4way pot and side potters muck

[EvilWeenie]

Here's the scene:

Player moves all-in and is called by a shorter stack and two others.  
All-in short stack player has the best hand and wins the main pot.
All 3 remaining players muck their hands before a showdown for the side pot.

Who gets the side pot?

My first instinct was to award to the last player to muck as technically they had the last live hand.
Problems: I didn't witness the hand and the last player to muck was a known relative of the dealer.  While I trust my dealers' integrity, there's too much room for ethical discrepancy from the other players perspectives.  

My second thought and eventual solution was to split the side pot evenly amongst the 3 players.

[K-Lo]

Hi EW:

This unfortunate situation could easily have been avoided if your dealer called to see a winner for the side pot first, before considering who might have won the main pot.  Determinations regarding the main pot should be left for last.

In this case, if none of the three remaining players have tabled their hands and they all have mucked with none of the hands being clearly identifiable and retrievable, I think your decision is probably a fair compromise under the circumstances.

K

[Nick C]

Hi Weenie,
K-Lo gave you the perfect answer. The problem comes from unclear rules pertaining to all-in's at the showdown. I've been trying to get the rule changed for two years.

Face Up For All-ins, needs some work.

[chet]

Nick:  I beg to differ with you.  I don't think TDA Rule 11 needs any work at all.  What is needed are dealers who have at least a few working brain cells left.  It is very simple, forget about Rule 11 for a moment.  What would you teach your dealers to do in a cash game where more than one player is all in and one or more side pots are created.  I believe it is very simple, pots are determined in the reverse order in which they are created.  In other words, the last side pot created is the first to be decided, the next to last is the second to be decided and so forth until you get to the main pot.  Only the hands applicable to the pot being decided are turned face up.  It continues in order until the main pot is decided.

I know the rule doesn't specifically say this, but is there no common sense left?  Do we need a rule for each and every minute detail?  If dealers and floor people can't use their remaining brain cells, then kick them out and go to electronic tables (Jeez, did I really say that.)

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
To answer your question I would say: What is the purpose of the rule? My guess is to prevent stalling at the showdown. Telling the players to turn their cards face-up without delay, means what? Isn't there still an order of showdown that needs to be followed? If the intent of the rule is to insist all players in a hand table their cards if any player is all-in, then write it that way. The way I see it, it is one of the TDA rules that needs clarification. Sorry, in my opinion, rules should be clear and easy to understand. Face up for all-ins omits the order of showdown that needs to be followed any time there is a side pot.
I guess I have no common sense because I don't understand the purpose of the rule. Can you break it down for me and explain it's purpose?

[Brian Vickers]

Re: Order of showdown
This is a little off topic, I know, but it was brought up.
When a dealer calls me over because no one is showing their hand and the players asks me "who has to show first?"  I always repsond "whoever wants to win the pot".  I also inform them that if the other guy mucks they still have the option to ask to see the hand.
As a dealer when players are hesitant to show me a winner, I used to tell them "alright guys, if no one wants this pot I'm just gonna drop it all."
I hate playing the "I called you" or the "left of button" games with players.  Don't hold my game up for childish nonsense.  I generally don't give them the satisfaction of "well there was no action on the river so left of the button.. blah blah blah NO."

[Brian Vickers]

Also, yeah, I'd just chop the last side pot in your case.

[Nick C]

Brian,
We've had this discussion on another post. It may not be important to you but, there is a proper order of showdown that should be followed. If I call your bet, I promise that you will either muck your bluff, or show your hand first. When I'm dealing, I ask the bettor to expose their hand first. If they don't comply, I call the floor. There is nothing wrong with asking players to follow rules for the game.

A player holding an exclusive nut hand might showdown his hand quickly, this would be reasonable and would speed up the game. Players with powerful hands often show their hands out of order, but that's up to them. Rules of etiquette should be followed by everyone.

[K-Lo]

Didn't think this would happen to me, but it did last night.  Dealer was distracted by one of the players going off all night.  That player turned out to be the short stack, and upon flipping over the winning hand, everyone else mucked, leaving the side pot unaccounted for. 

