question on mucking..

[RadGrad2005 0]

Yes, I'm a damn dealer. :twisted: It's just staggering how many newbs there are to the game. Can't wait to hit up Vegas next week! Fishies, here I come!

[justblaze 0]

Yes, I'm a damn dealer. :twisted: It's just staggering how many newbs there are to the game. Can't wait to hit up Vegas next week! Fishies, here I come!

staggering how many dealers dont know the rules...

[HatTrick 0]

Thats just the point dealer didnt, and didnt have time to because numbnuts threw his hand in the muck. Its not the dealers responsibility to protect other players hands. As far as the muck retrieval rule, unless their is only one hand in the much which their never is, I could or anyone else openly protest that a hand wasnt mine when it was and vice versa so the muck rule serves a good purpose. It just causes to much confusion when th edealer goes rooting through the muck even if it does appear to be clearly identifiable.

The caller mucked based on the OP announcing his hand. If the OP says "I have Kings," the caller mucks, and then the OP turns up 10-3, the pot goes to the caller. The situation isn't any different if he doesn't turn his hand face up -- he still loses the pot.

[Berak 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

[justblaze 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

i think you are clueless. most rooms require that a player show a legal hand at showdown in order to have a claim to the pot. this is to prevent people from introducing new cards to the table or taking cards off it. say the guy has AK, decides he wants the ace for next hand, and 'mucks' only one of his cards. IF A POT GOES TO SHOWDOWN, YOU MUST SHOW A LEGAL HAND TO HAVE CLAIM TO THE POT.

[RadGrad2005 0]

I'm a damn dealer. I know all the rules. I'm right. You're wrong. I've given reasons. You newbs choose not to understand. It's all good! :twisted: I'll take your damn money next week, baby.BTW, why the hell do you think the staff ruled that the OP gets the pot????? I mean, really... isn't that the biggest evidence of all that he didn't have to show?? :shock: Duh! Haha. All you people who think OP should have shown, ask yourselves how extensive your casino-playing experience is. You don't have to answer me. Just answer yourself. And be honest with yourself. I'd say that if you've only played about once/month in a casino, there's a damn good chance you're not aware of the rules.Don't try to argue against me just for argument's sake. Don't fall into the trap of believing that you must be right because all your hours of your small time amateur home games have told you so. Rely on a knowledgeable professional.Now, once you can accept that the OP didn't have to show, admit to yourself that you don't know everything there is to know about poker like you thought you did, and try not to present something as the absolute truth when it's only an opinion of yours. LOL.Alrightie, ladies and gentlemen. Have a great day!

[nutonflop 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

except that is considered angle shooting. the only place it has specifically happened to me was in Seattle. i don't know where you guys are talking about

[RadGrad2005 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

i think you are clueless. most rooms require that a player show a legal hand at showdown in order to have a claim to the pot. this is to prevent people from introducing new cards to the table or taking cards off it. say the guy has AK, decides he wants the ace for next hand, and 'mucks' only one of his cards. IF A POT GOES TO SHOWDOWN, YOU MUST SHOW A LEGAL HAND TO HAVE CLAIM TO THE POT.

The scenario you describe above is not the scenario we have been discussing. Try to stay on topic, okie dokie? :twisted:

[justblaze 0]

I'm a damn dealer. I know all the rules. I'm right. You're wrong. I've given reasons. You newbs choose not to understand. It's all good! :twisted: I'll take your damn money next week, baby.#1 sign you've lost an argument. BTW, why the hell do you think the staff ruled that the OP gets the pot????? I mean, really... isn't that the biggest evidence of all that he didn't have to show?? :shock: Duh! Haha. The floor has never ruled incorrectly at your casino? with every word you sound less and less like a dealer. All you people who think OP should have shown, ask yourselves how extensive your casino-playing experience is. You don't have to answer me. Just answer yourself. And be honest with yourself. I'd say that if you've only played about once/month in a casino, there's a damn good chance you're not aware of the rules.4 times a week for 3 years. I am constantly explaining rules to dealers and floormen. Many, like yourself, arent so smart. thats why theyre dealing cards. Don't try to argue against me just for argument's sake. Don't fall into the trap of believing that you must be right because all your hours of your small time amateur home games have told you so. Rely on a knowledgeable professional.im waiting for one to post... Now, once you can accept that the OP didn't have to show, admit to yourself that you don't know everything there is to know about poker like you thought you did, and try not to present something as the absolute truth when it's only an opinion of yours. LOL.Alrightie, ladies and gentlemen. Have a great day! pretty convincing argument there. :roll:

