4way pot and side potters muck

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:

All of the possible solutions that we've mentioned could be debated. Remember, we are looking for a solution to a major "breakdown" of tournament rules, by multiple players. You could add the dealer to the mix, also.
Who deserves the pot? It can't be the all-in, that's for sure. Perhaps, in the best interest of the game, a new hand could be dealt between only those that contested the side pot...or; in order to not slow down the game, shuffle the cards and deal one to each player, high card gets the side pot !!??
Please, let's stay out of the muck ::)please!

What about issuing penalties to those that folded without tabling their cards? They are all in clear violation of tournament rules?

[K-Lo]

Maybe even high card amongst the three side pot players? 

I totally agree with you Nick (I can't believe I just said that???  ) -- Let's not dig into the muck.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

We were writing at the same time and came up with the idea for the high card. Might be the easiest solution.

[K-Lo]

It's an option, but is it the fairest under the circumstances?  If the side pot is really big, it seems a bit crazy to award it to a winner by lottery.

[Stuart Murray]

It's a showdown, remember mucking is technically not classified at showdown, and I would certainly not entertain 'digging' into the muck pile, as I have already detailed in my original post, someone has to win the pot - splitting it - IMO not in the best interests of Tournament Poker - not even Cash Poker - what's to say that these three players are not in cahoots with one another and know that an unsuspecting TD will come along and split the pot at the end, I have saw something similar in a Casino I once visited and to be frank I created merry hell until the Card Room manager overturned two floor supervisors decisions to split the pot, If you care to read my post again, you will notice that the chances of retrieving any hands from the middle of the table are slim, and that in all likelihood, the chips would be staying in the middle for the next deal.

Is there a chance that a hand can be retrieved?  sure, but I won't be able to complete the showdown with all the hands either, so again it looks like the chips are staying in the middle for the next deal, I should of been more explicit on that consideration.

Regards
Stuart

[K-Lo]

I understand your position better now Stuart, thanks for the clarification.

You don't think that by leaving it for the next hand, that it gives the winner of the next hand (potentially a big) windfall?  It seems odd to me that someone who was not entitled to the side pot could subsequently win those chips.  If it is a significant amount, that could definitely skew the results of the tourney significantly, especially if the winner of the next pot is a short stack. 

If splitting the pot is out of the question, perhaps the chips should simply be removed from play?  This addresses at least three issues:  no splitting (thus no collusion), no digging in the muck, and no windfall to players not eligible for the pot.  This is at the expense of taking some chips out of play, which arguably is a minor consideration, at least relative to the other three.

[Nick C]

Stuart and K-Lo,

You both have raised valid issues. Why do you not support my idea of a new hand, between only the players that were in contention for the side pot?  Like I said earlier, it's a major screw-up that was created by multiple parties. If any of the players squawk, you might remind them that they're lucky they are getting another chance after they erroneously mucked their hands.

I also think that penalties should follow.

[K-Lo]

It's not a bad idea.  If we are going to "leave the pot in the middle for the next hand", I would prefer to have only the three players contest it as you suggest. 

My concern is the possible delay of the game - redoing the hand between the three people while the clock is still running affects everyone else at the table.

[Stuart Murray]

To answer your question regarding just the three players playing a hand for the forfeited chips I think it best to list RROP S3 General Rules - Irregularities

5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal.

6. If there is extra money in the pot on a deal as a result of forfeited money from the previous deal (as per rule #5), or some similar reason, only a player dealt in on the previous deal is entitled to a hand.

In my eyes there is no difference to rule 5 than what is described above, the players knowingly or not who have mucked there hands should not have exclusive right to claim the pot which they have already forfeited, I would consider that a freeroll which again creates the same options for chip dumping and collusion as splitting the pot between the players.

And Nick, yes naturally I would be considering penalties.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Okay, final answer!... Quick deal; no wagers, flop, turn and river...winner gets pot and on to the next hand

Oh, one more question worth mention; Stuart, why would you oppose a split in a cash game?  I think that would be the easiest, and most fair way to divide the side-pot.

Stuart, I just read your excerpts from RRoP, although similar, the situation is different from ours. Let's just hope it doesn't happen again, and it might not.

Remember, I did not object to your decision from your first reply;...  "the side pot remains in the middle for the next deal with everyone who received a hand on the previous deal eligible to participate."   K-lo and I merely pointed out the down-side.