I ended up splitting the side pot as all of the cards were not retrievable and no one tabled their hand;  however, the short stack was going on and on about how everyone had folded, suggesting that he should also get the side pot as last man standing even though he was only entitled to the main.  Annoyed the crap out of me at the time, but then in retrospect, I probably should have just smiled and said "nice try" - can't blame him for trying I suppose.

[Nick C]

There you have it! The exact reason why the rule needs to be changed (TDA #11 Face Up For All-In's). How could that clown think he was entitled to the whole pot? That's all we need, and every all-in player will try it!

K-Lo, I guess you held on to your hand, but what if you didn't? What if all players competing for the side pot folded?

[K-Lo]

Hey Nick:  I wasn't a player - I was the TD... and that's exactly what happened.  All players competing for the side pot folded.

[Nick C]

K-Lo:

Sorry for the mix-up. I don't know why I thought you were playing? You handled the situation perfectly! The message was sent to the players that should have held on to their cards, (especially the player that should have won the side pot), and you showed any future angle-shooting all-in player that he could never get more chips than he was competing for.

Perfect!

[Stuart Murray]

I would of handled it rather differently, as splitting pots is a big no no for me, as it encourages collusion.  I would attempt to retrieve as many hands as possible for the showdown, and again I apply stiff criteria to card retrieval from the muck, namely both hole cards have to be clearly identifiable by several players at the table, the player has to inform me of his exact holding, and the cards have to be able to be retrieved without upsetting the remaining muck pile.  If I can retrieve at least one holding then I can award the side pot, otherwise if I cannot retrieve any holdings, the side pot remains in the middle for the next deal with everyone who received a hand on the previous deal eligible to participate.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Hello Stuart,

There is nothing wrong with leaving the chips in the pot for the next deal, if that's your decision. However, retrieving any cards from the muck (DEAD CARDS) is unthinkable. K-Lo said all players contesting the side pot mucked their hands.

Stuart, for someone that is usually on the more "strict" side, when it comes to rules, you surprise me with your answer. Wouldn't you expect players to protect their own hand?

How do they not table their hands when there is an all-in?

[K-Lo]

Because this situation is not explicitly covered in the rules, I can see why opinions will differ.  I do agree that pots should not be split as a general rule -- we should always aim to award the pot to a winner.  However, personally, between the two evils of splitting a side pot and digging into the muck for irretrievable hands that have not been tabled, I have to say that the former is the lesser evil IMO.  The last thing that I want to do is dig through the muck for a hand that hasn't been seen by anyone at the table, and award a player with the "mystery" hand a pot.  I don't want to be accused of (seemingly) awarding players for making a good guess at what cards are in the muck, or awarding the pot to a "favorite" player when all three contenders for the side pot are equally at fault. If we start digging in the muck for this reason, players will wonder why we can't do the same thing when, for example, their hand gets mucked through what is primarily the fault of someone other than themselves (e.g. dealer error).    

In this particular situation, I also think that the chances that three players would collude to get their bets back from a side pot is extremely, extremely unlikely.  The last person to "muck" always has the incentive to simply show his hand to win the whole side pot, and I think he would do so rather than muck for a split.  I would prefer to split the side pot amongst the players eligible, and I see that as the fairest solution overall; if I truly suspected collusion, that is an independent issue and I could penalize or even disqualify all three for collusion.  

I admit that I was a bit swayed in my ruling based on the comments I had previously read in this exact thread.  My close second choice of action would probably be to simply remove the side pot from play (i.e. no one gets it).  However, I don't think I could justify leaving the chips in the pot for the next deal, because that means players that were not even eligible for that last side pot could win it (and it could have been a significant side pot).  The player who happens to have the strongest holding on the next, unrelated hand, would get a free bonus.  If I was willing to allow someone that was not even contesting the side pot to receive a winfall, then why wouldn't it go to the main pot winner who actually was involved in the hand?  But that doesn't seem fair either.

I don't find myself disagreeing with Stuart often, but I personally would consider his approach my last choice of potential options, in this particular fact scenario.

K