Well IF this happened then....

Don't care. I care what did happen. What DID happen was that his hand was face up. Obviously if the hand was mucked face down, it's a dead hand, because we don't know anything and we can't take his word for it. But his hand was face up on the table for all to see. There is a 0% chance he can lie about his hand to save himself.

Rule 1 is there specifically for situations like this.

It's a bad idea to ever assume that a guy wearing headphones "knows" anything about where the action is.

And making a ruling depending on the quality of a player's hand is terrible imo. Why is this a muck because he didn't have the nuts? So if you were the floor, you'd only rule this guys hand live if he had quads? Ok then.

Yes, I'm aware that his hand was face up. I'm equally aware that he was facing a bet.

Yes, there is 0% chance of him lying about his hand...but the tables shouldn't sway in his favor because of that. What are you implying when you say "But his hand was face up for all to see?" Who's "We all?" This isn't showdown. Which is my point.

We can go back and fourth on this, you can tell me that Rule 1 would favor player 2 in this situation and I guess I'd be hard pressed to have it ruled any other way if that was the case. But that doesn't change my opinion, which I know is in the minority----but, nonetheless I think it's a bad rule if they allow an uncalled mucked hand to now be retrieved from the muck based on the sole reason that everyone saw it. At some point, the player needs to take responsibility for his actions at the table. He had not one, but two people announce "ALL IN". He even had extra time(I don't care how long it was) to take his headphones off. Seriously, where was his head when this was going on? Looking down at his playlist? I don't agree to protecting players like this. But if that's how it is then maybe I should table all of my hands in the future before calling a bet just in case a dealer makes a mistake or better yet, if I'm in la la land.

Haven't you ever had a dealer (or witnessed a dealer) accidentally take someone's hand, prior to completing the action, and put it in the muck? What was the result of that?

It's a bad idea to ever assume that a guy wearing headphones "knows" anything about where the action is.

It's a bad idea to be wearing headphones while your in a hand. I never knew it was the table or dealers responsibility to wholly inform a player where he was in a hand. If he is IN the hand HE should know.

Why is this a muck because he didn't have the nuts? So if you were the floor, you'd only rule this guys hand live if he had quads? Ok then.

It's a muck because he threw his cards across the line without stating his intention to call the all in that both Player 2 and the dealer announced. I wouldn't rule this guys hand live in any case. It is the players responsibility to pay attention to what he is doing. Let's make it interesting....What if Player 2 DID have the quads. Now what does Headphones say? Is it a call or a fold? Is he still going to argue he called it? Sure give him the out to say he folded. What does the floor say? He obviously made a good lay down so its a mucked hand? Bad play should not be rewarded by the floor guessing what a player was thinking when he made a bad move that in any other hand would have been a muck.

What if something happened that didn't happen? I don't care.

I care about what happened.

This also isn't "any other hand". If this was "any other hand" this thread would not exist because nothing out of the ordinary happened.

I agree 100%. What happened was Player 1 was not paying attention. Missed Player 2 and the dealer announce "all in". Then without stating his action threw his cards across the line. Face up or down makes no difference. Mucked hand.

You are so wrong here.

edit - face up/face down doesn't make a difference, but the strength of his hand does? Yeah, that's not how it works.

I 100% agree, except I don't think a dealer should ever say "Do you realize that your opponent went all in." (Ok, so I 90% agree.)
If the dealer asks "Are you folding" it gives headphones the opportunity to ask the dealer to clarify action. That's good enough.
As it played out, I'm ok with the floor ruling the hand live. I don't listen to music while playing, but if I was distracted because my girlfriend/brother/friend came up to talk to me, I would like the chance to clarify my action. I don't see any difference between that and listening to music or podcasts.
But I'll be clear: I do not endorse headphone wearing in any way.

He didn't hear the player announce the raise.
He didn't hear the dealer announce the raise.
You think he's gonna hear the dealer say "Are you folding"?

At that point he's had three chances. If a player can say "all in" and the dealer can, again, announce "all in," THEN THE DEALER ONCE AGAIN ASKS TO CLARIFY ACTION by asking "is that a fold" then that's on him. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't hear the first two.
But after that, like baseball, three strikes your out.
F headphones if he is so far removed from the game he doesn't respond to that last chance.

Gross misunderstanding of the action (someone look it up in RROP if you want a reference, but it's there) combined with rule #1 if necessary. Player 2's hand is live and he gets to act.

But to be honest, I don't like it, and I'd make it known to Headphones that he's not getting any more freebies. Verbal actions are binding, and having an asshat at the table who can't be bothered to take 10 seconds away from his precious music to clarify things doesn't change that. Henceforth, any other headphone-induced errors are happening at his expense.

Think about it this way: How much are you willing to let Headphones get away with? Seriously, how many times can he be allowed to pull something like this and get a mulligan because he deliberately blocked out his own hearing and didn't clarify things? Imagine the angles available to a player who would get this kind of kid-gloves treatment.

+1

I'm not asking him.
I'm turning his hand face down and dragging it to the muck while watching him to see if he complains.
So player 1 said all in without putting any chips in?
He must have heard something or 1 put calling chips in as he announced all in.
If this is true dealer needs a KITN.