Good call, and certainly within the rules.

[Stuart Murray]

IMO whilst in cash games it is just the hand that matters, that would not preclude the possibility of several players forming a ring, where they could legitimately gang up with each other and create scenarios such as this where they could split pots in cash game poker, colluding with each other, with effectively the Gaming Inspectors permission to do so, as they have the knowledge that they can create the situation and the Gaming Inspector is just going to order the pot split between the remaining players.

Regards
Stuart

[K-Lo]

I think what these differences in opinion illustrate is perhaps a need to address those rare situations where multiple players have, for whatever reason, forfeited their right to the pot, and we are unable to identify a "last person standing" to award the pot to.  It appears that the following options are possible:

1.  Carry over the forfeited chips to the next hand.
2.  Remove the chips from play.
3.  Play a hand between players who would have been eligible for the pot had they not folded on the most recent betting round.
4.  Draw a high card between the players in (3), or deal out a hand without betting, or some similar random assignment.
5.  Split the pot between the players in (3), effectively allowing the board to play, and returning chips to the bettors. 

And presumably, there could be others, such as:

6.  The person in the best position (or conversely, closest to the button) is deemed to be the last person standing, if otherwise indeterminable.
7.  ...?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating necessarily that we should be splitting the pot specifically (it wasn't my idea in the first place).  In my view, this problem and related ones appear to me to be highly situational, and it is plausible that different situations might warrant a different solution.  I don't think we should discount that possibility. 

With respect to "abandoned pots", I think a broader debate on this issue with more input is necessary, because I don't think any of the existing rules are on point.  Perhaps it's something that can be discussed at the next Summit.

[K-Lo]

...


Stuart referred to RROP S3-Irreg #5,6.  These rules certainly suggest that the chips could be carried over in some situations.  On the other hand, #4 (fouled deck) and #5 (".. the right to a refund..") also clearly suggests that a "refund" of bets in other situations is possible.  And both situations, it turns out, are quite different from the scenario that we are talking about.  

I understand the "freeroll" situation described in RROP #5 to refer to the act of an individual, knowing that the deck is fouled, attempting to win the pot by forcing others to fold.  Then, in the event of a failed attempt, he points out that the deck is fouled hoping for a refund.  That is the "freeroll" attempt.  This rule is not about collusion.  This is about an individual using private knowledge to try to get two chances to win the pot, and the chips forfeited act essentially as a penalty for that unethical behavior. RROP provides that the forfeited chips may subsequently be used to "juice" the pot for the next hand.  

My problem with the carryover method generally, is that it can create its own unique strange incentives. In a tournament setting, with a carried-over pot of any reasonably large size, you can guarantee that changing the effective pot odds for any decision made in that next hand is going to affect the natural course of how that hand is played out, and this affects the tournament as a whole.  For example, the carried-over part can be so significant, that it can make it correct for one or more players to move all-in to try to take it down, when they might not have otherwise done so.  Moreover, the free 'dead money' could potentially give a player (e.g. one that is now all-in in the blind) to now get a huge windfall.

In this regard, I don't see how it could ever be fair -- in a tournament setting -- to potentially allow a player to win more chips from a pot than (his contribution * the number of active players in the pot + antes/blinds).  In a cash game, it is fine if one player happens to get a "bonus" from a juiced pot -- the extra cash, however obtained (from the house or another player) goes in his pocket.  But in tournaments, IMO, relative chip balances always matter and carried-over pots can throw off that relative balance.  For example, if the blinds are 500/1000, and the Big Blind is all in for 200, but there is a carried-over portion from the last hand of 20,000 in the center of the table, how can it possibly be right that the Big Blind could win and come out with more than 2K in chips at a ten-handed table, let alone 20K+?  This certainly is going to be unfair to other short stacks left in the tournament at other tables.

Also, if you apply the carryover method, what happens if the players that were eligible for the side pot were all-in in that last hand?  Is it right to eliminate all three of them from the tournament because they are left with no chips at the end of the hand, even if we know that at least one of them would have survived had the dealer kept the hands out of the muck?  Or do we deem them still in despite having no chips from the last hand, and deal them in as if they were all-in for antes?  A possible solution, but highly unconventional.

