3 questions…

2 Responses to “3 questions…”

1. ChicagoMike says:
   November 21, 2008 at 9:45 pm

   These are all unfortunate situations for the players involved. As TD, one of the best ways to look at these is that THE PLAYERS HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TOO.

   As TD’s sometimes we try to be supermen and solve every problem. But always remind yourself that the players must do their part also.

   1) This is a case of protecting your own cards. It’s very unfortunate that the dealer snatched the unprotected cards. Had the player not been called we could certainly have returned his bet. But because he’s been called there’s not much remedy here UNLESS we can identify his hand with certainty. It appears that’s not the case so, because the player did not live up to his responsibilities, he has forfeited his hand.

   2) This is a twist on the first situation. You have to protect your hand against all manner of potential threats: a) dealer snatching it up b) card falling off the table and getting lost c) a drink being spilled on it and d) VERY COMMON… your hand getting messed up with some other cards… Situation D is what we have here. Again, very unfortunate, but both players have not lived up to their responsibilities. IF it’s just these two players, then you can award the pot to the “innocent” player. If not, then both hands are dead, IMO.

   3) THIS IS A BIT TRICKY. I’ll give you one answer for a cash game (which really isn’t our subject); and a modified answer for a tournament.

   GENERAL CASH GAME ANSWER: There are so many versions of this that are possible: perhaps some bystanders saw the chips and can contribute their estimates; perhaps there was a camera you can refer to, etc. etc…

   But, suppose the worst, that there’s no way to estimate. THEN a) first we hope that the players themselves can reach an agreement… there’s certainly a chance of this because the guy didn’t value his chips highly enough to keep them from flying out of his hand, hopefully they weren’t so high a denomination that the parties can’t reach a quick agreement. b) If an argument breaks out then this is a matter for security to sort out.

   TOURNAMENT ANSWER: The problem with this from the tournament perspective is that it’s not entirely fair to the other players at the tournament to have another stack suddenly “inherit” some extra chips. Fortunately, what is inherited by one player is lost by another so there’s some consolation, and nobody at any tournament is guaranteed of perfection, just best efforts.

   Again, if the two players can quickly come to an understanding, AND WE DONT SUSPECXT COLLUSION, then the fairest thing is still to let their split stand, IMO. And the TD can “gently pressure” the players to reach an agreement in the best interest of the game… but let’s say they can;t…

   IMO you have to use your best fair judgement here. What’s worse, to punish an innocent person by perhaps removing more chips than necessary, or allowing him to have a few extra because the chips dropped in his stack not by his error? And, more complicated, what if it’s not just a “few extra”, but could be several times his original stack ??

   SO, in the first case, as TD I’m comfortable making some minor removal of chips from his stack, or just letting the error stand, because it cannot be determined and the minor gain one player may have is offset by a similar loss from the stack of another competitor.

   Keep in mind, as TD we do have the right (unlike a cash game IMO), to demand a certain adjustment to a stack! Whereas in a cash game those chips are actual monetary property and could be subject to security being called in, the police, the courts, ad nauseum… in a tournament they just represent what the house has allowed as a “participation level” in the larger tournament. If the house suspects an unfair participation level, the house can and should adjust it, IMO.

   Now, this leads to the worst case where there’s suspicion of a very large (albeit unintentional) transfer of chips. Then IMO the house can resolve this any number of ways, always trying to keep fairness in mind. 1) Suggest a level of adjustment that the house feels is fair. 2) If the player won’t accept that and an alternative agreement can’t be reached, then you have little choice but to remove the player from competition. The question then would be what to compensate them with. Because this was not their error I would prefer at least a return of their buy-in, or cashing them out at the current payoff level if the tourney is in the money. You have any number of ways to handle this if it’s a tournament… not as many ways if it’s a cash game, IMO.

2. wsopmcgee says:
   December 21, 2008 at 5:27 am

   Unfortunately a lot of this is both dealer and player error.
   Situation 1: Seems pretty clear. The all-in player has no redress if he’s been called. Which seems an inadequate wording and ruling. I’ve seen both A) a player win a pot with no cards because all the other players folded and B) the player got called and was heads up and the TD let the all-in player get the portion of his stack back that was over the initial call ie, the blinds were 300-600 and Player A moved in for 1,400 and got called, but has no cards, and the floor gave Player A 800 in chips back BECAUSE the player had initially protected his/her hand either with a card protector or with chips on top of their cards, which is what happened in this case that you described: “declares All-In and places his remaining chips (about 10 pieces) on top of his cards”.

   Isn’t this what we teach players to do? To put chips on top of their cards in order to protect their hand. In this case I’d rule the dealer killed a protected hand and give the player back the amount of chips over the initial call back.

   The rule for a player having no redress is for UNPROTECTED hands. Specifically unprotected hands that are not all-in.

   For an all-in player that has put all their chips in the pot, what are they to protect them with? Save one chip? What if they do not have a card protector?

   You don’t want to end a players tournament on a dealer error. If at all possible, give them their raise back and award the pot to the player with cards.

   Situation 2: Again seems pretty clear cut. Player had their cards come into contact with discards or other cards. By rule their is supposed to be dead.

   From your statement, the dealer didn’t know which cards were which. But maybe the player does? If the player knows what their hole cards are, I see no reason to render the hand dead. Again you are also supposed to consider whether the cards were protected or unprotected.

   Situation 3: ChiMike pretty much covered that one. I recently had this happen twice at an event in New Orleans. Luckily, on both occasions the players stack where the chips fell into was properly stacked and almost none of the fallen chips intermingled. If they had mingled I’d ask for the best guesses of each players chips to the best of their knowledge and reconstruct that amount and divide whatever amount left equally if undetermined by a camera or if not agreeable possibly remove the chips all together.

   This is also the reason why as TD I insist that dealers count stacks down as opposed to matching stacks together. As a player I never let a dealer match my stack against another players stack. What happens if they all fall over? The only way to verify someones stack is to actually count it down.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.