I play in a private 1/2 game that is designed for all sorts of skill players. They will do things like push cards back to the BB when it tries to fold to a limp and other things that are designed to help out new players and make sure pots are awarded to the actual winner of the hand (a total no angle shots kinda game).

This last Sunday I get involved in a hand where I have T8 and another player has QQ. Flop comes T82 and all the money gets in - about 210ish, most of it from the two of us. Turn is 7, river is 7. Other player chucks is hand into the muck, where is sits on top - everyone agrees that it was a chuck to the muck with no other intent behind it (like trying to table your hand in anger and having it bounce into the muck). He gasps, flips over the QQ, and says he should be awarded the pot. He also says that if he isn't awarded the whole pot he'll walk, and he's a kinda regular in the game so he knows the rules can be stretched at times. The players there all know that the rules are that if your hand hits the muck it's dead.

What do you do in this spot?

so he didn't show the QQ before mucking it? That's pretty far out in the "you should know better" zone. I'm pretty liberal, but that looks a LOT like a dead hand. I'd have to have seen it to offer a real opinion there.

A further example of my "parking ticket" theory. People get aggressive when they've screwed up, not so much when they've been wronged undeservedly (which tends to make you prefer a calm, reasoned discussion).

I like beginner-friendly rules, but this might be a good illustration of why proper procedures are a good long-term goal. Push the bb back his cards, but also explain that you're breaking the rules to do it, and in the future we'll hold him to the "casino" practice. I often say "so people learn the right way, in case you ever play in a casino, or people who do come play with us."

Tough call.

Like gedanken, I also lean pretty liberal with rules enforcement, especially when making sure that the best hand at showdown gets the pot. Also, I'm a firm believer in the idea that the muck is not magic - mucked cards can be ruled live if it's in the best interest of the game.

On the other hand, any player with a little experience should know better than to muck their hand until they are sure that they have lost the pot. If you aren't sure, table your hand. And it's a bit douchey of him to give an ultimatum after he made the mistake of mucking the best hand.

Assuming this is the simple mistake it sounds like and there is no other history, I'm likely to award the pot to the best hand and needle him relentlessly about mucking queens for at least a month. I also like (and often use) gedanken's suggestion of saying, "I'll do A this time, but B is the way it's done in a casino and is the way we'll do it if this happens again."

If I was making the decision I would be forced to call QQ a DEAD hand. I understand how it can be difficult for a new player to read his hand and the board correctly in this situation, but it is tough to show mercy when he tossed his hand into the much face down, which everyone can agree upon.

If he had thrown his hand in face up to show his (perceived) bad luck, then I would think he should still get the pot, since everyone can see what he had with no questions.

You are right: this is pretty far out in the "you should know better" zone. The fact that he is threatening to leave if the pot is not given to him is just ridiculous and he needs to calm down and look at it for everyone else s perspective.

Beginner-friendly rules are great IMO and should be used and practiced whenever possible. This is just not one of those cases. Face down in the muck intentionally= dead IMO

It be different if he had intended to table the hand and it landed face down, but from the description it sounds like a dead hand to me. Sounds like an honest mistake on his part, but a muck is a muck.


I'm also not a fan of a reg trying to muscle up and force the issue. Threatening to walk would have resulted in allowing him to do just that. You can't have a game were the house is constantly giving into player threats. Where's the line?

Good.

Well, this is just my personal opinion, and it's a judgement call. I think that crosses the line and it's black and white. The hand is dead. He's a regular, he should know better. Actually, even if it was a brand new player it's a dead hand IMO. If cards touch the muck, they're dead, period. All players have to learn this one. Beginners should always be taught to table their cards. There is too much emphasis placed on concealing one's hand, especially for beginners. Just show your cards until you're good enough of a player that you're sure the information hiding brings you more value than the pots you will surely eventually lose because of it.

Without a doubt, HE WINS. not even a close call.
1. all action was concluded preflop. Its not like you put a bet in on the river and he threw his cards in and then retrieved them. You were both all in.
2. he grabbed what were obviously his cards. Everyone knows which cards are his and he grabbed those cards and turned them back over. He didnt hunt through the muck, everyone agreed those were his cards.
Its a KITN situation, but it's his pot. Cards speak. his hand was better than yours on the river and he wins.

Sorry, but I agree that "cards speak". In other words, he loses the pot. I think maybe you don't understand what "cards speak" means. He intentionally did the exact opposite. "Cards speak" means one thing and one thing only - that you (you) turn over your cards before they touch the muck.

