I think it's safe to say it gets fuzzy in some situations.

I am never verbally conceding a pot and then trying to take it if my opponent's brain misses a beat and he does something that technically lets me take the pot. That's sorta like action causing action behind. If I table, see his hand which he fails to table and state "you're good", and this in turn causes him to muck, should I get to profit? What if I'm angling and doing this intentionally? But it can be pretty difficult for the floor to award the pot to anybody but the person with a tabled hand, and I wouldn't really fault any floor for never doing so. (I would fault a floor for undoing the results of the previous hand where this happened, as I made pretty clear above.)

On the other hand, someone saying "you're good" after his river bet is called is NOT verbally conceding the pot; he's just predicting the future and is another way of saying "I have air--if you have anything at all, please show it so I can muck".

I have seen folks try to use "you're good" as a binding commitment at showdown when it clearly was not intended to be. It gets checked around, player A says "you're good", player B insta-mucks, and then demands the pot... nope, doesn't work that way.

Fuzzy.

At showdown "fold" isn't one one of the actions, but when both players are in clear agreement about who should get the pot, push the pot and move on to the next hand. When I first started dealing I had some trouble with this because the "rule" is show the hand and get the money. Nobody benefits form following this rule to the letter. Yes if someone wants to see, he needs to show the whole hand. He needs to show the whole hand for the dealer to read the cards.

In this case the player that showed first conceded and pushed his hand into the muck. He didn't "fold" in that he can still make a claim that he had the best hand as he tabled his hand at showdown. That isn't his claim (ignoring for the time being that he didn't object in time), his claim is that the other player threw his cards away without showing. Normally you need to show all your cards, but when you show enough to win and then throw away the rest at the urging of your opponent ("you're good") you still get the pot.

You misread the OP. The player saw enough to know he was beaten, verbally conceded, and then he pushed his hand into the muck. At some point, you need to honor the players' actions.

This should be really clear to any dealer, or anyone who plays frequently. This happens all the time, a super standard situation. The unique thing here was the later action of the OP.

The player who showed one card had the last live hand since the exposed hand got mucked. He didn't protect his hand he doesn't get the pot.

Also- next hand started so it doesn't matter

I think this is the crux of it.
Assuming I read this thread correctly, Player 2 showed only one card, which was enough to beat Player 8's tabled hand, and received pot.
Best hand won, other player tried later to claim pot on a technicality.
Floor eventually ruled for Player 2, and Player 8 got angry and racked up.
In some places, showing only enough to win would be all that would be necessary; in most places, you do have to show the entire hand to claim the pot. But this is more of an anti-collusion, no-fouled-deck procedural rule than anything else. It isn't there (I believe and hope) to steal the pot from the best hand if somehow he fails to show the entire hand, no one says anything, he's pushed the pot, his hand is mucked, and THEN someone remembers that he was really supposed to show his other cards (even if the objection was raised timely, which it wasn't in OP).
If OP had brought this up only as a matter of correct procedure (Player 2 should have shown entire hand), he wouldn't have been wrong, but he apparently thought that somehow the pot should have been taken back from the better hand as a remedy, and I would disagree 100%. I think that the floor clearly made the correct call, and it shouldn't even have been a tough call. (Assuming I read correctly that best hand retained pot.)
PS: When I play PLO and PLO/8, we say "Meh, who cares?" a lot. Improves the game considerably, and players I enjoy playing with tend to play with the best interests of the game in mind, anyway. "Gotcha" ain't poker.

I'm not sure which one of is misreading the OP. Or of we read it the same way and disagree about what that action means. I read this as the player pushed his face up cards to the muck. This would be a bit different then the player flipping his cards face down and tossing them into the muck.


This certainly not standard. I see a common version of this which doesn't involve Player A tabling his hand first. Player B shows one card and player A throws away his hand ...... that is very common.

But I very rarely see a situation where a player who has tabled his hand throws away his hand to a single card. He may verbally concede but I don;t see them throwing away the cards.

