Three way action going to the flop. Player first to act looks toward me (I believe he wanted to just see if I had cards, which I did not). Somehow dealer interprets a check and announces check. Quickly before player had time to act, other players checked behind, when player attempts to bet $15.

Floor gets called when the player who checked last protested, and ruled significant action so the check stands. I can see that and no problems there. However he also went onto rule that since the player second to act folded his cards after the bet attempt ( but totally retrievable) but before the protest, had to have his fold stand.

This seems totally wrong and unfair. Is this any way a correct ruling?

This ruling seems wrong. You really can't have it both ways. Either, it went check, check, check, action is closed, or it went bet, fold, ???. Either the action was rolled back or it wasn't, I can't see the justification for having it both ways.

Also, if dealer rolled back the action to allow first to act to bet, and last to act did not object at that point, it seems to me that he would not have grounds to protest once middle player folds.

Hard to say what happened with the original out of turn action(if the players behind checked so fast that the acting player had no chance to stop them, it should be action on him), but it is possible that the floor made the rare trifecta, three bad rulings in one incident.

I’d find a way to force that floor to explain to someone else why the hand should be dead, if by calling another floor or supervisor or by writing an incident report. It’s just a godawful ruling made by someone who shouldn’t be making such rulings.

Just curious, when the second player folded in response to the bet attempt, did the dealer suspect that a ruling would negate the bet and so he didn't put the cards in the muck, or was this a case of a dealer improperly mucking the cards so they remained identifiable?

The betting line at Sands means everything. If your cards go past it, your hand is going to be ruled dead.

I didn’t notice the actual physical fold ( it may even have been just a verbal). All I know is that when the floor came over, player was in possession of his cards.

terrible ruling and another reason to take your business elsewhere while making sure to let then know why. play at parx.

If this is true, it shouldn't be called a "betting line". Moving cards forward is not a bet.

That should not apply in that situation. No one is arguing that his indication of a fold wasn't clear or binding, but that if you roll back action, you have to roll back action. You can't roll it back for some players, and leave it binding for others.

No. The hand should be live because...

of course the ruling could still be correct .... if the ruling is that the cards are not identifiable.

I know OP says they were .... but sometimes a player(s) are saying "its those two cards" but its not clear that they are......

I'm not sure if it is officially called the "betting line." However, it's irrelevant as you are arguing semantics.

At Sands Bethlehem if you place, toss or whatever other word you would like to use, across the line then your hand is dead.

Semantics, but with a point. That would be a very unusual, nonstandard rule. If that is actually the rule, the line should have some scary name, like maybe the "line of no return". At many places where it is called the "betting line" it doesn't mean anything official, not even for bets. It's just there to encourage players to place their bets where the dealers can reach them.

This isn't true. On some tables it's almost impossible to keep your cards behind the line in the 3 or 8 seats, the way the felt was laid out. It's not a magic hand killing line.

That's not true.

"Impossible to keep your cards behind the line" is a ridiculous statement. What do you mean "some tables"? All the tables are identical. Also there is still plenty of space to keep your cards behind the line at the seats you referenced.

Ask any floor or experienced dealer there and you'll get confirmation of what I said. I've seen it happen multiple times where players put cards on the other side of the line and tried to retrieve them. Their cards were no where near the muck and were as easily identifiable as humanly possible. Their hands were dead. This is the house rule at this casino.

Couple of things going on here .. with possibly a local rule mixed in to skew some posters.

1) Substantial Action is either A) any 2 actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds) or B) any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold). Posted blinds do not count towards SA. See Rules 35-D & 44-B.

Pretty simple here ... We didn't have substantial action via only TWO OOT checks behind the phantom Dealer created check.

2) There is a small door open that should the local rule apply to this 'line' on the felt then the 'folding' Player's hand is dead ... just as it would be if a BB folds his option by mistake. This spot that 'caused' the card action should be taken into consideration, but can also understand a Floor in this room, with this rule in existence, would rule the hand dead.

Two wrongs don't make a right ... Incorrect application of SA and 'over' application of the 'line' local rule. Floors need to have room for special circumstances in their rulings. In this case here either the bet (and fold) stands or the SA ruling needs to allow this Player to get their cards back in play. GL

I don't know how to make this any clearer for you but I'll try. There are some tables where the felt is not laid out evenly, and therefor on some tables the number of inches from the rail to the "betting line" in seat 3 is a lot lower than other tables and players routinely keep their cards half over the line. They're not grabbed and killed.


I don't need a floor or experienced dealer to confirm anything. I have more hours here than anyone on this forum by far. If someone places their cards across the line using forward motion, it's called a fold. Hand is dead.

I've never seen a dealer grab someone's cards and kill their hand just because they placed their cards in front of them but it was partially over the line. That's just ludicrous.

Even if the line rule was interpreted harshly, would it be negated by you protecting your hand with a chip? Someone mucked their hand directly onto my cards and my hand was auto declared dead.

If I get b came unidentifiable mixed then your hand should be dead.

Also just like the muck isn’t magic a chip on your cards is not magic either. It should help prevent some bad things but only help. YOU are responsible to protect your hand not an inanimate object.