Here is where the interesting situation would occur. He goes to throw his cards in the muck, but they hit the hand of the guy next to him (who is sticking out his hands reaching for the pot) and the cards flip over right in front of him on the table. Now what do you do?

Now that you point that out, I'm even more sure he loses the pot. What he should have done is act gracious about it and hope for a ruling. By "threatening" to leave the game, he's just demonstrated that he's the kind of player I really wouldn't want in the game. Let him go. He's probably bluffing anyway, and he'll be back, but learned that
- he should muck his cards
- he can't strongarm my game

"cards speak" also means that regardless of intentional deception, overall confusion, or moronic boneheaded slipups, the best hand wins the pot. not the hand that best followed the rules. Once he tabled his hand, it was his pot.

You were both all in. how can you rule that he folded? everyone including yourself agrees that he tabled the best hand. your just ruling that once his cards touched the muck face down, he no longer had queens all-in.
I don't even see how this is a difficult ruling. He wins.

Hand didn't hit the muck. I'm OK losing there provided it was legitimately an accident.

I don't know what the casino rule is, but I'd say in any game I'd want to play in meddling observers are an extension of the muck. I don't know what RRoP says there...

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

your both all-in. his action of throwing the hand into the muck doesn't change the preflop choice to go all in, nor the final outcome of the board. his hand is clearly identifiable and was retrieved.

I would go as far as to say that you are more out of order for wanting the best hand to be declared dead than the other way around.

I would give the pot to the best hand. If it was clearly identifiable and there is no disagreement on it, then the best hand should win.

However, it should be made clear to this person that in the future the ruling may not be the same one, especially if the circumstances are slightly different because this one is really close to the line.

It should also be made clear that the house does not take kindly to threats or ultimatums and that an apology is in order.

But these are my opinions... as anyone can see from the varied responses in this thread, there is no one clear and correct answer. I honestly don't have a problem calling it a dead hand, either. I just happen to think the scales are slightly tipped in the other player's favor. But like I said it's extremely close.

No, that is not at all what "cards speak" means. What it means is that it overrules what a player says his hand is. Or to put it another way, the cards speak for themselves even if the player doesn't. Table your hand, your cards determine your hand, not your verbal action. If you flip your cards over and you say "I have 2 pair", but you really have a straight, then you win the hand even if your opponent has 3 of a kind. The dealer and everyone else at the table is obligated to point this out. IF.... IF you flip your cards over.

I do not rule he folded because he did not fold. He mucked.

Understand how poker works. Your allowable decisions during a hand are bet, check, call, raise, or fold. Those are the only allowable decisions. Clearly we are past all that at this point in the hand.

However there are other "actions" you can take to rule your hand dead. These rules differ by casino and house, but for example, if you show your hand to the person next to you and they give you advice on what to do, your hand is dead. This rule exists almost everywhere.

The rule that exists everywhere I know of is that once one or both of your cards touch any part of the muck pile (the dead cards), your hand is considered mucked and your hand is dead. The only exception to this might be if the dealer mucked your cards by accident, but even then sometimes your hand is dead.

Consider this example. Let's say we get to showdown and Player A shows his hand to win the pot. Player B does not table (show) his cards. Someone else at the table requests to see the cards of Player B (which he has a right to do). A competent dealer will take those 2 cards (still upside down), tap them against the muck pile, and THEN flip them over to show the table. Why? To make sure the hand is dead. Just touching those cards to the muck made the hand completely dead and irretrievable. This is to avoid the situation where Player B actually had the winning hand but didn't realize it. Touching the muck assures Player A that he will win the pot and cards no longer speak, which is the correct action.

I do not agree that the player tabled the best hand. He did not table a hand at all. "Tabling" means showing 2 live cards face up. The player did not have any live cards (his hand was dead) so he could not have tabled his cards. Once cards are mucked, they are mucked and tabling and "cards speak" are no longer relevant. His hand no longer exists. He used to have QQ, but that is just a vague memory in the past and has no bearing on where the pot goes.

While this is true in many casinos, it isn't really in line with Robert's Rules of Poker, the de facto standard for home games. A few posts back, sardu quoted the relevant rule:

Note that it says, "may be ruled dead," not "must be ruled dead." And there is an explicit exception that applies to this case - a clearly identifiable hand was thrown into the muck, then retrieved and tabled immediately. I think giving the pot to the best hand at showdown is in the best interest of the game, and I'm inclined to rule the hand live.

