At the $300 buy in Saturday tournament I make a big bet on the river with the nuts. After some time my opponent throws his cards face up onto the middle of the table. It was really loud and I was in the other side of the table so I was not sure what his intentions were. I asked the dealer if my opponent folded or called. The dealer confidently tells me that he folded at which point I mucked my hand as the dealer pushes me the pot. After my cards are mucked 3 people on the other side of the table including my opponent say that my opponent said call. The floor was called and declared my hand dead since only my opponents cards are tabled. What do you all think about this ruling? Could this be a way to angle shoot if 3 people decided that they wanted to collude?

Never give up your cards until you have the pot. The cards are your receipt.

I gave up my cards after the pot was pushed to me

So, the pot was pushed to you and your opponent had not put his money in the pot to call? And you confirmed action with the dealer? You should absolutely have won the hand, although I'm not an official. This seems very bogus to me.

Did you opponent put anymore money in before the pot was pushed? Even one chip (which I hate)?

Awful spot, largely caused by dealer. There is a procedure in place for a reason. Dealer should first kill the other players hand. That will give him the opportunity to correct the dealer that he called instead of folding and prevents this whole situation from occurring.

Once the pot is pushed to you, you have to be allowed to release your cards, or else there will never be a next hand. If I were floor, I would have ruled in your favor for this reason, even though other players hand was the only one "tabled.". He put no money into the pot though, and dealer didn't hear it, so he helped cause the problem too and must bear the repercussions.

If you actually put your cards into the muck directly rather than just giving them to the dealer, I might be more tempted to rule in the other players favor, since that smells a little like an angle.

But given that dealer can confirm that you asked if he called, and that he told you he folded, and given that you didn't release your cards until after being pushed the pot, I would generally rule in your favor. But as I started with, it's an awful spot for the floor.

Seems like a bad ruling.

a. How good was his hand? Garbage? Third nuts?

b. I assume the dealer did not take his hand and shove it into the muck before pushing you the pot.

c. Why did you have to ask if he called? If the dealer though he had folded, he should have done b) and shove you the pot without you asking anything.

Villain had not put any chips in the pot. He claimed to have said call

A. He had top pair top kicker in a spot where I would have snapped called.

B. I mucked my cards before the dealer mucked my opponents hand. I didn’t think it mattered since the dealer told me he folded.

C. I understand that throwing cards face up onto the middle of the table is not a fold so the reason I asked the dealer if he folded is because I wanted to know if my opponent said fold. It was really loud and I was on the other side of the table. Nobody on my side of the table heard him say anything. This dealer seemed out of it. He told me the reason that he told me that my opponent folded is because he “spaced out” which is probably why he didn’t ship me the pot right away.

This may have helped:

You: did he fold or call?
Dealer: he folded.
You: so kill his hand, please.

You don’t want your cards in the muck with your opponents cards face up on the table; if he folded his cards need to be killed first. This story illustrates why.

Wow this sucks.

From now on, even after getting the pot,
I'm not giving up my hand until all other hands are buried deep in the muck.

FWIW, in a different setting (cash game, non all-in river bet) but similar situation (guy tables his hand, I confirm with the floor he folded and villain and the guy next to him claim he said ‘call’ after the pot was pushed my way) a floor at Bellagio ruled in my favor. Floor told the other player he has to speak up before the dealer is done pushing the pot my way.

This was a terrible ruling, and this conclusion is a logical one that sucks for the game.

Player in seat 2 tables a full house. Player in seat 8 tables a straight.

Dealer: Full House. Queens full of nines.
Seat 8: I'm old and I cant see his hand that far away.
Dealer: Hey, he wants to see your hand.
Seat 2: I'm not releasing my cards until you kill his hand.
Seat 8: I'm not releasing my cards until I see his full house.
Dealer: Please kill me now.

This is not what you said.

The dealer should have mucked the other player's hand, pushed you the pot, and then you should have relinquished your hand.

