Poker superstar Daniel Negreanu has already found himself in some unusual spots during this year’s WSOP. Take our Tweet of the Day on Day 15, when he shared details of a PLO hand where he flopped a set, turned quads and rivered a straight flush.
But not every weird hand ends in celebration. While playing the $100K High Roller yesterday, Negreanu found himself at a table with famed Russian high-stakes player Artur Martirosian when this happened:
It appears that Martirosian hadn’t noticed Negreanu’s open-limp and assumed he won the pot uncontested after the blinds both folded. With his cards in the muck and Negreanu the only active player remaining in the hand, it was ruled that Martirosian’s 8K raise should be returned to him instead of being awarded to Negreanu.
Should a player be able to ‘retrieve’ a bet after folding? Can someone win chips from a bet they never called? Players quickly took to Twitter/X to debate both sides of the argument.
The case for the prosecution
Many agreed with Negreanu, with the supporting arguments generally based around three principles: firstly, that ‘a fold is a fold’ - if you muck your cards you forfeit the pot; secondly, that it’s unfair to the blinds who folded to action that was not officially binding; and thirdly that the ruling opens the door to the possibility of angle-shooting.
Some of the arguments put forward to support this take, among the hundreds of comments, include:
“Wait what? That's not how it works, you put your money in and muck, ALL of the money stays and goes to the last person in the hand if there's only 2 players left before the muck.”
@JasonSmithson99
“Especially weird since the extra $8K unquestionably changed the action of the blinds.”
@johnskrb
“So from now on, I can raise as bluff, and as soon as I see my opponent is about to call, I fold and get a refund??!! 😂😂🤣”
@HilmiTekinAA
Martin Kabrhel, a player who is no stranger to controversy having been at the center of (unproven) cheating allegations at last year’s WSOP, also weighed in to support Negreanu’s position.
“I am officially agreeing with @RealKidPoker on this.”
@martinkabrhell
The case for the defense
On the other side of the debate, the argument centered around three contrary positions: that players should not win chips from bets they have not called; that angle-shooting in this way would be difficult and risky to actually pull off; and that mistakes such as the one made by Martirosian are easy to make and should not be excessively punished. Especially as it would likely penalize recreational/beginner players more.
Among the comments defending the ruling:
“It doesn’t make sense but also it’d be kind of weird if you won the $8k without calling or raising”
@DavidFrankFair
“Agree the chips should all be forfeited by button, but I don’t see how you can angle with this. Button would have to fold their hand prior to any other action from the limper. If Daniel had time to raise or call, I think the floor decision would be different”
@mattbrinda
“The ruling was correct. You can't punish someone twice in one hand. He lost the blind. Should not lose the raise also. He acted out of turn and deserved a penalty, not 2.”
@shadd1979
Plus there’s an argument that not making this ruling would open the door for chip-dumping and colluision:
“Odd but right ruling IMO if you didn’t act on his raise. If you got the entire 13k this could be an easy way for players to collude and dump chips to one another.”
@sungsung72
The view from the Tournament Directors
In the end, noted TD Matt Savage entered the debate with the news that really mattered: the correct ruling was made, according to the existing rules. Specifically, rule 108 of the 2024 WSOP Tournament Rules, which states (our italics):
“If a dealer or Participant kills or fouls an unprotected hand, the Participant will have no redress and will not be entitled to his or her chips back that were wagered in the hand. If the Participant initiated a bet or raise and hasn’t been called, the uncalled bet or raise will be returned to the Participant.”
Savage also made an interesting point about how the amount of decoration on modern poker tables may not be helping in situations like these:
Simon Elliott of the Playground Poker Club in Montreal backed up Savage’s point, stressing that the rule emphasizes protecting players from being overly punished for what can be common, easy mistakes:
Poker is a game where ‘house rules’ can differ depending on whose house you’re playing at, so there will clearly always be differing opinions on how some individual rules should be applied.
This is why it’s important to lay out the rules where all players can find them, and also why the WSOP Tournament Rules is 33-pages long. And it’s just as important, once those rules are set, to apply them as stated. Common sense and dealer discretion have their place, naturally, but generally when a rule is printed in black and white it needs to be enforced.
And if you thought that was the weirdest rules discussion the TDs will find themselves in this summer, think again.
