations for different players, but gut feeling suggests that a similar approach would be adopted - it's up to the other players at the table to observe that the incorrect number of cards have been dealt to each player. Furthermore, had the dealer noticed their mistake immediately after dealing the hole cards, I believe I'm right in saying that they would have given the player in question the next card in the deck anyway, regardless of their position? Please correct me if I'm wrong on this one as I'm not 100% sure.

I don't think anyone's hand should be dead for having too few cards. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

But the reason the button can still get his second card is because he wasn't even skipped on the deal; the deal has been completely proper, it just hasn't finished yet. The fact that some betting has happened before the button got his last card shouldn't matter.

Many times the UTG player has received both his cards and put in a bet before the button has gotten his second card (because the dealer hasn't finished). Do you think the button's hand should be dead in that case?

Allowing players to play and win hands using only one card opens up a whole host of issues.

I would declare the hand dead. Wagering began with an incomplete deal.

I wouldn’t allow betting to begin before the deal was complete. One of the cards yet to dealt could be flipped etc. Bad poker.

You're going to stop someone from moving his chips? That's tough to do.

Well not moving their chips… Making a bet. It could be viewed as the equivalent of betting out of turn. It’s nobody’s the yet because the deal hasn’t been completed.

I see you point though.

What about the UTG player folding their hand before the deal is complete?

So every player needs to show the dealer he has the right amount of cards before betting?? Or Just the button? Omaha too? The rule is 'dead hand.' If you are too stupid to realize you have only one card, and bet, you deserve to be penalized.

Personally, the type of people who like to gamble so much they are happy to play- even one street with just one card are the people I want in my game.

Hand is dead