Home game that follows RROP playing NLHE.

Player A raises to $2 UTG, Player B calls, Player C OTB raises to $12, Player D in the BB announces all in for ~$60 counts out chips and pushes them forward, Player A and Player B fold, Player C says oh damn, and throws his hand, AA, face up on top of the muck pile. Player C never said fold at any point. When it was pointed out to Player C that there was still a player in the hand he says he thought that player D was leaving and was cashing out and obviously is calling if he knew. However player D had no rack in front of him which is used for cash outs and obviously had 2 cards in front of him. You make the call.

I'll save my comments, thoughts and, ruling until after some posts.

What happened to player A?

B and C folded, so they have no claim.

If A still has a hand and we want to be picky - his hand is dead due to the action of B & C. Maybe he didn't get much time but then again he only wants to play the hand if D's hand is going to be called dead.

I do not see where C's comment about D leaving is meaningful. D bet verbally and physically. C surely does not want his hand out of the muck to play vs. AA. It does not matter if he/she was confused. D acted in the normal way, C folded correctly as it turns out.

I must be missing something. This looks rather clear to me.

DrStrange

What did player A do? UTG initial $2 raiser. Fold? If player D announced all in, then why would player C think player D was cashing out in the middle of a hand? Sorry I must have missed something here. It would not be the first time for me LOL

Sorry I was off a letter and fixed the OP. Trying to do two things at once....

Well if it was me hosting, there are no cashouts in the middle of a hand ever. Also announcing an all in, pushing your stack forward, and having two down cards in front of you is certainly not evidence of someone cashing out in any poker game I can imagine. I assume this was pre flop action. C did not say fold but he did not say call either, he said damn and mucked. I guess, if you can retrieve them cleanly, some places would allow the call. At our house we would consider this a fold because I just don't see player Cs point. D would have to do something much more confusing than what you describe happened. Cs mistake. D takes the pot. Next hand

Only preflop action is correct.

Read your edited OP again and edited my response a little. Looking forward to see how your crew handled this and why. Thanks.

Only two players left in the hand, Player C with Aces showing and player D with a all in bet. Player C cards face up on the muck does not kill his hand. Rulings should follow best interest of the game. You know Player C is not folding AA. Let him take his cards back and act

With David here. Thought he was mucking, but didn't actually fold.

Action on C.

I see your point about best interests of a good home game atmosphere. And C sure shouldn't fold AA. However if player D argues that C is mucking without saying call or fold, not pushing any chips out, and simply saying oh damn, then he has a point too. Maybe D didn't argue his side and if the cards can be retrieved, the hand can continue. No harm, no foul. I still don't see what the heck C thought he was doing and his reason doesn't make sense at all. Maybe a brain fart. Lots of that going around LOL

I would rule that Player C gets to retrieve his cards and call the bet. It's a ridiculous mistake, but we all make ridiculous mistakes sometimes. Moreover, it's a gross misunderstanding of the action, and if I remember correctly, RROP allows for an action to be taken back in that case. To undo a muck is unusual, granted, but this is an unusual case.

However, this decision is an exception to the rule. Throwing your cards into the muck faceup is still a fold, just like when someone throws his cards up in disgust at a big raise on the river. He doesn't have the option to take back his hand for any reason (e.g., misread the board, remembered his cards incorrectly, had a moment of drunken idiocy). Allowing this to happen is an open door to angle-shooting.

The fact that Player C has AA doesn't factor into it for me, and I don't think it ever should. I am not a fan of ruling anything based on what a player should've known about which play he should've made, even if it's painfully obvious. In addition to getting his cards back, Player C gets a stern warning that he won't get this kind of do-over again, not even if he mucks two golden tickets to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.

A more curious question to me is this: Would it make any difference if he'd mucked facedown?

The AA hand is live as it "easily retrievable" (and since when does showing your cards "kill" a hand in a cash game when heads up?). All players are reminded that there are no magical properties ascribed to "the muck", and to pay more attention going forward.

