Should you have won the pot?

-Technically yes

Is it a huge angle shoot and unethical?

-Certainly yes

 

Originally Posted by cburnette

Seat 1 BB

First you say Seat 1 is the BB

Seats 2 and 3 fold the seat 4 limps which is when you notice that seat 1 (the BB) has no cards. Where are they? In the muck? Lets assume they are in the much with four other cards(seats 2 and 3).

Seat 6, 7 and 9 presumably fold leaving 10 cards in the muck now.

BB raises with no cards.

Seat 8 and 10SB which you apparently mistakenly called "BB" now folds leaving 14 cards in the muck.

BB pushes all in, seat 4 mucks leaving 16 cards in the muck(8 folded hands).

How can the dealer possibly pull the 3rd of 8 mucked hands out of the muck. The mechanics of this move baffles me.

What happened to the rest of the pot?

Frankly, I dont know if they were the BB cards or not. He never acknowledged that they were correct. I guess he knew that it didnt matter since they were in the muck.

The rest of the pot was sent to me but it wasnt but a fraction of what it should have been.

Minor hand reconsttruction mistake aside, do you agree with the ruling AND do you consider this an angle shoot?

Hand reconstruction mistake corrected. Thanks Willie.

 

Originally Posted by LoVeBuRgEr

That is a bullshit. I would walk out and never return to that poker room again.

Did anyone see when the WSOP dealer mucked the girl's pocket aces this year. It sucked, but once the dealer messes up and mucks the cards, the player's hand is dead.

My only question is: did player 1 go all-in blind? or did they see their cards first and then have them mucked later?

He obvously saw the cards. The look on his face when he noticed his cards were missing told the whole story. he just didnt know they were missing and had been mucked by the dealer. The whole hand played out without him having any cards from the begenning. Like I said, I noticed his cards were missing right after Seat 4 made the initial call.

Got to love live tourny dealers when they try to make things up on the fly. I took a couple minutes to explain to a dealer that I was not double posting the BB. I posted it then during the hand another table closed down and filled ours up so the dealer tried to tell me to post the BB. I looked at them and said I am the SB not the BB. Ended up having to call over a super to explain to them that the new guy just sits out the hand and I become SB. I probably wouldnt have cared if it was early and blinds were small but the blinds were at 2000/1000 a pop with average chips at like 15000 which doesn't allow much breathing room when every chip counts

 

Originally Posted by Neek

2. Why would you start instablurting that you knew he didn't have cards all along? Now that makes you look like an asshole to the rest of the table. Better choice would be to be "surprised" to find that he doesn't have cards, appear to genuinely feel bad for him. Now you don't look like a dick.

Didnt instablurt. Went out of my way to remain silent. The only words I spoke was in to response to the questions of the Floor. I didnt even want to say when I knew the cards were missing but, as I said, I wanted to make sure that the ruling was fair with complete information. He should have been asking the dealer instead of me. I felt like answering his questions honestly, when asked, was the proper thing to do and kept me from being an angle shooter.

 

Originally Posted by URI_Stunna

K 9 suicide ship FTW

I had an advantage. One of the people in the hand didnt have cards!!!!!!!!

Ninja steala

The ruling seems weird. The other players with money in the pot who did protect their hands and who did nothing wrong lost chips, yet the guy who did not protect his cards got put in basically the position he was in prior to losing his cards, you still profited a little bit at the expense of the other players, not the neglectful one.

My ruling would have been to declare his hand dead. Pretty sure this is what happened to the french girl in the WSOP main event, when in the 10 seat, had her unprotected cards scooped by the dealer.

As for ethical considerations, probably the most ethical thing to do is to announce to the table and the dealer, as soon as possible, the fact that he had not cards, thereby giving everyone the best chance at a fair result given the situation, but moving on the fly in a tournament when you are in the mode of looking for any advantage you can find, it may have not been an obvious choice. Hind sight is 20/20 and I could not say for sure that I would not have done the same as you.

I certainly do not remind people to protect their cards when I see them leave them out on the table repeatedly.

Good questions and issues.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

The ruling seems weird. The other players with money in the pot who did protect their hands and who did nothing wrong lost chips, yet the guy who did not protect his cards got put in basically the position he was in prior to losing his cards, you still profited a little bit at the expense of the other players, not the neglectful one.

My ruling would have been to declare his hand dead. Pretty sure this is what happened to the french girl in the WSOP main event, when in the 10 seat, had her unprotected cards scooped by the dealer.

As for ethical considerations, probably the most ethical thing to do is to announce to the table and the dealer, as soon as possible, the fact that he had not cards, thereby giving everyone the best chance at a fair result given the situation, but moving on the fly in a tournament when you are in the mode of looking for any advantage you can find, it may have not been an obvious choice. Hind sight is 20/20 and I could not say for sure that I would not have done the same as you.

I certainly do not remind people to protect their cards when I see them leave them out on the table repeatedly.

Good questions and issues.

The ruling at the world series was she was forced to call Trans bet and the her hand was dead. Even tho she shoved to his raise with no cards. It appeared that they were willing to recover the cards if possible but the ones they suspected were hers did not match what she said she had.

yet another reason to institute instant replay in poker...

pretty funny, Harrah's isn't even consistent with their own rulings on the same issue. I played in one of their nightlies a few weeks back and had the same thing happen to me (where I was all in and called and the other player's cards were mucked), the dealer ruled that he was all in with no cards, the first floor guy ruled he would only have to pay the bb, and the floor manager came over and ruled that he would get all of his chips back. Pretty sickening to get three different rulings in a matter of three minutes, Harrah's should probably get their shit together.