Folding - Mucking - Retrieving The Cards

[khabbi 0]

I'm really torn here because the decision could really go either way.What type of game was this? If it was a home game and we're dealing with potential newbies to poker then I'd allow A to take the pot for sure.If this was a private card room full of regulars I'd consider A's hand to be mucked.The rules are not clear on the definitive RIGHT way to handle this situation and I've seen it go both ways. Either way, you won't please everyone with the decision.The easiest thing to do is to award the pot to B and warn everyone that this is why you shouldn't be a nit at showdown by mucking your cards.

[Startled 0]

I'm really torn here because the decision could really go either way.

As the significantly disparate opinions expressed here bear out... one guy voted both ways!

What type of game was this? If it was a home game and we're dealing with potential newbies to poker then I'd allow A to take the pot for sure.

Casino card room, limit HE.

If this was a private card room full of regulars I'd consider A's hand to be mucked.The rules are not clear on the definitive RIGHT way to handle this situation and I've seen it go both ways. Either way, you won't please everyone with the decision.The easiest thing to do is to award the pot to B and warn everyone that this is why you shouldn't be a nit at showdown by mucking your cards.

[fleung22 1]

In any of these situations it's important to look at the techinical aspect as well as seeing everything within context.Technically the cards did not hit the muck. Putting them face down and away from your chip stack is certainly hazardous (since many accidents can occur). I'd say that if the person normally does not protect his cards with a chip or object then I lean that much more in player's favour.But more than the techinical aspect, and Bob C. said this, there's the "intent" and context of each situation. The rules are there to prevent angle shooting but there is no advantage at this point since it was head up and we're talking about the calling player. His intent was obviously to call since he declared it and his intent was obviously to scoop the pot once he knew his pair was good.This is a case of where the losing player became the angle shooter. That is, picking and choosing where to call the floor on a marginal ruling when the intent of the situation was clear.

[Startled 0]

This is a case of where the losing player became the angle shooter. That is, picking and choosing where to call the floor on a marginal ruling when the intent of the situation was clear.

That's a little harsh. I don't think either player was angling.

[BWToth 0]

If the rules state that Player A's cards were not considered mucked based on those circumstances, then how can the best hand, when not mucked, and shown, not take the pot? This is pretty straight forward.So what if they guy is an idiot, he had the best hand.

[psujohn 0]

I think the floor ruling was correct. The guy throws his card in the center face down - that's a fold - regardless of whether they hit the muck or not. Probably the dealer should have pulled those cards into the muck before pushing the pot but that doesn't really matter. The rule quoted simply gives the floor discretion to reverse the standard ruling IF the first guy lied about his hand. If it got to showdown and player B says "Flush" and player A throws his cards in face down and then player B shows A high player A's cards can be retrieved and he can be awarded the pot. That's not at all what happened. I'm not sure why there's any question about it. If player A was a clearly a new guy then the dealer/floor should explain the rule to him and award the pot to player B. As 13 cards said people need to learn proper live play etiquette/rules and if it takes them losing a few pots they should have won then so be it. Consider it the price of the lesson.The only way I could see player A getting the pot is if he somehow accidentally flipped the cards in face down. I'm not sure exactly how that would happen - perhaps the card flip twice in the air due to a sudden gust of wind Sure his intent was to call and showdown his hand but his intent was also to toss his cards face down in the middle and that's a fold.

[psujohn 0]

If the rules state that Player A's cards were not considered mucked based on those circumstances, then how can the best hand, when not mucked, and shown, not take the pot? This is pretty straight forward.So what if they guy is an idiot, he had the best hand.

Read the rule: Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the playerI read that as "they're dead UNLESS it was folded as a result of false information". Since there was no false information in this case the ruling was the hand was dead and the last player in the hand was properly awarded the pot.

[Startled 0]

I emailed Bob Ciaffone (the Robert of "Robert's Rules"), and he spake thusly:

Give the best hand the pot. The hand is retrievable, because it was not fouled and not facing a bet. Verbal concessions at the river under these circumstances are not binding. This is ABC in poker laws.

edit: Does that change anyone's mind?

[doox 15]

Not mine, but then again - I'm a big fan of punishing stupidity. I have a hard time determining that someone dumb enough to throw their cards towards the dealer face DOWN would deserve the pot.

[finztotheleft 0]

Not mine, but then again - I'm a big fan of punishing stupidity. I have a hard time determining that someone dumb enough to throw their cards towards the dealer face DOWN would deserve the pot.

I agree....it seems like player A's intent was to muck.I hate that even here, there is no consensous (?spelling). How are we supposed to make sure we get the right rulings when we play ? In my home game, myself and one other player are considered the "experts" (I use that term very loosely) because we play the most, but we play online were it is all "done" for you. My interpretation of Robert's rules posted would be that player B gets it....player A intended to muck and there was no "false info" to make the hand retrievable, but even "Bob" himself disagrees....UGH !

[13CARDS 0]

WARNING!!!I will rule this hand MUCKED 100% of the time in my poker room. No discussion. Learn to protect your cards and table a winning hand properly.

[Dogpatch 2]

WARNING!!!I will rule this hand MUCKED 100% of the time in my poker room. No discussion. Learn to protect your cards and table a winning hand properly.

