To me that's the best approach to handle a situation like that.

In OP's example, player B racked up and left. Did he come back on a later date?
Gotcha poker chases new players away. Do we really want that?

The people that want to gleefully reward the pot to Player A are some of the most annoying people in poker I bet.

@CRD…I am not seeing many here gleeful to award pot to A. Most are saying that is the “rule” ruling but most also say they want to find a way to award pot to B. Knowing and stating the formal (which btw matches what actually happened) does not mean we are gleeful.

@bolt/madlex… the nittiest rules nits (not my position) will say doing or saying anything, even just waiting, out of the ordinary to influence B to change, correct, clarify his intent could be considered violating OPTAH. Obviously if intent is unclear, we need to clarify the players intent but only with the softest brushstrokes.

I view it like baseball. The best umpired games are those where after the fact you can’t think of any specific calls made. They just quietly, invisibly in plain sight just do the job.

I'll admit I've done a few slow mucks in my time, but less and less as time goes on. It's bc I feel like I am taking action that deliberately affects the outcome of the hand. Plus, I feel like that whole procedure leaves the room open to accusations of favoritism. What if I slow muck and eyeroll a player I like, but instamuck an *******? As satisfying as that is, it isn't providing a fair and equitable experience to all players. And is it fair to the other player, who would have won the pot had I mucked at normal speed, to have me do an out of the ordinary procedure on behalf of the other player? I've come to the conclusion that it isn't.

If the first player tables AA for top pair, and then a player flashes, but does not table KK, but rather tosses KK face down as a muck, not realizing he hit a one card flush, I sure am not going to slow muck it and glare at him hoping he realizes his mistake before the cards hit the muck. While everyone (except the loser) wants the best hand to win, it is the players responsibility to properly table his cards. I just don't feel that a dealer should be inserting themselves into the action and affecting the outcome. If I player doesn't know the rules, or a player misreads his hand, it's not up to the dealer to correct him while the hand is going on.

Going back to the original OP, it is my opinion that unless a player is actually playing his first day of live poker, it is unlikely he doesn't know the rule about showing 2 cards to win. Every rule set states this clearly; and if he played more than a couple of hours, he would have seen every single winning hand at showdown table two cards. And if by chance someone had tabled only one, he would have seen that corrected. So I am not as sympathetic to the "he didn't know" excuse. Rather it is much more likely that the guy knew exactly what he was doing, and made a decision to try and get away with not showing his other cards.

And ultimately, the way a new player learns the rules is by having them enforced. When a player silently tosses out a oversize chip intending to raise, we don't let him raise. We tell him the rule is that is a call. He may end up getting his AA cracked bc he didn't raise, but that's a lesson learned.

Sure - “have to show two to win” or “show both or fold” are both fine. In my room this is what the dealers would say. I’ve never seen a dealer sweep cards in the muck when one is up and one is down, without trying to clarify what the player trying to do.

This always comes up, but another person violating OPTAH cannot kill a player's hand.

In this case, dealer's comments would be indirect enough that players likely would not complain, but if they did, the floor would likely warn them against making any comments that might influence action.

I am really tired of players slowing down the game by taking forever to properly table their hands. Rooms should care, too, because fewer hands per hour means less rake.

Procedure in this scenario should be designed to make the game go faster. Dealer ought to be allowed to tell the player to turn over both cards to claim the pot instead of calling over the floor to do exactly that. Why not use common sense over rule jittery about OPTAH?

I also play with some annoying slow rollers who will coyly turn over their pair. When the dealer reminds them to turn over both to claim the pot, they reveal their set. I'd love for a dealer to muck their cards and cost them a pot, teaching them a lesson about being a douche at the table.

These are the only instances of when I'm slow-mucking.

1. The board is something like 10JQKA with no possible flush and one of the players says "I play the board" as he tosses his cards face down. Clearly he's not intending to surrender his hand.

2. Player tables one card that would clinch the pot, regardless of what his kicker is (such as the example in the OP).

3. Player A goes all-in on the flop. Player B and C are playing for a side pot. On the turn, Player B bets and Player C folds. Player B tosses his cards in face down. It's common for a player in this situation to think that all of the other players have folded and that he's forgotten all about Player A.

4. A player awkwardly tosses his cards forward and it's unclear whether he meant for them to land face down. I'll give him a chance to retrieve them and table them.

In the example of a player flashing two cards that could win a pot but not tabling them, I'm turbo mucking them as soon as they hit the felt no matter who the player is.

Need to show both cards to win. Usually dealer will provide a verbal reminder of that.

If after that both cards still aren't revealed I agree Dealer doesn't have right to turn hand face up - putting the cards in the muck is fair.

This is also a good reason to hang onto your cards until you know the outcome of the hand.

In order of strict, and technically correct (though not necesarily in the best interest of the game), the dealer could

1. Muck the discarded hand instantly.
2. Slow muck the hand while looking expectantly at the player
3. Ask a clarifying question like 'Is that a fold?' or, even better, 'What is your intended action?'
4. Make an indirectly suggestive statement 'Two cards to win', 'Both cards must be face up to play'
5.Give direction 'Flip both cards up'
6. Directly intercede and flip both cards up themselves.

