Timeline for WSOP definition of a protected hand
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:44 | vote | accept | TTT | ||
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:44 | comment | added | TTT | @3N1GM4 - Turns out you are correct! I just updated the question. | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:20 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - I think my second question is too opinion based. I'll focus choosing an answer based on the first question. | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:13 | comment | added | paparazzo | @TTT So in your opinion there should be a harsher penalty. This is not a chat room. VTC as opinion based. | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:11 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - And, everything is clear to me (I think). I just wanted to point out that your argument for not going into the muck seems to be you don't want to incentivise cheating, which I completely agree with. But in my view that just means you need a harsher penalty. If the penalty was death if you whisper cards that can't be found in the muck, you could be pretty sure that no one would cheat in that situation... of course that's insane, but the line of thinking was probably the rational beyond the decision I quoted (if it actually happened). | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 2:09 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - That thread had more floorpersons agreeing with you than agreeing with me. That one I quoted is an outlier and the poster isn't even sure it actually happened. | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 1:58 | comment | added | paparazzo | @TTT Fine you found an example of a floor ruling. Not all floor rulings will go the same way. What part of someone claims to have had the card cannot be validated is not clear to you? | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 1:50 | comment | added | TTT | I just found this thread: pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=18.0 Of particular interest, someone claims the following deal was made: "Tell me your EXACT cards (with suit) and if I find them in the muck, I give them back to you. If I don't, you are disqualified and I won't let you play any other tournament of the WSOP ! | |
| Dec 31, 2016 at 1:47 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - Great example. 2 comments: 1, you're assuming none of the other 8 players would notice that the winning card used to be their card. Of course that's possible, but I'd say unlikely, especially if that would have made them trips and they'd be watching closely to see if they would have won. More realistically I think the cheater is really hoping to guess a burn card. But you're absolutely right, you might as well try it in that scenario. So then maybe the problem isn't the act of going through the muck to find their cards, but the punishment isn't harsh enough! | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 23:16 | comment | added | 3N1GM4 | @Paparazzi that's a good point, I hadn't considered a situation where an angle shooter could be freerolling because no penalty relating to that specific tournament can harm them as they're all in. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 23:15 | comment | added | paparazzo | @TTT Let's say you did not lie and they retrieve a winning boat by searching the entire deck. I realize if you get busted I move up a spot for real money. I say hold it I mucked the 5 of diamonds. Do you see how that might be a problem? | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 23:12 | comment | added | paparazzo | @ttt Really 10 handed and 8 hands have folded I am all in with bottom pair and the board has a pair of black 5s. I am pretty sure I am beat as I was snap called but it was right to go in small stacked. I tell them I had a red 5 and my bottom pair card. There is 53% chance of 5 a in the muck. Getting 1:1 you should take that bet and you are probably getting 2:1 plus. They cannot penalize me as if they don't find a 5 I am out of the tournament anyway. If you called the all in do you think searching the entire much would be fair. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:46 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - btw, why do you think searching the entire muck would be a problem? (For this hopefully very rare situation. I could see it being ridiculous if it was happening often enough to slow down the game...) | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:45 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - Sorry. I interpret bold as emphasis, not yelling. (I think THIS IS YELLING.) So I suppose "Big difference = "Really Big difference". ;) | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:44 | comment | added | 3N1GM4 | @Paparazzi, I don't think using bold is equivalent to yelling, that would be USING ALL CAPS. :) I think TTT was just trying to emphasise what a big difference he think it makes. For what it's worth, I have seen multiple different floors decide to search the muck for a hand the dealer mucked inadvertently, even when unprotected. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:40 | comment | added | paparazzo | @TTT You don't need to yell. If it is not in the rule book then floor will decide and they are will not refer to your question on this site for how to handle it. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:33 | comment | added | TTT | @Paparazzi - that's exactly what they did at the casino I saw it happen at (because it was dealer error). I personally agreed with the decision. In the video her hand wasn't protected. Big difference. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:33 | comment | added | 3N1GM4 | I think you hit the nail on the head, being able to distinguish between an angle shoot and a genuine mistake in this situation may be impossible, so it would be a case of determining if the risk of incorrectly penalising an innocent player is outweighed by the benefit of protecting people from an angle shooter. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:32 | comment | added | paparazzo | @ttt You really expect them to go through the entire muck and search for the two cards you said you had. You are not seeing a problem with that? In that video they sure did not go through the entire deck. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:15 | comment | added | TTT | I don't think it's too extreme if they are angling on purpose, but obviously it is too extreme if they genuinely mis-remembered. (The hard part would be distinguishing between the two.) I know it's happened to me before, when I proudly stated "Flush!" and laid down my hand thinking I had two spades but one was actually a club. I deservedly was laughed at for that. I've also seen someone else's protected hand get mucked (and the floor retrieved it). I guess if that happened to someone AND their protected hand was mucked and they were DQ'd for it, well that's just some really bad luck. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:08 | comment | added | 3N1GM4 | I think a DQ or ban is a little extreme personally, people may genuinely misremember their hand and this would be a harsh penalty for that. A round or two sitting out would probably be sufficient IMO. Would be interested to hear from other floors to see what house rule (if any) they have on this, or how they would rule this situation. | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 22:05 | comment | added | TTT | For #2 I agree there must be a penalty. Perhaps the player is given an option: your hand is dead OR you tell us the exact cards and we retrieve them from the muck, but if they aren't both found there you are disqualified from the tournament (if a tourney) or are barred from the poker room for X amount of time (if a cash game). I suppose it would be unfair if you legitimately forgot your exact cards: e.g. I had Ah and a black King, I forgot which one... | |
| Dec 30, 2016 at 21:34 | history | answered | 3N1GM4 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |