An Interesting Situation

I ran across an interesting situation that Hank Sparks posted on a popular Internet poker forum. With Hank's permission, here is an edited version of the situation, as he described it.

The game is no-limit hold'em. It is heads up on the river with a pot of about $1,000. The player in the No. 8 seat is first to act, and says, "Go ahead." It is noisy in the poker room, but nothing out of the ordinary. The lady in the No. 3 seat, who has the button this hand, thinks that the other player said, "All in." She is a sweet girl, is totally straightforward, and has never in her life pulled a shot, slow-rolled, or questioned anyone about anything.

She throws her hand facedown in front of her to fold. The questions on her side of the table are immediate: "Why are you folding? He checked. What are you doing?" The dealer is sort of slow to grab her cards, even though she gave them an additional nudge toward him (just to make it clear that she was folding). As the dealer is touching the cards to pick them up and muck them, the girl grabs them, realizing that the all-in button has not been deployed and that the other player has in fact checked.

She grabs her cards out from under the dealer's hand (her cards are still out in front of her facedown) and flips them over. She has top pair. Immediately, seat 8 objects, claiming she folded.

The dealer says that seat 3 wins the pot since seat 8 has middle pair (he had flipped his hand faceup). A floorperson is called over and rules, like the dealer, that seat 3 gets the pot. The table has now gotten very noisy, with everyone voicing his opinion on the decision. The lead floorperson (Joe) steps in and tries to calm everyone down. He asks the dealer for the facts, but the dealer fumbles the explanation (English is her second language). The lead floorperson looks to Hank and asks if he can explain what happened. Hank explains the facts as they happened.

Joe agrees with the initial decision, awarding the pot to seat 3. The other player continues his objection and calls for a supervisor. The shift supervisor happens to be in the vicinity and comes to the table at the request of Joe. Joe explains what happened and the shift supervisor agrees that the pot belongs to seat 3.

Seat 8 continues to object, saying he wants a decision by the shift manager. The supervisor calls on his radio for the shift manager.

The shift manager makes his way over after about five minutes, and by this time there is a crowd around the table. The shift manager decides to rack up the pot, review the videotape, and make his decision.

Hank takes a break, and is joined by both the floorperson and the shift supervisor. Hank explains the conversation: "You know in the NFL, sometimes there is a play that is obviously a fumble, and it's ruled a fumble, and the referee goes to review it? They show the replays, and it's totally obvious that it's a fumble, and all of the commentators agree that it's a fumble and there is no way it will be overturned. Well, you can guess what happened."

The shift manager returns and overrules the floorperson, the lead floorperson, and the lead supervisor. He rules seat 3's hand dead and awards the pot to seat 8. The shift manager explains, "Seat 3 folded facedown, and even pushed the cards forward to the dealer, so she obviously intended to fold."

This is one of those situations in which viewing the camera footage without getting information from the table could lead to an incorrect decision. The shift manager never should have gone to the tapes. He had three competent and informed employees all make the same decision. At some point in time, that should be more than enough.

Mike O'Malley is a consultant for www.PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.