Almost every player and floor would be fine up to #3. Around #4, you start skirting with OPTAH. 5 and 6 are clear violations of OPTAH

Most of the time, no one will criticize a dealer for doing #4. But if they chose to make an issue of it, the dealer would probably be advised to not make any comments like that when a player is acting. Some rooms even specifically have an injunction against clarifying rules, even if asked directly, in the middle of a hand.

Agree with everything browser said here.

Agree except for #2.
I don't read one card hands.
If he tables one card I don't know if he realizes it would clinch the pot.
Looks kinda like a fold to me so I'll ask, "Are you folding?".

Maybe thinking of OPTAH as an inviolable principle is as dumb as the idea of a magical muck.

I want to say I saw something similar at PH some years back. Memory may be faulty, but here's what I recall.

Board something like QJ864.

A: properly tables hand, something like jacks.
Dealer: "Pair of jacks"
B: shows a Queen, but second card down, as in OP
Dealer: "Still a pair of jacks"

Not sure if B figured it out and properly tabled, or not. I want to say the intention was to give a little leeway to B, without giving them actual instruction.

What if in #1, the player didnt say I play the board? Is it not then the same scenario as #2? In both cases, the player is tossing forward a hand that is not properly tabled. In both cases, the player has no verbal statement declaring whether he is mucking or is just unaware of the need to show both cards to claim the pot. And in both, the dealer knows that the player has won at least a portion of the pot bc in both cases the dealer knows that no matter what the down cards are, he still has a winning hand.

So why should dealers be expected to alert the player in #2 that he needs to show both cards to win, but it is not normal procedure to alert the player in #1? It seems like in case #1, despite the fact that the entire table knows he won half the pot, we say "too bad, he should know that you have to table both cards in your hand to claim the pot. " but in #2, we say, well he might not know the rule and it would be unfair to muck his winning hand, so we will remind him of the rule?

I believe that the rule about the need to table your hand to play the board is likely less well known than the need to table both cards bc when playing the board the cards in your hand are meaningless. So if the reason we allow a warning to the player in #2 is a presumption of ignorance of the rule, I think it is the exactly the same presumption that should be given to the player in #1.

He got that from me.

So, you think it is OK for a player or dealer to influence action?

Magical muck is not supported by common rule sets. OPTAH is in the rules.

I think it ought to be a dealer's job to move the game along when action is complete at showdown.

I think OPTAH should be defined in terms of strategy, not procedure. Telling someone they should table their hand is maybe wrong. The dealer telling them they have the option to table their hand and that they need to do so to claim the pot should be okay. This includes defining what a properly tabled hand is. The player still has to decide if they want to table their hand.

Another problem with modern dealers.
The river gets called and the dealer says "Turn them up.".

Is it one 'Player' to a hand or one 'Person' to a hand?

A Dealer is an (independent) administrator of the game, trying to maintain an outcome neutral approach to assist in keeping the game fair and moving along based on the tone of the room.

There are times to 'lawyer up' and times to keep things moving along. The Dealer can say 'Showdown', but can't say 'Turn them up'? Players are supposed to know what to do at Showdown. Dealer's can't confirm whether or not a Player can back-raise, but they can answer 3-4 questions that get the same result .. advantage Players who know what questions to ask in what order!

I will lean on a comment I just made in another thread. IMO it's in the Dealer's best interest to let the Floor be 'the ass' of the room. A floor's income is very unlikely to change based on a ruling or two whereas a Dealer is there to provide a service which is traditionally rewarded with tips (variable income).

Dealers have long circumvented the black and white letter of (all 60+) 'laws' of poker in TDA in and effort to keep the game moving, which keeps their income moving. Players are lulled into a reliance on the Dealers to keep them on the straight and narrow path. So it really shouldn't be a shocker when a Player actually runs into a 'tighter' Dealer and a fuss ensues.

It should be no shocker that I lean towards the Dealer 'not' mucking this hand without first calling the Floor over. But I will also acknowledge that Dealers are human and thus take various levels of taking things into their own hands to keep the game moving along .. and most certainly they may let their own personal feelings, or maybe just be having a bad day, lengthen or shorten their fuse of the moment. GL

I don't think you two are necessarily disagreeing. BD's definition of a OPTAH violation is found after #4 in Spewing's well-thought list. Mine is too.

It is wrong for a dealer to violate OPTAH, and <= #4 is still within the bounds of OPTAH. These positions are in agreement.

If you aren't allowed to ask bystanders for advice, it should at least be "person".

Are you allowed to ask your service dog though? One bark means call, two barks means fold?

lol .. dogs can sense fear. I might protest having one at the table!

I know you know what I meant (the Dealer is not a bystander) .. but one could argue that Dealers are people too! GL

So.....in this post, you basically 100% agree with my original post, where you stated that I was mistaken. So, your point was........