The Ruling That Made Me Message Every Top TD I Know

Background

It's day 2 of very good structured Seniors event at IPO. I bagged up a little less than average but made a good start to day 2 so was hoping to attack the bubble. That didn’t work out, in no small part due to the villain in the hand I’m about to post, a very experienced and skilled pro (the only other pro at my table, and one of only two left in the tournament). He’s been shoving over my opens a lot and defending his blinds, and attacking mine, and playing well post flop. He’s therefore by far my most dangerous opponent at the table.

We get through the bubble but now I’m down to about 20 BBs, about half the average. He continues to attack my light opens and I never have a hand to call off until this hand comes up.

I open 99 in early position, knowing and having already decided my hand is strong enough to call if he shoves. It folds to him in the small blind, and he verbally declares "All In" and pushes his stack forward. His all in is for a bit less than I have. The big blind snap folds, I snap call and table my 99, and villain pushes his cards forward towards the dealer face down. The dealer then pulls them into the muck. I'm reasonably certain villain had missed my open because he looked startled when he saw my hand (and I don't think 55 is a snap shove against an early position open (whereas it is if it's just folded to the small blind)).

After some confusion I suggest the floor be called. He says “no point, I know what the ruling will be, my hand is dead”. I ask him what he had and he says and he says “Fives”. I say if he can identify the cards in the muck they might be able to retrieve them from the muck (I’ve seen that done in Vegas). I’m friendly with the villain so wanted to give him every chance.

Floor comes. Cards can’t be identified in the muck (they’re not at the top or the bottom, just embedded there) and villain can’t remember what suits he had.

What should the ruling be?

I assumed his hand was now dead, but would have accepted them rooting in the muck and retrieving the two fives. The ruling given was he only had to pay 2 BBs, the amount of my initial raise. I was flabbergasted and my opponent also seemed surprised and asked if I wanted to object. I shrugged and declined, because the floorman who made the ruling is top class, one of the best I know, and I didn't want to start arguing for my opponent's elimination with him.

My head was honestly spinning after the ruling which I could not understand (I'd basically been punished and my chances in the tournament seriously damaged due to a mistake my opponent had made in conjunction with dealer, while my opponent had unwittingly benefitted considerably from this own mistake), so I immediately messaged Matt Savage (the GOAT in my opinion) and a bunch of other top TDs I know, thinking maybe they could explain why this was the ruling. Instead, they unanimously confirmed my opponent's hand should be dead in their view, I should be awarded the full pot, and were staggered by the ruling. I also messaged a bunch of top pros and some recreationals, and they were as horrified and staggered by the ruling as I was. It’s probably the most upset I’ve ever been at the table as I felt an overwhelming sense of injustice at having my prospects in the tournament seriously harmed by a mistake my opponent had made in conjunction with the dealer through no fault of my own. Getting up to average stack after a long period of being short would have allowed me to attack the final table bubble, particularly with my most skilful opponent removed from the picture.

However, as a pro you have to shake these things off, and I navigated my way to headsup and second.

Players views

Several players I asked about the ruling were so shocked by it they asked me if the floorman might be biased against me, or wildly incompetent. I quickly ruled out both as the person in question is someone I'm very friendly with (we have had him on the Chip Race), and regard very highly (he's a top EPT floorman). In my opinion, he's one of the best in the business, so I spoke to him privately a few days later. He explained it’s a ruling he’d only give at this particular festival, where the whole thrust of the rules as dictated by organiser and festival TD Nick O'Hara is to protect recreationals when they make mistakes like this. He said if it was an EPT or anywhere else he’d have ruled the hand dead. When I pointed out neither myself nor my opponent were recreationals, his response was "I ran bad on that", and I grudgingly accept that if there's a general rule designed to protect recreationals, it also has to apply to pros. When I asked why he couldn't just retrieve two fives from the muck, he pointed out there might be more than two in there, so how could he decide which two they were when villain didn't know the suits. Again, reasonable point, although I'd argue only pull the fives that are beside or near each other. He said he only ruled cards could come out of the muck if they're clearly identifiable, and I agree totally with him on that. I had a situation in the 10k bounty at the WSOP years ago where I called a shorty shove with AQ, my opponent mucked his hand after I tabled mine, and the ruling given was his cards could be retrieved if he could name them both with suits. He named Ace of hearts King of diamonds and the floor found them at opposite ends of the muck, immediately arousing my suspicion that my opponent had freerolled the opportunity to change his hand from something that was dominated into something that dominated me.

Now I’m all for protecting recreationals as much as possible but this just seems a step too far. Leaving aside my opponent wasn’t recreational but was the only other pro at the table, I just don’t think any ruling should ever reward a player for their own mistake (in conjunction with a dealer mistake), at the expense of an opponent who did nothing wrong. However, I accepted the ruling at this point, and changed my view from "the floorman must have made a horrendous mistake" to "he made the correct ruling based on the instructions he was given".

It’s fairly clear a ruling like this opens up the possibility of angles. Say I get to the river, I check, my opponent, bets 2 BBs, I shove as a bluff, opponent snaps and tables the nuts, then I can push my cards to the dealer, hope he mucks them, and I just have to pay 2 big blinds. So while I don’t blame the floorman who was implementing the rules as he understood them for this specific festival, I do still think the ruling is terrible, and the worst I’ve seen.

I was prepared to let it go as just an IPO thing (which I still think is terrible and should be changed at future events), but a chat I had later with Nick suggested it’s worth exploring alternatives like this instead of automatically ruling an all in players hand dead in situations like this. As I said, I'm all for protecting recreationals, but there's a limit, and that limit should be "Thou shalt not punish the other player in the hand who did nothing wrong, or reward the player who made the mistake". If this becomes a general ruling, every player has a strong incentive to try to get their hand mucked when they see the hand they are up against in an all-in is a massive favourite.

The final words

I'll leave the final words to some of the recreational players in the Simplify Poker Academy I ran the ruling by:

Donald Sloss

As a recreational player I expect to play by the same rules. By all means dealers can help by explaining rules but actions should stand and mistakes become learning experiences. Well done for not tilting and still getting heads-up.

Rob Kiersey

It's an absolute joke of a ruling. I get that they want to have some leniency towards recreationals but this is just ripe for an angle.

Edward Cherrie

This is a shocker and very unfair to put the responsibility back onto you to object to this terrible decision. Nobody wants to be that person at the table and puts you in a awful position.

Colin Quarry

Very surprised that you accepted this (as for the further explanation...🤣🤣)

David Lappin

One tiny thing I suggested to both Nick and floor. 

Let’s say he says “I had a red and a black five but can’t remember suits”, and then you go to retrieve and there are three five’s in there… I am 100% making it part of retrieval rule that you get the suits that are dominated by the other player’s holdings if you have the lower cards and not a dominating suit if you have the higher cards.

While there are situations when this could backfire and lead to elimination (clean suit getting there or highly unlikely straight flush) it minimises those times

Posted in: