Correct they shouldnt be retrievable.... but they were therefore it is a live hand all day. (in any room that doesnt have a magic muck rule)

The casino, which I started playing poker in, enforced the bet line rule and they also had a local rule. If your cards touch any part of the the flop, pot or muck, they were considered dead, whether or not they were face up or down. This kept people from throwing their cards around. Back to your question, it will depend on the local rule. If their rule says they can pull the cards out of the muck, so be it. I personnaly think it is horrible rule.

I was in seat 9 and this was a heads up pot. I never saw his cards until they were retrieved.

Hand was mucked. You win.

Nobody disagrees that OPTAH was violated. But most people think that a OPTAH violation should not kill a hand and that the person to punish for said violation is the player who committed it by speaking up and not the player that received unsolicited advice.

Also, nobody disagrees that the hand shouldn't be retrievable. But that doesn't mean it can't be retrieved if it is retrievable anyway. The person at fault for that is the dealer, not the player who tried to muck.

So yes, OPTAH violation and yes, hand shouldn't be retrievable. But that doesn't change the fact that in the end, the hand was up face-up on the table at showdown in which case the best hand should win. That's what happened here. Blame the player who violated OPTAH, blame the dealer who didn't muck the cards but don't blame the player who realized he had a winner that was still retrievable and acted accordingly.

Hand wasn't mucked. He lost.

Unless you agree with me, in which case it was mucked.

I am merely stating the fact that hero did not win. I don't think that's up for interpretation?

Pretend he said: "My ruling would have been: Hand was mucked, you win."

Here's the thing - if the hand was actually mucked it wouldn't be retrievable.

Evidence that in poker, you can please no one, ever

grunching: one-player-per-hand. Seat 2 didn't know what he had. Seat 6 cannot see seat 2's hand and help him by telling him what he had.

Looks like there should be a surrendered cards rule for cases like this.

It was mucked originally. So if his hand is retrievable, isn't it pretty much the same as a player checking all mucked cards for accidentally mucked winners then when he finds one, shows the dealer he should win the pot?

Why would you answer at all, much less with a "yes"?

If the hand being disputed is the current hand, I'll honestly answer questions from the dealer and nobody else.

If I'm asked about a past hand, I generally feign confusion and pretend I don't remember. Or I say I only saw one card and it was a (whatever card is not disputed).

Revealing to people that you remember prior hands in detail is a bad strategic move.

It is different if the dealer can clearly identify the cards.

In a situation where the cards are thrown face down and barely touch the muck, I think those cards should be retrievable if they would be retrievable if they were thrown face down and barely missed touching the muck, if only to drive home the point that a magic muck rule is stupid.

I don't believe the question is if the cards "touched the muck". They were intentionally mucked by the player, and his neighbor who saw his un-tabled hand said "you mucked the winner".

If a railbird standing behind a player see's his cards, and after he mucks he screems and points at his mucked cards "Turn them over, he just mucked the winning hand!", are his cards now live?

Yes. If the cards are identifiable and retrievable, then they may (and should) be ruled live.

Cards are not mucked until they are placed into (and not on top of) the muck pile, so that they become unidentifiable and irretrievable.

That is what makes cards mucked. Throwing them forward doesn't make them mucked. Having them touch the board, someone else's cards, or the muck pile doesn't (necessarily) make them mucked. They are mucked when they are no longer identifiable and retrievable.

(Contrast this with folding when facing a bet. If you are facing a bet and throw your cards forward, your hand will likely be ruled folded, regardless of whether they are still identifiable and retrievable. This is doubly true if your action causes players behind you to act.)

The question is when a discarded hand becomes irretrievably mucked. I have played in places where you can throw your cards face down across a betting line at showdown, realize you have a winner, and still turn them over to take the pot. The ruling for whether that hand is retrievable should be the same whether or not someone has violated OPTAH.

Each room has its own house rules on the borderline between a hand being retrievable and irretrievable. I think it is silly if the border is drawn between a hand barely touching the muck pile and one barely not touching the muck pile.

I think the rule should be clearly stated and consistently enforced. I don't see any particular reason why the rule on what is retrievable vs irretrievable has to be exactly the same in every single room.

I am fine with a room allowing the retrieved hand to win the pot at showdown in this case, pending further information, so long as this is something that is predictably and consistently enforced in the room.

There are multiple steps to mucking, as dinesh pointed out. In this case, the dealer did not do his part of the job. So no, the hand was not mucked even though the player had the intention to muck.

It's great how everyone trusts the dealer these days.

hand was never mucked

Late to the party, but I'll help with the push for 100! Love how this thread maneuvered around a few topics that always seem to be hot buttons in every room. As a couple have mentioned .. You need to pay attention to the difference between opinion and reality. The consensus is that this is still a live hand in most rooms .. whether you agree with this or not wont change a 'proper' ruling.

NEVER 'announce' a tabled hand unless 'all' the hands are tabled and there seems to be a delay or confusion between/with the Dealer and involved players and ESPECIALLY if the pot is being pushed to the wrong player.

Tough spot with the whale .. I may have just said I forgot what you showed (or what was on the Board), but I also can't say I wouldn't have said the same thing or said "I was hoping you tabled your hand there."

The 'size of the pot' comment just opens the door to the 'how big of a mistake does it have to be before you "report" it' conversation. It also is sour grapes at the 'variance' of the situation since the guy could've tilted off even more money for the table to collect!! GL

So if the dealer swept the cards in like they should have before pushing the pot are you saying the dealer would have been killing a live hand?

That's what dealers do, they kill live hands. How are they supposed to kill a dead hand?

hand isnt mucked til it is irretrievable... The dealer should have mucked that hand then pushed pot to only remaining hand.