Sure, but there are "magical properties" ascribed to throwing your hand in a clear discarding motion into the pile of dead cards on the table.

YES! YES! Please do! Pesky details like what the hell is really going on can turn out to be vitally important!

I want to know if there is precedent. If the host has made prior rulings in similar situations, then he needs to be consistent.

Otherwise, I would rule the hand live and let C call the bet. We know he isn't angle shooting. The decision to call all-in with AA is trivial. C should get a warning to pay better attention because he might not get the benefit of the doubt if this keeps happening.

DrStrange

The cards (AA) make this a little easier to deal with. If he does the same with 72 or KK, I'm still trying to clarify the action.

If D mucks (throws cards face down irretrievably into the muck), we've got another situation.

Yes sir, what do you say to player D if he claims the pot insisting that Cs move was a fold (unspoken) ? Messy.

It was a strange one on what C did. Maybe he didn't want to admit he wasn't following action. I thought C thru his cards face up on the muck?

I'm with the majority here as well.

D went all in, C tables AA. The fact that his cards touched the muck has no bearing, IMO. He tabled the nuts. I see no real angle that C could be shooting here, sounds like an honest mistake.

As to what to tell D if he has an issue? Well, buddy, you went all in, and your opponent showed you the best hand. You still have 18% equity...

yep and that's why the cards are retrievable and the strict rules let them be played even though his actions looked like a fold. There was no verbal by him. His reasoning made no sense, so I guess it was just likely a fixable mistake! In this isolated incident I can see both sides, but it looks like the majority on the forum say the best solution is to let C play his AA. Questions like the OP are really good for folks like me to get other folks feedback on possibilities that might come in a game where the decision might be on me!

Really?!? So on a flop of AAxxx, with no straight flush possible, I shove all in and get called. If I toss my cards face up (AA) toward the middle and they touch the muck, does that mean my hand is somehow "dead"?

I'm just saying that, in general, when a player does something that is otherwise a certain action—fold, call, shove, whatever—it doesn't matter what the "obvious" play was. That obvious play doesn't factor into whether he made the action.

For example, if the other player in your case had shoved, and you'd folded facedown (even if the cards don't touch the muck), you folded. It doesn't get much more obvious that you should've called, but you didn't. Maybe you misread your hand as 44 or A4. Who knows?

In OP's case, what if he'd done the same thing with KK? It's not the nuts, but for most people it's an obvious call. I'd contend that, if he should get his AA back, he should get his KK back too. He should also get J2 or 49 back. The strength of the hand shouldn't matter.

Poker is not Gotcha!

C tables his hand based on a gross misunderstanding of the action. Give him back his cards and let him act. I see no reasonable argument to do anything else.

IMO the fact that player C held AA is irrelevant to the ruling.

Player C mistakenly thought he hadn't gotten any callers and tabled his hand face up, complaining that he couldn't get action on AA, and he tossed his cards face up toward the muck. I did observe this, and his actions were consistent with somebody who raised and had not been called.

I argued for the ruling that Player C's hand was live and that he could call Player D's all-in raise. First, unless there is a house rule to the contrary, the muck does not have magical properties such that cards that touch it are immediately and always declared dead. Second, the cards were easily identifiable because they were face up. Third, it was clear to me that Player C genuinely misunderstood the action. There are several rules in RROP that allow for a player's hand to be considered live in these circumstances (already covered ITT).

Because we can rule out the possibility that Player C might have been shooting an angle because he had last action against an all-in player, we're not running the risk of rewarding unethical behavior. Inattentive, yes, but not unethical.

It was made clear to Player C that he needs to pay better attention, and I think that everybody who was present learned a little from this incident.

What's the discussion? Player C is last to act, the only other remaining player in the hand is all-in.

I can see a possible angle if C does this with TT not saying call hoping player D shows his cards. But that only would work once. Besides it's AA here so no angle would make any sense

This would be my ruling too. I always try to remind my guys to ask questions before acting if they are confused about the action.