QFMFTYes, player A had the winner, but he mucked. You table a winner by placing it face up in front of you and you don't let the dealer have the cards till you have the pot. By the rules the pot is his, but I have no problem with the floor teaching him a lesson here. The only lenience I would show is if he was a new player and intended for his cards to land face up and they flipped and landed face down. I would then inform him to protect his hand if he expected to get paid.

[fleung22 1]

QFMFTYes, player A had the winner, but he mucked. You table a winner by placing it face up in front of you and you don't let the dealer have the cards till you have the pot. By the rules the pot is his, but I have no problem with the floor teaching him a lesson here. The only lenience I would show is if he was a new player and intended for his cards to land face up and they flipped and landed face down. I would then inform him to protect his hand if he expected to get paid.

dogpatch, i'm just using you as an example so don't take this as a flamemy constant fear for poker is with so many new and young players that the art of the hustle and general sense of hospitality is gone. too many good and bad players make the game an uncomfortable place to be.in this case player A obviously intended to call and scoop. there's no angle shooting because he has no advantage by doing what he's done. player B has pot equity and therefore has motive for angle shooting. despite knowing that his hand has lost after player A made the call, player B is looking for something within the rules he can take advantage of. whether you are loose or strict with the rules most would agree that this is a marginal call either way.my problem is that often these errors come from new players and the donkeys. if their intent is obvious and they've made a little mistake why not give them a warning and move on? you know you're going to get the money sooner or later...why make the game such a hostile environment?i watched a pretty decent player being a total jerk to a lucky donk and you know what? the donkey said "screw this" and picked up his $900 off the $1-2 NLH game. now the biggest money making target leaves the game because jerka$s doesn't have any manners or respect for others. fish aren't there for the sole purpose of making money so if you take away the fun you take away their entertainment that they've come for.when people talk about not tapping the fish tank they often talk about self control after a bad beat but i think just general attitude on the felt is diminishing everyday. if you spot a sucker be sure to be nice.

[Dogpatch 2]

No offense taken fleung. I say if it was an honest mistake of the cards not landing the way he intended, then award him the pot. And the way it worked out... I still wouldn't complain if he was awarded the pot. BUT... I would hope the floor and/or the dealer would instruct him to table cards correctly in the future. The way it went lead Player B to believe the pot was his, then all of a sudden it's headed the other way. I'll take my emotional swings on the turn and river cards, but I'd like a showdown to go a little smoother. I'm with you. We need, we have to have, new players come into the game. I will not berate a player. I might comment on a decision sometimes, but I wll never try to belittle someone's play. I think the worst thing I've ever said was "Please keep making that call" when someone would make a bad call and be rewarded.

[LincolnK 1]

Read the rule: Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the playerI read that as "they're dead UNLESS it was folded as a result of false information". Since there was no false information in this case the ruling was the hand was dead and the last player in the hand was properly awarded the pot.

you're taking that statement out of context, read it again.

Read the rule: Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player

the green statement says there is always an option. the next statement says they can be even more flexible under certain circumstances.if there's no question which cards A was holding, i'd probably let them play, and give it to him. stupid maybe, but everyone has brain farts.

[Startled 0]

dogpatch, i'm just using you as an example so don't take this as a flamemy constant fear for poker is with so many new and young players that the art of the hustle and general sense of hospitality is gone. too many good and bad players make the game an uncomfortable place to be.in this case player A obviously intended to call and scoop. there's no angle shooting because he has no advantage by doing what he's done. player B has pot equity and therefore has motive for angle shooting. despite knowing that his hand has lost after player A made the call, player B is looking for something within the rules he can take advantage of. whether you are loose or strict with the rules most would agree that this is a marginal call either way.

Truth, but your post suggests it is incorrect for someone to politely call the floor to make decisions. I disagree, although I totally agree that this particular decision might have been done differently.

my problem is that often these errors come from new players and the donkeys. if their intent is obvious and they've made a little mistake why not give them a warning and move on? you know you're going to get the money sooner or later...why make the game such a hostile environment?

Rules are rules for a reason, and people have an obligation to learn and abide from them. In this situation, the player in question wasn't a newbie, but that hardly matters. I have recently seen the floor called at my local cardroom for: soft-play, collusion, english-only, and "going south" -- all from newbie players. This doesn't poison the game, it helps make sure that the game stays on the rails. Some dealers, especially the hoardes of new dealers, aren't comfortable with the rules, or with running the game properly. I've rarely called for the floor, but I would if I thought a rule was being ignored -- and if I had equity at stake, I'd do it that much faster. That's not angle-shooting, it's just common sense.

i watched a pretty decent player being a total jerk to a lucky donk and you know what? the donkey said "screw this" and picked up his $900 off the $1-2 NLH game. now the biggest money making target leaves the game because jerka$s doesn't have any manners or respect for others. fish aren't there for the sole purpose of making money so if you take away the fun you take away their entertainment that they've come for.when people talk about not tapping the fish tank they often talk about self control after a bad beat but i think just general attitude on the felt is diminishing everyday.

If the risk of chasing off a few clueless fishies is the long-term integrity of the game, shoo away, IMO. I want to be able to depend on the game's rules being predictable.

if you spot a sucker be sure to be nice.

You know, the idea that asking for a ruling isn't nice (if done politely) is odd. Is a tennis player being a poor sport when he asks the umpire for a line ruling? Is a football coach being an *** when he asks to have a play reviewed? If I call an official over to determine if I can take a drop in a golf tournament, I'm angling? No, no, no, and no. /rant