And finally, if we are OK with allowing "forfeited" chips to carry over, why wouldn't we extend this concept to situations where a player goes all-in (remember that chips bet in turn are supposed to stay in the pot), but his hand gets accidentally mucked by the dealer?  Isn't the existing rule that says we return the 'uncalled portions' of the bets inconsistent with the carry-over approach?  If the carry-over approach was ideal for tournaments, why don't we then just eliminate the player, and carry-over the uncalled portion in the pot to the next hand instead?  (Maybe we should!)

I don't expect all of us to agree, and I would respect Stuart's decision if I was playing in his venue.  From a player's perspective, it is my fault for not tabling my hand, so I'd be prepared to take my lumps, whatever they may be. But from the POV of someone trying to keep things fair to all players not just at the table in question but in the tournament as a whole, while I am fine with the carryover method for cash games, it does not make sense for me in tournaments.  The carried-over amount referred to in RROP #5 and #6 is basically a penalty that can go to the winner of the next hand as a "bonus"... in a cash game, this is fine.  In tournaments, IMO this can be problematic especially when the carry-over amount is large.  I would rather take the chips out of play than carry-over chips, as that also solves the chip dumping and collusion concerns.  We do take chips out of play when players are disqualified, so this wouldn't be completely foreign.  But I also can't criticize the Original Poster's approach of splitting the pot, effectively allowing the players eligible for the side pot to play the board.  

With respect, I think the "ganging up" scenario is unrealistic in the OP's particular scenario, because the situation is not completely controllable by the players -- it requires a total procedural failure on the dealer's part to not force the all-in hands to be shown.  The participants in the "ring", to succeed, would need to be certain that they could collectively get around the fact that the dealer/floor will insist on their hands being turned face-up, and they need to be certain that the Dealer will not intervene by physically preventing at least one hand from getting mixed into the muck.  If somehow they manage to avoid the dealer from intervening (and if the dealer is in on the gig, you have bigger problems), practically they are not going to be able to get away with this 'play' looking accidental more than once, and if they do try, then the case for disqualification for collusion is clear.

I guess this is my usual long-winded way (and I apologize for that) of saying -- I think we need to debate this further, and perhaps take a poll.  Ultimately, I am willing to defer to the majority on this one.

[Nick C]

K-Lo:

First of all, I'd like to nominate your post as the best "post of the year" Your contribution to this Forum is immense. If I may add a bit, to support your suggestion for further discussion; how about the effect that a carry-over pot would have in a pot limit game?

Another reason why I am not in favor of a carry over for players that were not competing for that side-pot from the previous hand.

I have been an avid fan of both poker and horse racing, throughout my life. I am mentioning this "other" fascinating game of chance and skill because of the similarities for "carry over" pools. Anyone familiar with the exotic bets, that have gained popularity in recent years, will understand the correlation.

Every day, you will find a "Pick-Six" carry-over at one of the major racetracks. The carry-over is derived from unsuccessful attempts to select the winners from six races in succession, extremely difficult to say the least. The amounts of these carry-overs is, at times, astronomical (upwards of $100,000 and much higher). So here is the situation: players that attend the races or bet from simulcast venues around the world pump their dollars into the pick-six, if all six winners are not selected, the pool is carried over to the next racing day! So...the following day, there are thousands of new players, shooting for the "pie-in-the-sky" jackpot, that contributed nothing the day before! I often wondered how they managed to "pull that off," without protest from the patrons who frequent the track on a regular basis. A horse player goes broke, trying to hit the "pick-six" and when the pot gets real juicy, he has no money left to play for the massive jackpot. I'm getting a little long winded myself, but I hope I got my point across. Bottom line, I don't like the "tracks" that carry over my loosing bets, so some player that contributed nothing to the pool, wins it!

If you don't bet horses, I can give you another example that I know you can all relate to...The bad beat jackpot
 

[Tristan]

Wow, I just read through all of this...tough situation!

While I think that there are some other valid ways to deal with the problem already stated, I think my answer would be to award the pot to the last player that mucked. 

The collusion part bothers me though...If I am the last person with cards for the side pot, and my buddy was the short stack all-in for the main pot, I could then muck my winning hand to give him an bunch of chips.  Then I would get the side pot because I was the last one with cards.  Hmm...

I guess the last player to muck the side-pot, and then I would give him a round for not tabling his cards in an all-in situation.