And $20-$40 is not a big enough game for me to shut up and do whatever the players tell me. Its a small enough game that if I do that and something happens some player is going to run to management and tell them I'm not running my game.

Let's make the situation even simpler:

* Player A tables his hand.
* Player B starts to table his hand, at which point Player A stops the action, announces "I lose", mucks his cards and says "Dealer, push the pot to him."
* Dealer correctly pushes the pot to Player A.
* Omaha players demand an investigation.
* Five day internet thread ensues.
* Off duty drink sales to poker dealers skyrocket.


q/q

Actually, I do see this from time to time, especially in Omaha. One player tables, other player tables 1 or 2 clearly winning cards, and first player mucks instantly, without waiting to see winner's other cards.
Nearly always in this case, either the dealer or the other players will point out the rule to the single-card shower, who then tables his whole hand, gets the pot without objection from anyone, and the game goes on. (This is not the same as telling a player to table his hand when he hasn't yet tabled any of it, which is OPTAH violation and frowned upon.)
But I can't recall one in which he failed to table his other cards, no one said anything, both hands were mucked, the pot pushed, and then the player who had shown the clear loser tried to claim the pot just because the other guy had failed to show his whole hand, only the winning 1 or 2 cards.

OP - I really hate people like you at the tables.

This is a very clear cut situation, no angle shooting , cheating or significant dealer error has taken place in this hand.

The 2 people involved in the hand were satisfied with results at the end of the hand.

On to the next hand.....

oh wait, you want to open your big mouth and start a controversy? Over a little dealer mistake in a little 140 dollar pot? That YOU weren't even in ? gimme a f*** break.

You not only waste other players time, floor time but you also end up souring the mood at the table enough to break the game and lose the "live one" , which is way way way more horrendous than the dealer error you point out in this hand.

You really need to re-assess why you play poker..

What makes 2+2 so educational is that it's filled with individuals who not only play perfect poker but also have never in their lives said anything stupid that they later regretted. Their moral perfection is an inspiration to me.

We had no choice at the start of the series this year. My table literally had a stretch of 4-5 brand new dealers who had never dealt O/8 before. We had to explain everything to them

A dealer that runs an omaha game is a pleasant exception to the rule.

psandman - Because you didn't mention that the player shoved his cards into the muck in your recounting of the facts, I thought that you had missed that in the original post. Now I see that you don't think it was important, especially if face up.

I have a different perspective. All the facts in the situation are lining up to show that the player decided to concede the pot - the player said that he was probably lost, then he saw that he was in fact lost, then he verbally acknowledged that he had the weaker hand (even just seeing one card), then he mucked. And both players were perfectly happy with it, and nobody at the table seemed to think there was anything out of the ordinary. As a regular player, I see casual concessions similar to this at showdown occur quite regularly.

Regarding the notion of whether you can "fold at showdown." It's not a fold, it's just a concession that the player has lost - that he's abandoning the game. You can see the same thing in lots of games.

Take chess, for example. Player A makes a move (a horrible blunder), then hits his clock. Now player B is on the clock, and he has all the normal options available to him. It would be a huge etiquette violation for player A (or anyone) to disturb him in any way whatsoever. But, it's very common to see player A just concede on the spot. They shake hands, and that's it.

Or a boxer concedes ("no mas"). Or an NBA team stops trying to repeatedly foul in the final minute, and the other guard simply dribbles in place, uncontested. Or a team yanks all of its starters, and the other team doesn't try to score anymore. Or in a horrible mismatch in a strange HS or college matchup, a team just concedes flat out rather than push the embarrassment. Reasonable people understand when it's time to give up, and they also honor someone's concession.

The rules are there to govern the contest while there's still a conflict. But when the human participants agree that enough is enough, then it's over.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with Op saying something. He's got his money on the table, something odd happened, and he sought clarification on it. Kind of a game integrity thing, like I mentioned before.

Having said that, Dealer and Floor should've just said "Sorry, the hand is over, we're on to the next hand". Impounding the pot, going to video, yada-yada-yada, was completely unnecessary, especially since the players in the hand were satisfied.