Semi-close to what I was saying. Give the guy a chance, and if he can't figure out what's happening that's on him. But I assume the dealer did drag his hand into the muck - because the OP said the dealer dragged it into the muck - and he still didn't say anything. Then calamity ensued.
I'm not saying it's completely logical here, but for some reason I like the third VERBAL announcement here. Maybe he didn't hear the first "all in," and didn't understand when the dealer repeated it. But after the third time you miss a verbal action it's clearly on you.

Ahh..... but the thing is .... its not the sole reason. The reason is that the player is saying that he did not intend to muck .... that his action was showing his hand when he thought his bet was called.

The fact that his hand was seen by all is not the reason to rule his hand live ... its the factor which makes it possible. Obviously if the hand was mixed in the muck face down and unseen it would be impossible to rule the hand live not because of application of the rules ... but by application of reality ... we don;t know what the cards are.

I know. You say it doesn't matter what the players intent was. But really how far are you willing to take that argument? The player picks up his cards to take another look while considering whether to call a bet but gets bumped from behind by a guy walking threw and he releases his cards over the line ... is that muck? becaus ethey went over the line of death. A player is turning to talk to the cocktail waitress and as he turns back he knocks some chips off his stack and they go over the line ... is that bet? I player puts out a larger c hip to call a small bet and the next player reaches out with smaller chips to make change .... in the betting area .... did he just act? I hope your answer to these questions was "of course not"..... and thus intent is relevant.

That doesn't mean we have to take the players statement of intent after the fact as the only factor .... just that it is part of the equation.


Well if it was face up ..... the result was the player got their cards back.

I'm snap mucking the 99 take your headphones off or leave earpiece out if need be

Why did it take several pages of posts for someone to identify whats important in the story?
Jdiamond has precisly correct, smart and practical J.
Folding face up or down makes no difference. I have less than zero sympothy for headphones and would chuckle when his eyes got big and the phones came off.
There is no ruling here, hand was over, enjoy.
There are way to many players who connect the dots and think what a player meant to do, instead of what they actually did. Floor persons often do the same in somewhat unduing what was done because of a verbalized intention after the fact. Ive seen more than several times floor ask a player "what did you mean to do" and construct a ruling around it. Then I chime in!

How much did Player 1 have behind the $40?

Maybe Headphones didn't hear Player 1 announce all in but when the dealer said Player 1 was all, it's possible he assumed that player 1 was in for less and was quickly tabling his hand then when the dealer started to muck he realized the action was on him?

Or maybe the he never heard anything but when the dealer looked at him he assumed a fold and was showing what he thought was a winner.

Regardless of the what ifs, based on OP, I agree, 20 seconds is at best really 10 seconds, and if the player instantly reacted to the mucking without seeing his opponents hand or gaining any new info I'm all for allowing a call and warning headphones to pay more attention.

So you wear headphones too huh?

Does the guy in the story still wear em or did he adjust?

Whats the cutoff? Lost pot exceeds 5x cost of phones leave em off for good. Were they gold and cz phones?

No I don't wear headphones and I've never been in this spot personally. I also don't care what the pot was or what his cards were or any if that, which is why i said "regardless of the what if's".

I care that the guy immediately objected to his hand being mucked along with the assumption (based on OP) that he didn't garner any new information from the other player tabling his hand or anything.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that he could have gotten additional info after he showed his hand. I'm not necessarily saying that he did it in this hand, but it would not be the first time someone turned up their cards to get a read on their opponent.

Yup. The old headphones on volume off, waitin to shoot angles.
His hand wasnt being mucked. It was mucked. He mucked it with another seat in the hand holdin cards and the action incomplete.

Where exactly did you see in OP, or anywhere else for that matter, that he mucked his hand? The dealer mucked it and he spoke up contesting that he wasn't mucking.

Also, no one ever said this room considers your hand mucked if you throw them in face up when facing a bet. Some rooms have that as a rule and some do not.

I agree some rooms will let the action of a live game exposed hand not effect the outcome of a hand. Then warnings etc will be issued. Most.of those instances involve accidental exposure or a player grandstanding when beat-almost always holding control of their hand.
I read it on page 1. Hand released in a forward motion past the betting line with the other player holding cards an action pending. Put your headphones on and read it again.

Protect your hand, protect your action.

I'm glad Headphones guy (HPG) was given a chance to act as intended, given the information we have. Lots of "If"s to sway things, but I don't like killing hands as a penalty.

Room Rules matter. The discussion means that exposing your cards doesn't mean mucking, nor does tossing them across the line face up.


Agree with those that question what HPG thought happened. Perhaps he thought instead of "all-in" the player said "call" without pushing chips forward? No reason for HPG to show unless he thought he was called. Clearly (?) quiet guy didn't muck his cards.


I do think each player needs to be responsible. They subject themselves to a ruling that may not go there way, or on the wrong end of a rule they didn't realize was in play at this particular table.

HPG turns over his full house, without tossing the cards forward, or calling the all-in, and NOW the dealer can clarify action. "The other player is all-in, action is still on you".

Sure, both HPG and quiet guy could be shooting angles. QG could be waiting for that exact scenario, for players to forget he is in a hand, or assume he mucked, just to show up with the last live hand and scoop an undeserved pot!

I think the hands matter. What if QG does have a better hand? Do we force him to fight for HPG to be able to make the call?