This was your mistake.

I mucked my cards at the same time the dealer pushed my the pot. As long as my opponents cards are tabled it can be retrieved out of the muck. So it doesn’t matter if my opponents cards are mucked first.

If his cards were mucked before pushing you the pot he would have a tougher time claiming the pot was his.

jk59876,
John here, Poker Manager at Golden Gates. I remember this situation since my Floor Supervisor came to me immediately afterward to discuss it. He was torn up about it because it was a peculiar situation and a tough decision for him to make. He is an experienced Floor Supervisor who knows his stuff, BTW.

I also spoke with the Dealer who said, like you wrote above, that it was a rather loud Saturday, that he was at the end of a long shift and he simply didn’t hear your opponent say “call”. He too is an experienced Dealer…who made a rather egregious mistake. I’ve made a few in my day.

I’m not making excuses here. Should the Dealer have asked for clarification of you opponent’s intention? Yes. Should he have mucked your opponent’s cards before pushing the pot? Yes. But the mistakes were made, so the Floor Supervisor had to make a ruling afterward.

The Supervisor called Surveillance to see what happened and they said that your opponent had the only live hand at showdown and that your cards were buried in the muck, so he made his decision based on that fact. And here’s why.

Colorado has a highly regulated gaming industry. Poker rules in CO are statute (as are all gaming rules here) - they are the law, not a recommendation or a guideline. Here’s a portion of the law regarding showdown from Rule 10:

“The following provisions govern showdown: (emphasis is mine)
(8) A hand discarded face downward that is not retrievable is dead even if it had been shown before being discarded, unless that hand had first been laid out face upward and flat on the table until having been seen by the dealer;
(9) A hand discarded by the dealer without objection is dead;
(10) If the dealer discards a winning hand without the player’s approval after the player holding the hand has laid out the cards face upward and flat on the table, the player is entitled to the pot if it is claimed before being taken in by another player;
(11) A player must object if the player does not wish the dealer to discard the player’s hand;”

From my understanding of this situation, you never tabled your hand and it was irretrievably mixed into the muck by the dealer without objection, otherwise you would have asked to retrieve them. From my experience with the CO Division of Gaming and the statements from the other players at the table, they would have agreed with the Floor Supervisor’s ruling here, following the letter of the law.

I’m not trying to jam it up your butt here - I know it sucks, and it kills me to award any pot to anything but the best hand. And it sounds like you legitimately had the best hand, but it was never tabled. We must follow the law here and it appears to me that the ruling made was appropriate, although not the ideal “poker ruling”. CO is a unique place, that’s for sure. In other jurisdictions, maybe the call would have gone another way.

This situation did not bust you out of the tournament. The Floor Supervisor recommended giving you some cash due to the extraordinary circumstances, which I approved, but you refused that offer. You also called the poker room 2 or 3 times in the days after to discuss it but declined when you were offered to be transferred directly to me.

I apologize that this happened to you. Feel free to come talk to me the next time you’re in the room or call me and we can talk about it further if you wish. My door is always open to discuss stuff with you guys. Just ask.

Ya sucks, very clear explanation and money back.. whatayagonnado¿? Forgetaboutit!!!

Very good explanation about the ruling and the CO gaming laws, etc., but the fact that the pot was already pushed to him seems to be ignored here.

Doesn't the other player have to object before the pot is finished being pushed to OP? From what I read, the objection came to late.

Thank you for the lengthy response in such a timely manner. I now know what to do if a similar situation occurs in the future. I too agree that even the best dealers make mistakes but in my 15 years of playing poker, I have not seen a mistake like this. Since you have offered to answer questions I have some for you. Why did the dealer tell me that my opponent folded? Did the dealer hear my opponent say fold? If true than doesn’t that open up a new can of worms? Does this dealer think that throwing cards face up onto the middle of the table is always a fold unless “call” is verbalized by the player? If the dealer should have mucked my opponents cards before pushing me the pot than does my opponent lose the opportunity to object?

