You're doing it wrong.

The more I look at your 1st page post the more I think P1 is clueless. He thought he was doing everything right by tabling his hand while waiting for the pot to be pushed to him.

You want to know the ruling?

In this SPECIFIC situation, P1 gets the pot...
-Dealer never acknowledged P1 was all in, not P1's fault.
-P2 never acknowledged P1 was all in(...)
-P2 accepted the pot without showing his hand(again. I said only in this situation P2 should table his hand. I never say P2 should table every time...) in this case because he thought P1 folded and not to mention the dealer pushed him the pot so inside his head, everything was good until P1 goes Godzilla...I'm sure if P2 had known P1 was all in he would have tabled but once he saw dealer mucking P1 and pushing him the pot he didn't bother to which in the end cost him the pot. He will be more alert in the future I'm sure. Again, P1 could/should have said something while dealer was mucking and pushing the pot he chose not to because he's either lazy or clueless. Whatever the case may be he got his money. Lets say for a second P1 knows the rules but chose not to say anything... Would you eat at McDonalds or at Red Lobster if you know you could get away with it for paying the same price as you would at McDonalds..?

Hopefully P1 will learn to announce "all in" in the future but I doubt it. P2.. I don't know what to say about P2, I wish I was at the table to really see how it went down. I'm not talking about just from your story but their expressions and such to have a better ruling. I don't believe with just go with what I read on here and make a ruling unless it's ABC second nature kind of stuff. Most of the time, the problems that come up are ABC, like premature turn or a player not making a legitimate raise.

But for this situation, I wish I was there. Since I wasn't I have to say P1 gets the pot. Cards play... I read it surveillance awarded the pot to P1 correct? I understand a lot of dealers/players disagree with surveillance ruling but in this case I have to go with surveillance. I prefer it to be chopped since too many fingers are pointing at different directions... But it's not what I or you or somebody should do...so I guess it's surveillance's job then.

What a bunch of ****, you must be dealer. Dealers are like waitress, always bitch n moan like they're on the rag 24/7. Nobody would push the blame away from a bank teller on to the customer, dealers should take responsibility like they take tips.

There's "should" and there "is".

Do you want to bitch and moan about how a ****ty dealer mucked the cards that you threw into the middle of the table? Or do you want to win the pot and move on?

You can't control other people, and there are far more ****ty dealers than there are good dealers. And even if your dealer is one of the best and is perfect 99.99% of the time, do you want to be that 0.01%? A dealer can get out 1000 hands a week, so even 0.01% can come around fairly often.

To all the "Dealer ****ed up" people.

Yes, we know that. Nobody is arguing the opposite. The point is that "It's the dealer's fault" is not a solution to the problem.

Look it's hard enough to win at poker. When you do make sure that you hold on to your cards until the dealer has pushed all your winnings to you. Always protect your hand! P1 only lost $20, but next time it could be $200 or more. No excuse for not protecting your hand.

Sorry, it was like 5 in the morning, sorry to offend anyone. But it seems pretty simple, only P1 cards were shown at showdown, he wins. P2 didn't protect his hand.

Except there was no showdown, and P1 didn't protect his hand.

Going to the turn heads up, one player all in. You're lower than the typical degenerate piece of ****. Always want something for nothing

So what's your excuse this time?

Wha?? I wasn't even there. But I would never be stupid enough to act like P1. What happened to P2 could have happened to me, he did nothing wrong.

By the way, in holdem poker, it is impossible for there to be a showdown with no river card being dealt. No one has tabled a complete hand here, even though P1 has tabled his hole cards. "Hole cards" does not equal "poker hand".

Oh btw add the dealer dropping the deck to the list of things which should have alerted P1 that something was wrong. Its not likely the dealer didn't b do this.

I apologize sirrawrsalot, I missed the part where there was no turn or river. OMG haha. I looked at the post like 3 times and I missed it lol.

My ruling still the same though. P1 gets the pot BUT BUT BUT only in this scenario.

But...
If it was heads up and P1 and P2 got $1000 behind.
P1 bets $20
P2 pops it to $40
P1 throws cards face up in the middle then P2 gets the pot.

OMG! I forgot there was never a turn or river. lol

fyp

You are correct sir...wish I had said that myself!

p1 is not at fault.

he tabled a hand.


what was p2s hand?

So I'm to take it you don't look both ways before crossing the street? After all, if you get hit and killed, you're not at fault. And fault is all that matters, right?

Who knows? The dealer mucked it.

Yep, who knows what P1's hand was either? HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ALL OF IT YET!

He's got a point.

If I ever get attacked by a bear in Manhattan and post here you guys will tell me I should have been carrying my bear repellant LDO and that I should have salted myself first for the bear's taste preferences.

You shouldn't have been wearing that skirt steak.

This is more like walking in Manhattan with your eyes closed and running into a bear. Yes, wtf is a bear doing in Manhattan, but wtf are you doing walking around with your eyes closed? Doesn't really matter whose fault it was that caused the bear to be there, you're still the one in the hospital.

So you're P1 then?

There is a litany of reasons why you shouldn't walk around Manhattan with your eyes closed. "Keep your eyes open for cars and other city obstacles and threats" is good advice.

Telling a Manhattan bear attack victim he should have had his eyes open is borderline sociopathic. That is the point being made.

Your analogies in this thread have been eye-opening, to say the least.