3 Players see the flop, XXX with two diamonds

Player 1 bets, player two raises, player 3 calls

Player 1 goes all in for $185
Player 2 calls $185
Player 3 goes all in for $175

Cards run out, player 3 turns over two pair. Players 1 and 2 slide their cards towards the muck unexposed. Other players point out there is a side pot. Both players retrieve their hands. Player one tables 1 pair, player 2 tables what he thought was a busted flush, but turned out to be runner runner straight. Player 3 insists that the cards are dead, that they touched each other (maybe), etc. Floor rules that hands 1 and 2 are dead, but that player 2 wins the side pot.

First time I have seen something like this. Comments?

Let's get one thing straight: Player 3 is NOT entitled to the side pot as he had zero action in it.

I'm not citing RRoP here, but it seems like one of two things should happen:

1. If the hands are identifiable, pull them out and table them and award the pot to the winner.

2. Give the pot to the second person of player 1 and 2 that folded (since he/she was the last player that had a live hand).

To me, either of those is defensible.

Also, how did they not know there was a side pot? Dealer should have already taken the chips and set a pot to the side making it clear to the players in the hand there was a side pot.

Best hand should win the pot. Give #2 his pot.

This.

If player 2s hand is dead how the **** does he win the side pot. IMO there are only two correct rulings depending on this room clarifies as a dead hand.

Option 1; player 2's head is not dead/retrievable. He wins both pots.

Option 2; player 1 and player 2's hand are dead. Player 3 wins the main, player 1 and 2 split the side.

If the hands are retrievable they should play in this case.

If the hands were not retrievable then player 3 takes the main pot and whoever was last to muck takes the side pot.

You should always make an effort to retrieve 'improperly' mucked hands in the interest of the game.

Thanks everyone. Lets just say that this, and another game killing action by this houseman leads me to think he perhaps was a little stupid.

Sounds like your houseman fancies himself a modern day King Solomon, except that he split the baby.

Player 3 shouldn't touch the pot extra $20. Should go to player 2 since he had the best hand, but if both hands are dead then shouldn't they both get $10 back? Definitely shouldn't go to player 3 regardless of what players 1 and 2 did.

How can a dead hand possibly be a winning hand? Either it's dead or it's live. There is no grey area there.

The hands were not mucked improperly, quotation marks or not. The hands were mucked as per a normal part of the poker process.

If player 2's neighbor had seen his hand (and the straight) and informed the table of it after it was mucked, no one would justify going back to retrieve it. This is no different from someone pointing out there is a side pot after the hands were mucked. Therefore, the main pot should be awarded to player 3.

The question remains of the side pot. There are no active hands remaining. As both hands are retrievable, the floor has two options: split the side pot; or allow the two retrievable hands to be tabled. I would lean towards splitting the side pot, as we are talking about a relatively small amount of $ and it keeps a reasonable level of fairness for all parties.

If the latter option is chosen (as was the case here), yes, it would result in dual rulings that possibly contradict each other. But the interest of protecting the integrity of the game goes in two different directions when dealing with (a) the main pot and (b) the side pot, so it is justifiable.

perfect ruling imo

IMO, correct ruling, unless player 3 asked to see the cards (which i really doubt), then they are live. IWTSTH

Ship main pot to 2pr hand. Ship side to 'last to muck', as it was last live hand, and didn't have to show to claim. Simultaneous mucking... player 2 gets the pot (player 1 first to act, folded, player 2 folded oot and therefore had last live hand).

this is exact imo