Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
ruling ruling

09-13-2021 , 08:02 AM
live cash game heads up to flop 578 rainbow utg bets I shove he calls I show 67 he says 1 time does not show turn 6 river 10 he mucks never shows his cards dealer is pussing pot to me when another player ask what did you have and utg said a set of sixes . Tells him you win reaches toward muck shows hand and floor awards pot to utg player ?

Fair ? Wrong ?

opinions ?
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 08:14 AM
Other player should get a swift kick in the nuts for telling him that he wins the hand.
Dealer should have killed the hand so that it was in the muck.
As described, it's hard to know if the hand was just facedown on the table (and thus retrievable and thus a valid hand) or if it was in any way dead already.
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 10:30 AM
His hand was face down next to muck but not touching other cards. I was most angry about other dude getting involved and think fairest outcome was split the pot but I just got up and left.
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubaifitz
His hand was face down next to muck but not touching other cards. I was most angry about other dude getting involved and think fairest outcome was split the pot but I just got up and left.
Fair outcome is that the player not in the hand should stfu and you win the pot.
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 11:01 AM
Other player was out of line for telling UTG his hand won but this isn't a big deal. The dealer made a significant error not getting hand into the muck. Because the hand was not properly discarded the floor was right to award the pot to the player with the best hand.
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadJ
Other player was out of line for telling UTG his hand won but this isn't a big deal. The dealer made a significant error not getting hand into the muck. Because the hand was not properly discarded the floor was right to award the pot to the player with the best hand.
I agree. I was just annoyed. If he turns his cards up after all in then we have no problems. If his cards had been in the muck but easily retrievable ( clearly on top ) I have no problem splitting the pot .
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 01:52 PM
Personally, I would argue that the act of throwing the cards towards the muck face down is stating that you are relinquishing your claim to the pot (and pretty much the equivalent of verbally declaring "I fold"). Although I have no idea if that is actually the ruling.

GcluelessrulingsnoobG
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubaifitz
I agree. I was just annoyed. If he turns his cards up after all in then we have no problems. If his cards had been in the muck but easily retrievable ( clearly on top ) I have no problem splitting the pot .
Ooc: Why would you ever split the pot? If his hand is valid, he wins. If it isn't, you win.
ruling Quote
09-13-2021 , 04:50 PM
Just a lot of procedure violations going on here. 3rd person shouldn't be telling a player in the hand how to play his cards. They also shouldn't be touching cards on the table that aren't their's. The dealer is supposed to put all the discarded in muck so they aren't identifiable before pushing the pot.

That said, some of the responses are bad, too. The main rule in poker is that at showdown the best hand wins the pot. The best hand after the comedy of errors is a set of 6s wins and get the pot. Spliting a pot is a sign of a weak floor or more troubling weak management. The muck is not magic. It is a graveyard, not an executioner. It doesn't matter whether the cards touched the muck or not in the vast majority of rooms.

A warning should go the 3rd player to stop coaching other players how to play and stop touching the cards. A verbal warning goes to the dealer after his down to never let mucked cards lay around. Pot goes to the set and deal the next hand. OP, I'd seriously look to see if there is another room you can move to.
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 02:32 AM
Excellent responses.

I would add that the moment the 3rd player touched/turned over the hand, it was dead as someone other than the player, or the dealer touched it.

Again, the floor shouldn't be on the floor, but I've known floormen like that.
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 02:34 AM
The third player should obviously not have touched the cards. Could have been that the player who said he had a set didn't really and was just joking or saying something stupid for whatever reason and wouldn't want his actual cards to be exposed
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayKon
I would add that the moment the 3rd player touched/turned over the hand, it was dead as someone other than the player, or the dealer touched it.
Where do people come up with this ****?
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Where do people come up with this ****?
Extension of OPTAH? Not necessarily correct, but probably where it comes from.
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Where do people come up with this ****?
Ever heard of one player to a hand?

Also, the rule is probably older than you, going back to before 1970.
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 02:48 PM
Poker rules have changed a bit in the last 50 years. 90 years ago, the set would have been required to show whether he wanted to or not at showdown.

Pretty confident that you would be upset if someone decided look at your cards and the dealer killed your hand because they touched it.
ruling Quote
09-14-2021 , 06:54 PM
Not sure why the other mods ITF didn't move this thread to C&CP, but it got pretty good responses already. OPTAH violations don't kill a hand. If they did, it would open up a huge angle by letting players kill other players' hands.
ruling Quote

      
m