[/b]

[RadGrad2005 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

except that is considered angle shooting. the only place it has specifically happened to me was in Seattle. i don't know where you guys are talking about

You are absolutely correct. It IS considered angle shooting (if he didn't actually have the king).But the answer to the OP's question still remains the same. :wink:

[justblaze 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

i think you are clueless. most rooms require that a player show a legal hand at showdown in order to have a claim to the pot. this is to prevent people from introducing new cards to the table or taking cards off it. say the guy has AK, decides he wants the ace for next hand, and 'mucks' only one of his cards. IF A POT GOES TO SHOWDOWN, YOU MUST SHOW A LEGAL HAND TO HAVE CLAIM TO THE POT.

The scenario you describe above is not the scenario we have been discussing. Try to stay on topic, okie dokie? :twisted:

ok, i know this is complicated, try to stay with me: I was playing at hustler this morning 1/2 nl- 2 kings on the board and a guy calls me down to the riverafter this, what happens? being a dealer, you should know that SHOWDOWN is what happens. So, now we're at showdown. Do you dispute that, at showdown, a player must show a legal hand to lay claim to the pot? Do you dispute that this was a showdown? I dont see how this isnt the scenario. maybe im missing something, like invisible text.

[HatTrick 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

except that is considered angle shooting. the only place it has specifically happened to me was in Seattle. i don't know where you guys are talking about

You are absolutely correct. It IS considered angle shooting (if he didn't actually have the king).But the answer to the OP's question still remains the sae. :wink:

So if you were dealing and the OP flipped over 7-2 after announcing he had a King, you'd still push the pot his way?

[RadGrad2005 0]

I'm a damn dealer. I know all the rules. I'm right. You're wrong. I've given reasons. You newbs choose not to understand. It's all good! :twisted: I'll take your damn money next week, baby.#1 sign you've lost an argument. BTW, why the hell do you think the staff ruled that the OP gets the pot????? I mean, really... isn't that the biggest evidence of all that he didn't have to show?? :shock: Duh! Haha. The floor has never ruled incorrectly at your casino? with every word you sound less and less like a dealer. All you people who think OP should have shown, ask yourselves how extensive your casino-playing experience is. You don't have to answer me. Just answer yourself. And be honest with yourself. I'd say that if you've only played about once/month in a casino, there's a damn good chance you're not aware of the rules.4 times a week for 3 years. I am constantly explaining rules to dealers and floormen. Many, like yourself, arent so smart. thats why theyre dealing cards. Don't try to argue against me just for argument's sake. Don't fall into the trap of believing that you must be right because all your hours of your small time amateur home games have told you so. Rely on a knowledgeable professional.im waiting for one to post... Now, once you can accept that the OP didn't have to show, admit to yourself that you don't know everything there is to know about poker like you thought you did, and try not to present something as the absolute truth when it's only an opinion of yours. LOL.Alrightie, ladies and gentlemen. Have a great day! pretty convincing argument there. :roll:

[/b]

Hi there, justblaze! Wow, I'm really surprised that you're not aware of the rules after having played for so long. This is no offense to you personally, and I hope you don't take it that way. :-) I really don't want to argue with you (even though your rebuttals above are quite flawed). No offense was meant to anyone in any of my posts. I just happen to know I'm right in this case. So, I guess the best thing we can do for now is to agree to disagree. :oops: I have a suggestion, though, if you'd like to take me up on it. If you'd like to be absolutely sure, you can try asking one of the professionals you trust the next time you play since you play quite often. In fact, if you could ask multiple trusted professionals, that would probably be even better. Please describe the situation just as the OP described it. That is important. :!: Thanks, justblaze. I love you all, man. No hate here. :wink:

[RadGrad2005 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

i think you are clueless. most rooms require that a player show a legal hand at showdown in order to have a claim to the pot. this is to prevent people from introducing new cards to the table or taking cards off it. say the guy has AK, decides he wants the ace for next hand, and 'mucks' only one of his cards. IF A POT GOES TO SHOWDOWN, YOU MUST SHOW A LEGAL HAND TO HAVE CLAIM TO THE POT.

The scenario you describe above is not the scenario we have been discussing. Try to stay on topic, okie dokie? :twisted:

ok, i know this is complicated, try to stay with me: I was playing at hustler this morning 1/2 nl- 2 kings on the board and a guy calls me down to the riverafter this, what happens? being a dealer, you should know that SHOWDOWN is what happens. So, now we're at showdown. Do you dispute that, at showdown, a player must show a legal hand to lay claim to the pot? Do you dispute that this was a showdown? I dont see how this isnt the scenario. maybe im missing something, like invisible text.

