it was tabled when player reached over and tabled it... if it was mucked that ouwld be impoosible

Not tabling his hand is the compelling reason why villain doesn't get to win the hand. Saying "good hand" reinforces the floor's decision, and eliminates the possibility that villain meant to table his hand, except that the cards landed face down when he tossed them forward. And I think we're all pretty clear that there's no such thing as an ironclad rule of poker that applies to every poker room in the world at all times.

u do realize original poster said villains hand was tabled before it was mucked... this is not in dispute.

Original post does not say that. In fact no post by OP specifies anything about tabling. I will say since the hand at some point the hand did get tabled it gets paid.

Yes, but at a different point in time. The part OP clarified was about villain showing his cards to two other players, but nobody else. That was before one of those guys told him he had the winner. Most floors would rule that the hand wasn't tabled at this point.

The fact that the hand was tabled later is a different issue.

There was no floor decision, at least not discussed ITT. And you also realize the pot was pushed to V and not OP. And it certainly appears V did not table his hand originally, at some point by someone the hand did get tabled.

I 100% agree with this opinion, but the vast majority of rulesets disagree with it. As suit said, the determining factor of this is what "in the muck" meant. If both cards were identifiable then V should be allowed to retrieve his hand and table it. It doesn't matter who said what, or who tabled the hand. The hand was tabled, so if it was the best hand, it wins.

KITN to the dealer for not killing all hands before pushing the pot.

If I have a reason to believe the idiot who spoke up did this intentionally trying to help V (it was his friend, spouse, etc), then I may just hand the player a rack. If it's just somebody trying to be nice while not realizing what they are doing is wrong (which it normally is), then a one time only warning should suffice.

Good chance I'm buying OP dinner or something similar though. ****ty way to lose, but the correct ruling was made.

Few things add;

- Magic muck rules are dumb. Just because the slightest bit of a card touched the muck doesn't mean it should be dead (in most rooms). If the card is clearly identifiable and retrievable, it should be live.
- Nothing you say at showdown can kill your hand. "You win", "I fold", "good call" mean nothing at showdown.

"he cards are retrieved and turned face up and the pot is shipped to him."

I took this to mean player grabbed his cards and tabled them or the dealer did. either way hand was tabled by someone before they got mucked.

Are we discussing rules and how this should have been handled if it had happened in a room that has its act together? If so, then this is worth a bit of discussion.

Or is this whole thread just a recap of something that happened one time at a table somewhere? In which case this isn't interesting at all. My posts are all about how a decent room should handle a situation like this if it were to come up.

This is at least the third thread in the last couple of month that had a hand declared live at showdown after a player tried to muck before tabling a winner after another player committed a OPTAH violation.

There might be selection bias because players are less likely to post about their encounters if they don't feel screwed. But absent that, I believe that is the standard ruling in well run card rooms in the US.

I also don't believe that a player should be able to kill another players hand by committing a OPTAH violation. Otherwise, you could give somebody unsolicited advice to kill their hand.

I completely disagree that this is a standard ruling in well-run card rooms. As stated in my first response, the villain's intention was to muck his hand. He tossed his cards forward, face down. That's enough to award the pot to the hero on its own. Plus he said "good hand" which all but eliminates the possibility that he meant to table his hand but that he got clumsy and the cards flipped over by accident.

I do agree that you shouldn't be able to kill someone else's hand via OPTAH for the same reasons you cited. You also didn't mention, but I'll add that just because the guy sitting next to me says "Does anyone have a club?" it doesn't mean that I wasn't going to table my flush anyway... An over-the-top OPTAH violation should result in a stern warning, and at most the removal of a player or players from the room for 24 hours but shouldn't affect the determination of who wins the pot.

But just to play devil's advocate, I'll also remind you that players shouldn't be showing their cards to other players ever, for any reason. Yes, we see it all the time and it's typically harmless, but it's also against the rules. Just because the guy sitting next to you folded his hand doesn't mean that you should offer him a sweat of the hand you're playing in the spirit of trying to be a good neighbor.

I have no super strong opinion, but the fact that the hand was ruled live in all cases that were presented here and that Suit agreed they should be ruled live, makes me think a well run card room does rule them live.

There was a hand that occurred similarly to this at my local casino. At showdown, some guy attempted to table his hand and while doing so, accidentally bounced one of the cards from his hand into the muck. Most people at the table saw the mucked card was the A, tabled card was A, giving him the winning hand.

But because the one card landed upside down into the muck, the floor ruled that his hand was dead. He ended up throwing his chips at the other guy and got kicked out. The pot was like $75.

I want to comment on this red part specifically:

There was once a time when I was playing $1/$3 at the casino. I'm sitting next to a reg and opposite to a fish. The reg makes a bluff, the fish calls, the reg tables his hand, everyone is silent (including the dealer) and the fish is staring at the board trying to work out if he's good or not. Then I call out "oh, he has nothing" and then the fish tables his hand and wins the pot. Then the reg yells at me - his face so red he looked like he was going to punch me - telling me that I had no right to say anything. Everyone else, including the dealer, was silent and no one stood up for me, so I just assumed I was in the wrong and apologised.

