ruling please

[JK.]

The card under the Table was one of the favourite tricks at the Ethnic Manila clubs.You notice I say ethnic.This is because all nationalities were doing it,the Greeks,Italians,Lebanese,Yugoslavs etc.When I say nationalities,I mean certain professionals,who were desperate because they could not beat a 5% rake.(I am curious as to what tricks players use in Crown,where the rake is double that(10% plus time charge).I remember a pro in Wollongong,when I was a kid.His name was Chopper.He had palms the size of a large shovel and would actually palm the third card until he could use it again.This was a step advanced to the simple "slip it on the floor" trick.Another trick of his was to simply palm all his cards from the dealer's view.As the dealer called the players and their bets,he would just go past Chopper as he had no cards in view.On the river,Chopper would come out with guns blazing.You would not believe how ,neither the dealer nor the other players noticed that Chopper up to this point did not put a cent in the pot.Ofcourse,often the dealer and Chopper worked together,with other pro players.The mark or the other bunnies never noticed.

[yoyo]

Any confirmation he is now playing the PokerDome tourneys? Perhaps with a disguise?Look out for big hands people, big hands. And people who don't bet until the river. That will be pretty tough to notice - someone who only puts money in the pot on the river.

[KASEACEdotCOM]

I would have to agree 100% with "Punty", there has to be a redeal.

[dalek]

When I saw this thread, I immediately thought of Jonno's article in the (current) March/April issue of Bluff AU (p.54) where he discusses 'substantial action' and the role of TDs:The TDAs first rule states "floor people are to consider fairness and the best interest of the game as the top priorities in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can, on occasion, dictate that the technical interpretation of the rules be ignored in the interest of fairness."This is essentially a guideline for TDs to follow when interpreting the rules of the game, but it relies on the TD having a clear understanding of what constitutes the best interest of the game.

[Jonno P]

Yoyo, I completely agree that this is a messed up situation and as both an administrator and player, Dealer error tilts me as well.In any situation where there is Dealer error, it is inevitable that someone is going to be disadvantaged. They key is to try and limit it.IMO it is correct to kill the player with the incorrect number of cards as killing the entire hand would disadvantage the whole table. What about the players who have already acted on their hand? Should they be disadvantaged as well? Whenever a Dealer makes a mistake, it is always in the best interests of the game to ensure the effects of the mistake are limited.Yes, it sucks that the player with three cards must have their hand declared dead through no fault of his own, but it would suck even more if the ENTIRE HAND was declared dead, especially with so much action.

[joethenuts22nd]

JOnno p is 100% correct ,going by the rules of poker.TO punty getting 3 cards after action has been taken must go in the much even if he has 1 card ,the rule says you must have 2 and only 2 cards in your hands to win a pot in hold-em.lets say 4 players are in a pot all the way to the river and 3 players fold on the river which leaves 1 player left he will only win the pot if he has 2 cards only ,1 or 3 cards his hand is dead.also the pokerdome could have differenr rules as do APL. also the tourny director under the rules of poker can allow any decision he wants.also under the rules of poker [a dealer does not make a mistake.] and is not responsible for players getting a raw deal or loss of money. also the casino does not make mistakes.if you go thru the rules of poker ,theres a rule for a rule but the bottom line is .the casino and ots staff do not make a mistake.

[yoyo]

Hypothetical:4 players remain on the Final Table of WSOP. Everyone misses the fact that the big blind (who is allin on his BB) was dealt 3 cards (two cards stuck together). UTG (chip leader) pushes all-in with KK, the Button calls with QQ, the SB calls with AKs and the BB realises he has 3 cards, Ace, Ace, Ace. So, TDA rules would state his hand is automatically folded and dead, meaning he automatically finishes in 4th place. Any combination of his 3 hole cards would have held up and he would have quadrupled up with AA. But all his Aces were folded. The UTG player's KK holds up against the AK and the QQ, eliminating both players.If any combination of the 3 hole cards the BB player had were allowed to play, he would be sitting in 2nd spot with 4 x big blinds in a HU match, but instead, through no fault of his own really, he is eliminated in 4th place instead.Is that how that hypothetical would go down?---The way I see it, any action on misdealt hands like this one is false action. If the dealer doesn't deal 3 cards to one player, each of the subsequent cards are no longer dealt to their 'rightful' destination, therefore action on those cards is contrived, fake action on hole cards that are incorrect due to the misdealt hand. Misdeals feel messy. I think misdeals should result in dead hands with all action refunded to players and the hand redealt - and we should just have to risk the chance that some joker would drop a card on the ground to his advantage when he gets 3 cards.

[yoyo]

"staff do not make a mistake"Well, apart from their decision to remain in a depressing industry that is not ergonomic for $15 an hour with no tips.

[Jonno P]

Nice hypothetical Yoyo. This is the perfect example of why the "best interest" rule exists. In this situation, in the best interests of the game, I would most likely rule a misdeal and redeal the hand. This would be one of those rare times that the rules of Poker can be overridden to ensure the best interest of the game. It sounds as though you would let him keep two of the three Aces and play the hand out, but what if the suit of his Aces came into play? Decisions cannot be results driven, they must be applied with complete objectivity.You raise a good point about false action, but I look at it like this: Players have voluntarily acted on the two cards they have found in their hand. Although we will never know whether these cards were ultimately meant to be in their hand, it is essentially irrelevent - they have volunteered action on their hand in the belief that the hand is live.The best interest rule is a great rule to have, but I firmly beleive it is also the most dangerous as it is subject to so much manipulation and misinterpretation. As Dalek so graciously quoted me (thanks for reading, now I know at least one person does!), it relies on the fact that the TD has a sound understanding of what constitutes the best interest of the game. Unfortunately, I think the industry is severely under resourced at the moment.

[vegas fund]

thanks everybody for there input greta to see a post with some good points made and NO NAME CALLING. what a nice bunch of chaps we can be if we try.