Aha! I think maybe you ARE missing something! (Seriously, not being sarcastic.)I agree that we are at showdown.I agree that at showdown, a player must show a legal hand (both cards) to lay claim to the pot.BUT I think the missing element that you are not giving proper weight to is that player A mucked his cards. Once player A mucked his cards, player B no longer has to show his hand to lay claim to the pot. The pot automatically goes to player A.

[HatTrick 0]

BUT I think the missing element that you are not giving proper weight to is that player A mucked his cards. Once player A mucked his cards, player B no longer has to show his hand to lay claim to the pot. The pot automatically goes to player A.

The element you are not giving proper weight to is that player A mucked his cards in response to player B miscalling his own hand.

[Berak 0]

The player only needs to show his hand IF AND ONLY IF a player calls him down. If the player claiming to hold the K bets and the other player folds, DOES HE HAVE TO SHOW? OF COURSE NOT. We all understand that right?? So the showdown rule of having to show a legal hand to lay claim to the pot OBVIOUSLY ONLY applies if there is at least two players left to claim the pot, right??? Once the the second player ELECTS to muck his hand FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (be it a bet, or because the first player said something like "I got pocket Aces"), HIS HAND is DEAD!!!!! The only remaining player wins the hand UNCONTESTED.Was it angle shooting by the first player?? It's debatable. Hard to say without being there, but it certainly didn't have to be (I've occasionally jokingly said I had some great hand at the end before I showed to razz an opponent for a second, would it be my fault if he mucked before I showed??)Now if the dealer / floorperson decided this person was likely trying to get this person to muck by lying (although why you would think someone would do this seems silly to me), AND the second player mucked his hand FACE UP so everyone knew what his cards were, yes I can see them overriding and awarding the pot to the second player. If he mucked face down into the pile, FORGET IT YOU LOST.Oddly enough, it is generally only a bad idea to TELL THE TRUTH about the cards your holding, not LYING. Ironic, eh?

[HatTrick 0]

The player only needs to show his hand IF AND ONLY IF a player calls him down.

He was called down. Read the original post.

[RadGrad2005 0]

I think most of you are clueless. RadGrad is correct. The offending player mucked his OWN hand OUT OF TURN on his OWN. Anything after that is pointless, there was only 1 player left, who therefore must win the pot.He conceeded the pot uncontested when he mucked his cards, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS after that.

except that is considered angle shooting. the only place it has specifically happened to me was in Seattle. i don't know where you guys are talking about

You are absolutely correct. It IS considered angle shooting (if he didn't actually have the king).But the answer to the OP's question still remains the sae. :wink:

So if you were dealing and the OP flipped over 7-2 after announcing he had a King, you'd still push the pot his way?

Unfortunately, I do have to follow the rules, and that would mean that I would have to push the pot to player B even if he showed 7-2 after announcing he had a king (especially after player A mucked his hand). If player A had not mucked his cards, however, and instead turned them over face up, I would push the cards to player A.I understand that this may not be in the best interest of the game, but I absolutely must follow the rules. If I do not follow the rules, I can be fired. This is what is expected of me by my employers. It is not a case of me not being able to think for myself and not wanting to award the pot to the person who might have been morally cheated. It is simply not my decision to make. I do not make that decision.However, if player B would like to dispute the pot, he may ask me to call the floor person, and I will do that.Once the floor person arrives, he may, at his discretion, give the pot to player A if he is able to accurately retrieve player A's cards, and if he deems player B was angle shooting. Obviously, if player B showed 72, he was angle shooting.This all reminds me of a NL game at the Bellagio a while back. It was a $50/$100 NL game. 3 players were involved. I suspected players A and C were colluding by trapping middle player B. Anyway, what basically happened was that players A and C kept raising, and player B kept calling. At showdown, player A showed pocket aces. Player B vigorously flipped over a set -- so enthusiastically did he flip his cards over that his cards ended up mixed with the muck and the board. Floor was called over, and player A won the hand because player B's hand was ruled dead. It was an $18,000 pot. I was NOT the dealer in that game, by the way.We should all try to learn from this, and next time you play in a casino, protect your cards. And when it is time to show down, do so by placing your cards face up in front of you.Have a great day, everyone! 8)

[Berak 0]

The player only needs to show his hand IF AND ONLY IF a player calls him down.