Are you telling me that I was actually in the right here and the reg was wrong?

There's some nuance but 'he has nothing' is going to feel a lot worse than 'he has ten high'. Totally emotionally based and you can easily rationalize that they are the same comment, but saying 'he had nothing' feels a lot more like saying 'just table your hand'. I'm not saying anything on the right and wrong here obviously.

"He has nothing" is not a great way to do it. If you're going to read his hand, then read his hand. "K high", etc.

Some players won't appreciate you getting involved. Too bad for them.

In general, I don't get involved unless the dealer misreads a hand, or a player is obviously having trouble reading someone else's hand (as your experience seemed to be). I would have no problem with you reading his hand properly, and would defend your right to do it if needed.

Last casino session was with a loose player who could show up with almost anything at showdown. He seemed to go for some thin value on the river, and as a result when tabling his hand, the opponents always took a long look at his hand, the board, their hand, the board, his hand, the board, their hand, the board, his hand, the board, their hand, the board....

I stayed quiet at first, but after a couple of times I mistakenly told the other player just to table their cards. After they did, and it was a loser, I apologized to the winner. If the slow reader had shown a winner, I would have felt terrible. He said he wasn't worried about it, didn't want to win a pot with a losing hand. I stayed quiet after that.

Of course, he wasn't exactly declaring his hand either. Dealer would push cards up, but not declare the hand verbally.

I think the dealers, and other players are quick to point out 'strong' hands that are likely winners. It seems they are quiet when 3rd pair with a kicker that doesn't play is shown, as if they don't want to point out it's not strong.

You weren't even close to being in the right. It's all our responsibility to ensure that the best tabled hand wins. In your spot, there hadn't been 2 tabled hands, and you reading out what has been tabled is terribad. (Obv we've all seen worse, but still, your example is pretty icky.)

Speak up when you see a pot getting pushed to the wrong player; that's not what was happening at your table.

You need to be very careful when saying or doing anything that might influence what a live player does when you aren't in the hand. You would be in the right to correct a misdeclaration. You would have been technically in the right to declare his tabled hand, but it is typically considered poor etiquette (a lot of players don't even like the dealers declaring their tabled hands, but that is pretty indenfensible). Saying 'He has nothing' makes you completely in the wrong.

Really, just speak up when the pot is going to the wrong player, otherwise it is best to stay quiet.

No. Any player may read a tabled hand.

If it a player is taking too long I’m all for reading the tabled hand. If this upsets anyone because they’re hoping the player mucks a winner then screw them. I don’t care about their feelings if they feel they deserve to win pots in an unsportsmanlike manner like that.

Perhaps 6bet should have not used the words “nothing,” but correctly declaring a tabled hand is totally acceptable.

few years back in a 1-3 game in vegas, I was not in the hand.
player A shows a J high straight, player B with cards in hand shows me his cards and says I missed my flush and mucks.
what I saw was he backdoored a Q high straight but I said nothing
A couple hands later he said to me I mucked the winner didn't I , I responded yes; he was then mad at me for not telling him at the time and couldn't understand the rules of one player to a hand and he needed to put it face up on the table for others to help.
he then got up and left, everyone was mad at me as he was a big fish.
the winner of that hand said it was a small pot you should have told him.
I said and if it was a $600 pot would you still say that?

^ I believe you should never comment on a hand that some guy only shows you. After it is tabled it is certainly OK to speak up if you want. Personally I tend to never speak up unless I am still in a hand. That's just how I am. Others may think differently I know.

So were seats 3 and 6 his only opponents in hand? Either I'm not following, or you are giving details one drip at a time.

Was his opponent in seat 8, 9 or 10? If so, hand was mucked.

If his opponents were seat 3 or 6, then he showed and wins.

I'm surprised how many people think the hand should be live. A player who briefly flashes his cards to his neighbors before he intentionally mucks the hand should not have any further claim to the pot.

They shouldn't be retrievable if they were mucked face down and his intent was 100% clear he wanted to muck his hand. Since the hand wasn't tabled, the other players are not obligated to read the hand and help the player to either table or muck his cards. In fact, doing so is a violation of OPTAH AINECAA.

Some thoughts:

Bolt said:
According to about 100,000 posts on this board, alot of people think they gain tremendous amount of insight from seeing what cards others play. So, while I don't really believe it, maybe he was doing all of them a favor at the table.

browni said:
Pretty much yeah, I agree. If someone wants to glare at me in a harsh tone of voice because I cheated them out of a pot that they lost, I can handle it.

Bene G said:
I don't even like it when people show me their cards, cause all that can happen is that I'll give something away. I'll be glad to talk about it after the hand.