3-way pot hand ruling - Home Poker Games

Two Plus Two Forums Live Poker Home Poker

3-way pot hand ruling

Post Reply Subscribe

...

12-21-2012 , 11:26 PM

Xplo1t

stranger

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 12

$1/2 Cash Game

Player A goes all in pre, player B and C call.

Player B makes a small bet on the flop and C calls. Player B makes another bet on the turn at which point player C says "I fold" and throws his cards away. Player B, presumably forgetting about the third player in the hand, tosses his cards towards the middle of the table face-down. His hand is declared dead and he is awarded the small side pot between himself and player C while Player A is shipped the main pot.

Correct ruling here?

Quote

12-21-2012 , 11:40 PM

PAhoser

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 496

Award B the side pot.
Give B his cards back, deal the river, and award the main between A and B.

Quote

12-21-2012 , 11:45 PM

Xplo1t

stranger

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAhoser

Award B the side pot.
Give B his cards back, deal the river, and award the main between A and B.

I don't know if this is relevant but I forgot to mention that player B flopped the nut straight as he showed a couple of the players around him but he never actually tabled his hand.

Quote

12-22-2012 , 12:12 AM

PAhoser

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 496

Utterly irrelevant, but proves that b had no intent to fold and believed the pot over.

Cards are clearly identifiable on the table and not mucked, no more action....zero reason to kill the hand

Quote

12-22-2012 , 02:42 AM

pokertaxer

enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 76

PA--NOT "utterly irrelevant"--for the reasons you articulated. Some of the biggest injustices happen when the floor thinks rigidly like you just did. It IS relevant that player B had the nuts. The fact the hand was not tabled is what caused the whole issue, but to say it is not relevant is folly.

Quote

12-22-2012 , 11:08 AM

gedanken

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,283

He's saying what player B had is irrelevent, which is correct. So long as we can confidently identify player B's hand, it is live. It doesn't matter if he flopped the nut low with virtually no redraws, he still gets to play his hand.

The whole point of poker is to award the pot to the best hand if there is a showdown. Rules that would kill a hand are there only to protect that game from cases where the identity of the cards is no longer clear. Player B called an all-in, he's entitled to get to showdown.

Quote

12-22-2012 , 12:43 PM

The Big K

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,371

This is a home game. Give B back his hand and remind him there is still the main pot to determine.

Quote

12-22-2012 , 02:51 PM

Xplo1t

stranger

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 12

If player A hadn't been all-in, would the ruling be correct then? What about in a tourney vs a live game such as this? Thanks for the input so far

Quote

12-22-2012 , 07:02 PM

gedanken

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,283

in a tournament, player B is REQUIRED to table his cards as soon as he is heads-up with the all-in player.

rulings are the same in most US casinos, by the way, not just at home games. I've been led to believe that european casinos are much more eager to kill your hand for any mishandling of the cards.

Quote

12-22-2012 , 07:36 PM

#10

Xplo1t

stranger

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by gedanken

Gotcha but what if player A had not already been all in?

Quote

12-22-2012 , 10:24 PM

#11

DavidNB

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,332

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplo1t

Gotcha but what if player A had not already been all in?

Give player B back their cards and play continues

Quote

12-22-2012 , 11:32 PM

#12

gedanken

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,283

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplo1t

Gotcha but what if player A had not already been all in?

??? If it's only B and C in the pot, B wins when C folds. If A had bet less than all-in pre, then on the flop B bets, C folds, B tosses his cards forward and A hasn't acted yet, B takes his cards back and action is on A.

I wouldn't recommend this behaviour to player B, because all kinds of bad things can happen to your cards when you do that, but so long as we know which cards are his, he can still play them.

Quote

12-23-2012 , 01:17 AM

#13

pfapfap

HP JoY 2011 wienerbucket

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 22,537

The original ruling is correct if you're playing "Gotcha!" instead of Poker.

The rules are a tool to guide us through tricky situations, not a checklist for trapping others or punishing players for mild procedural mistakes. "The best interest of the game" trumps all.

Quote

12-26-2012 , 03:15 PM

#14

briggsy3

centurion

Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 159

As long as player B's two cards can be identified, his cards should be given back & river should be dealt for players A & B. if player B tossed cards into the muck and his two cards cannot be identified- then this ruling is correct.

Quote

12-27-2012 , 03:06 PM

#15

troloyolo

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 613

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfapfap

Quote

12-27-2012 , 05:58 PM

#16

seedmunch

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 100

The ruling isn't necessarily incorrect. It's purely the decision of the tournament director. Some people interpret that the good of the game is what the rules are for, others say rules are rules. It seemed pretty clearly he mucked his had, although accidentally. Neither playing the hand or saying the hand was mucked is incorrect.

Quote

12-28-2012 , 01:53 PM

#17

pfapfap

HP JoY 2011 wienerbucket

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 22,537

Cash game, not tournament. In a tournament, the ruling is absolutely incorrect, as the player must show down when against an all-in. There's no option to muck, any more than there's the option to bet twenty-six bananas.

In a cash game, I can see the ruling going either way, but I disagree with ruling it a muck. I've had this happen from time to time, and I've never seen it ruled as such.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...