The player with the queens made it to showdown with the best hand, made a brief mistake but quickly fixed it, and your argument is that because the best hand touched the muck for a second, it should not win the pot.

This is a bad precedent to set at a home game. One player is already pissed and not coming back, and other players (especially the less sophisticated ones) will see that the best hand can lose at showdown on an unreasonable technicality. This type of ruling scares off the fish and encourages rules-nittery that sucks the fun and the dead money out of the game.

Poker is not GOTCHA! Give the pot to the best hand, tell the guy to stop being a douchebag, and deal a new one.

finally a voice of reason.

What if it wasn't merely a second? What if the cards were mucked, player A began to scoop, and then player B noticed his mistake after staring in disbelief at his misfortune of losing. ("Man... I can't believe my Queens got busted by 10-8.... wait a minute the board paired! Crap!")

If it was bang, bang (As he's releasing he realizes the mistake) I can see your argument, but then he declares he will walk if not awarded the pot. Strong arming like that isn't going to lead to a ruling your favor in many places.

If it was moments after the fact, not seconds, and he threatened to walk then I can't possibly see ruling in favor of his hand. Just my opinion though.

I don't understand why him being a douchebag and threatening to walk has any bearing on the ruling. awarding him the pot was the correct ruling for that hand.

If I was in a hand of poker and I felt the floor erroneously awarded the pot to the other player, my reaction would probably sound a lot like strong arming to the other player.

I'm ruling off the way I interpreted the OP. If Player B, declares he should win the pot or he'll walk in one breath, that's strong arming the "spirit of the game"....

It's in no ones best interest to let the perception be that, if you complain, and threaten to quit you'll get what you want.

Again it leads to interpretation of what happened. I'm assuming the player realized he had a winning hand much longer after mucking then maybe was the case. If it was an instantaneous thing, and a threat was made to walk after a ruling was made against his favor, you have a valid point.

But if the player mucked, was watching a pot be scooped when he realized moments later the mistake, picked up his cards, demanded the pot or else, then yeah I think his actions have relevance on the ruling. Then it's in the best interest of the game to not tolerate such antics or threats.

Funny you say that. Every place I've played when your cards touch the muck your hand is dead. I think part of the reason they do this is to avoid the are they recoverable aspect, because otherwise you'll have a lot of frustrated Estelle Dennis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deunqrCbr3U) in the world.

Interesting enough, when I asked the dealer/floor about this, he said that I would have been awarded the pot had it come to a ruling rather than me just agreeing to ship it to him.

It was all pretty bang-bang. It was pretty much muck --> gasp --> flip --> me asking if his hand was dead since it hit the muck in about 1.5 seconds. Any slower and the dealer would have made his hand unrecoverable (this dealer kills the muck and pushes the deck to the button for shuffling before pushing the pot).

This too happened. I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but he also said he wouldn't chop the pot or take any deal that would have eliminated a lot of the "I screwed up but I did have the winner" aspect.

Sure, timing is a factor. If the board is mucked and the pot is being pushed, it's obviously too late and the player is out of luck. But if the mistake is realized right away and his hand is still clearly identifiable, let him table it and take the pot he won.

It doesn't. The player is being a douche by threatening to quit the game, and I'm going to call him out on it. But that doesn't change the fact that he got to showdown with the best hand.

While I obviously haven't played everywhere, my impression is that most casinos follow the "magic muck" rule - if your cards hit the muck, they're dead. In the casinos where I've played, you would have been shipped the pot.

However, I think most home games are not casino-strict, because it's a different environment. You've got the same small group of friends/acquaintances playing in the same game week after week - it's not just a bunch of randoms that walk in and sit down. Friends chat, talk trash, and do a lot of things that would be frowned upon in a casino.

The job of a home game host is to ensure that his players have a good time and keep coming back to his game, maybe even bringing their friends along too. Rulings like "the winning hand touched the muck for 1.5 seconds so the losing hand gets the pot" don't work well in this kind of environment and should really be avoided.

A good dealer should do exactly this, and this is why I assumed that the player recovered his cards very quickly. Of course, that's a poor assumption for a lot of home games...

Your opponent was a complete douchebag in how he handled the situation. I can see the desire to teach him a lesson by taking the pot away from him. But that's not the right way to handle it. Give him the pot that he won, and THEN call him out for being a total dick.

QQ77x > TT88x

Now shut up and deal . . .