He was called down. Read the original post.

I did obviously. Read the rest of my post. Look at this scenario. Player A bets on the river, player B calls and immediately eats his cards. Does player A have to show??Once you muck you are gone. No ifs, ands, or buts. You forfeit ALL claims to the pot then and there. If you acted out of turn, oe because of false information THAT IS YOU OWN FAULT.

[RadGrad2005 0]

BUT I think the missing element that you are not giving proper weight to is that player A mucked his cards. Once player A mucked his cards, player B no longer has to show his hand to lay claim to the pot. The pot automatically goes to player A.

The element you are not giving proper weight to is that player A mucked his cards in response to player B miscalling his own hand.

Aha. I see where your confusion might have arisen from. The fact that player A mucked his cards in response to player B miscalling his own hand was never established by the OP. The OP never told us whether or not he had the king. He only told us that he chose the option not to show at the time because player A mucked.At this point, I am obliged to give the pot to player B. Player B didn't break any rules. He played as he may. If player A wanted to see player B's cards, the onus falls on player A to show his cards first, which would force player B to show his in order to win the pot.

[HatTrick 0]

At this point, I am obliged to give the pot to player B. Player B didn't break any rules.

He clearly miscalled his hand. The hand he called was not the one shown.

If player A wanted to see player B's cards, the onus falls on player A to show his cards first, which would force player B to show his in order to win the pot.

Perhaps the non-standard rules where you deal is part of the source of our disagreement. In most places the caller doesn't need to disclose his cards first.

[RadGrad2005 0]

He clearly miscalled his hand. The hand he called was not the one shown.No, the OP never told us that he miscalled his hand. He only told us that he chose not to show. It was possible that he held the king, and it was possible that he did not.

If player A wanted to see player B's cards, the onus falls on player A to show his cards first, which would force player B to show his in order to win the pot.

Perhaps the non-standard rules where you deal is part of the source of our disagreement. In most places the caller doesn't need to disclose his cards first.You are correct that the caller doesn't need to disclose his cards first. Allow me to suggest an alternate solution for player A. If player A does not wish to expose his cards, he may request that player B show his hand, but only if player A still held cards (not mucked).Player A had more than one solution to legally force player B to show his hand, but did not exercise either option. He, instead, chose to muck his cards, which automatically makes player B the winner of the pot.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I'm sure different card rooms have different rules.I'm sure angle shooting in some places overrides the muck as a DQ on the pot and in other places, the opposite is true.If the guy WAS 'angle shooting', i'd feel it would be right to award it to the one who mucked. If you award it to the guy who miscalled his hand, you're giving a prime opportunity to everyone else at the table to do the same. If i saw a pot awarded to someone who miscalled their hand like that without any recourse, i'd be doing it too.

[RadGrad2005 0]

I'm sure different card rooms have different rules.The rules I stated are standard in the industry.  They should not be cardroom-dependent.I'm sure angle shooting in some places overrides the muck as a DQ on the pot and in other places, the opposite is true.If the guy WAS 'angle shooting', i'd feel it would be right to award it to the one who mucked.  If you award it to the guy who miscalled his hand, you're giving a prime opportunity to everyone else at the table to do the same.  If i saw a pot awarded to someone who miscalled their hand like that without any recourse, i'd be doing it too.What you may not realize is that it is completely up to you whether or not someone is able to pull this kind of angle shoot on you.  If you simply keep your cards (and not muck them), they will not be able to do this angle shoot on you -- not in the way described by the OP anyway.It is the player's responsibility to make sure another player is not able to perform this angle shoot.  The onus falls on the player to protect him/herself.

[HatTrick 0]

I'm sure different card rooms have different rules.

Exactly. Sometimes there are even different rules within one card room depending upon who is working that day.

I'm sure angle shooting in some places overrides the muck as a DQ on the pot and in other places, the opposite is true.

This angle is special, though. It gets a mention in both Robert's Rules as well as the WSOP rules (and many other places, I'm sure).

If the guy WAS 'angle shooting', i'd feel it would be right to award it to the one who mucked.  If you award it to the guy who miscalled his hand, you're giving a prime opportunity to everyone else at the table to do the same.  If i saw a pot awarded to someone who miscalled their hand like that without any recourse, i'd be doing it too.

That's the biggest reason why I feel the OP should've lost the pot. Rulings that encourage angle shooting are bad for the game. Even if the OP wasn't angle shooting, ruling in his favor had the effect of encouraging it.