I agree! My opponent had time to object when
A. I asked the dealer if he folded and the dealer replied “yes he folded”
B. The pot was pushed to me.
He waited until my cards were in the muck to object.

Thanks DuMaa, we appreciate you stopping by to give your perspective!

I think all seem to agree that the issue was caused (or at least made possible) in large part by the dealer not following procedure and both (1) not killing villain's hand immediately when he thought it was a fold, and (2) killing the "winning" player's hand prior to killing the villain's hand, and prior to scooping the player's hand up with the board. It's good that he was an experienced dealer, and everyone makes mistakes and I don't want to dwell on this one, but doing things the proper way should be habit, and especially if it was an experienced dealer who has a lot of muscle memory I would probably want to observe him in the future to make sure he doesn't routinely violate this procedure.

As uber noted above, I still have questions about the ruling even given what you outlined above, because of rule 10 which you quoted (emph mine):

As noted, the player's objection occurred after the pot had been pushed to another player, that player's hand had been given to the dealer, and the dealer had mucked his cards. I didn't see any definition of what "being taken in by another player" means, but being pushed the pot qualifies in my opinion. If you disagree, what definition are you using?

If not defined this way, then as noted above you should never, ever give up your hand because there is always a chance someone else is angling and has hidden their cards or something, and they can claim the pot after you by simply tabling it once your hand is mucked, even if you've only released your cards after being pushed the pot. That is not a tenable situation for anyone. You simply cannot punish a player who did everything right, including asking if the player folded, in this way.

(By the way, why didn't the villain or any of the other 3 players object when the dealer said the player folded? Why didn't floor take the dealer's word that he folded over the word of the villain and other 3 players?)

Having said all the above, if you offered the OP compensation for the error, and it was reasonable, then good on you. I still think it's a valid question to bring up here, even if he did turn it down, just to clarify things for the future if nothing else.

Thanks for posting this too. It's always interesting to read the gaming statutes (to some of us, anyway).

I'm not quite sure I agree with (what I think is) your conclusion that because it is statute and not gaming regulation, that you have less leeway to make proper decisions - I think other rooms governed by regulation also find themselves forced to enforce poorly written rules (my room in PA will ostensibly force you to table your hand at showdown to receive the pot, even if you're the only one with a live hand left, because of poorly written regulation), and I don't think your staff is under more burden because it is statute - it's not like they will be arrested for not following one, right?

I did a quick perusal and noticed a few interesting things:
* There doesn't seem to be any Rule 1, indicating that a ruling, even a ruling contrary to the rules, can be made in the best interest of the game. The closest I could find is this:
but it's in a section about dealing and premature flop/turn/rivers, not general irregularities. Man, that seems like a huge oversight.

* There are some terms used in it that I've never heard before, which seem to have been made up completely by CO rather than using more standard poker terminology. "Money on the piece" means cash plays?

I just would like to point out that it sounds like the poker room made a serious effort to “make things right” and I wish that OP would have mentioned that, at least in one of his several replies. That is an important part of the story, unless he disputes those efforts.

If someone googles the name of the poker room and lands here, they might only read the first couple of posts and conclude that a player got the short stick there without learning that the poker room manager actually tried to make the best out of pretty bad situation.

They offered me $50 in comps. The pot had 52k in chips in it (starting stack was 30k).

All that applies to when the pot is in the middle of the table.
Here he traded his cards for the pot.

47.1-1022 Required statements.
Revised 8/14/18
9
A player may substitute a gesture for a verbal statement of the player’s action. The dealer must announce it, and the player must correct the dealer before substantial action takes place. A player may verbally state an action as “check,” “call,” “raise,” or “fold.”

The player did not correct the dealer when he told me the player folded, he waited until there was substantial action (dealer awarding me the pot) (hero mucking his cards)