Strangest hand of my career. $1-$2 (with $100 spread-limit):

I raise UTG, Bernie 3-bets me, and Jackie cold-calls. Folds back to me and I 4-bet, which sends Bernie into the tank. While Bernie is tanking, Jackie slides his cards over the line and releases them from his hand. Bernie kinda chuckles and says "well that sure makes my decision easier" and slides in the call.

This is where things go off the rails.

See, the dealer didn't push Jackie's cards into the muck after he pushed them over the line. So Jackie takes his cards back (still clearly identifiable) and announces "call."

Bernie gets furious, calls Jackie a dirty angle-shooter, and calls for the floor. (Of possible relevance: Bernie is in the 3 seat and Jackie is in the 6, so Jackie could clearly see Bernie still had cards.) The Floor's ruling was:

1) Jackie's hand IS still live, but

2) Bernie gets a do-over--his call of my 4-bet is taken back, and action is on him again, as though nothing ever happened.

Does that seem like the best decision?

No way I'm letting Bernie take back his call. I would consider Jackie's hand folded even if it isn't mucked. We're not talking about a case where someone misunderstands the action and is allowed their cards back, Jackie seems to have known exactly what was going on and folded. Bernie acted in turn and it should stand.

Jackie should also get a warning for acting out of turn.

I would think that out of turn action stands (unless there is a change in the action) and sliding your cards over the line when facing a bet is a fold out of turn.

Though it would be crazy if Bernie had raised and then Jackie was allowed to call.

That’s 100% what happened! And then it got back to me…Bernie’s “do-over” raise put him all-in for 120 BBs but Jackie had started the hand with over 200 BBs (I barely covered). I only have Queens and I’m thinking to myself that Jackie is pulling a huge angle-shot with Aces here cuz what other ****ing hand plays this way?!?

I agree with that if the room uses a hard line where your hand is dead if it crosses the line.

Otherwise, if moving your cards over the line doesn't kill the hand immediately, I'm not sure if that action should be considered a fold out of turn. If Jackie is a regular, there's a good chance he actually knows that his movement of the cards won't kill his hand. That said, even if that kind of action usually doesn't kill a hand, I'm OK with using rule #1 here and declare it dead anyway.

Giving Bernie the option for a do-over seems wrong to me. I would have his call stand and depending on house rules declare Jackie's hand dead or give him all options including raising.

I mean, this is obviously a terrible ruling. Do-overs? Not a chance, unless action changes to you. (which it can't if you're acting in turn)

If the dealer confirms that J pushed or threw his hand forward (over the line or not) in a manner consistent with how people fold, then his hand is dead because he folded (OOT). He was facing a bet or raise and threw his cards forward (facedown even). It doesn't matter if his hand is identifiable and retrievable.

If it's unclear (he moved his cards forward, but they are still in the area of his exclusive use and control, where players store their cards), then it's not dead. B has called, now it's J's action.

If it's in the middle between those two? You have a tough choice as floor, but I would err on the side of returning his hand to him, but then do the below.

Regardless of the above, if I think J is or may be angleshooting, I give him a warning, or 86 him if he's a repeat violator.

If it was discarded forward in a folding way, I probably talk to the dealer after the down about procedure when OOT folds happen. Typically you want to grab those cards and muck them, to avoid this kind of nonsense. But room procedures for that may vary, and depending on what the dealer is doing at the time or the action, it may be hard to manage instantly, so this may be more of a discussion than a KITN.

You can tell B that he needs to protect his hand and his action, and not commit to a call until he is sure J's hand has been killed in a cirumstance like this. There is no prize for acting fastest under unclear circumstances.

That may be what happened after the Floor's ruling but wasn't what I was talking about. I meant that given Bernie called if I was the Floor I would have ruled Jackie's hand a fold because the action hadn't changed and Jackie had folded out of turn. And Bernie's call would stand. Under no conditions can a player call a bet in turn and then get to change their action to a raise or a fold.

The Floor's ruling is absolutely crazy and put you in a horrible situation.

In these spots I always hope the Dealer will muck the hand even though the Fold was out of turn but as Dinesh points out it can be tough if the Dealer is focused on the player whose turn its on or if the Dealer has to do something else (like count the bet at the other side of the table and never sees the fold).

But it doesn't always happen. Some dealers just won't muck hands. It happened to me this year at the WSOP though a different situation. A guy bet the river I called with top pair and he mucked his hand. The dealer started pushing the pot to me but I realized worst case if I didn't turn my hand over and the guy who bluffed was able to pull back his hand and turn it over after the pot was pushed to me that he would be ruled as having won the hand if my hand was in the muck. So I asked the Dealer to muck the hand and not push me the pot yet. Which the Dealer didn't do. So I raised my voice and the dealer froze so I called the Floor over and the Dealer still wouldn't muck the hand after the Floor told him to. So the Floor mucked the hand. And then the pot was pushed to me and I didn't have to turn my hand over.

At showdown you can’t fold your hand… But this was not at showdown. The fact that his cards are retrievable is irrelevant. Terrible floor ruling. Probably someone who has never played poker in his life.

The two situations were similar to me because they both get resolved when the Dealer takes a mucked hand and buries it in the muck pile. Which was part of the discussion. In this case it was a fold facing a bet and I have seen a dealer many times take the hand and bury it in the muck pile even though it was folded out of turn. In my case it was a mucked hand at showdown which should be immediately removed and buried because that is the intent of the player who bet and is choosing not show it and it will prevent bad situations from happening.

So, sometimes releasing your hand with a forward motion to the dealer/muck is a fold; other times, it isn't and the hand is live.

And you wonder why people get confused?

People move their cards and release them all the time. For example when they have their cards very close to them on the table to look at their cards and then move them forward a little and cap them with a card protector or chip.

The question is how they do it and where their cards end up. Dinesh already elaborated on that. If someone throws their cards forward while facing action and they end up on the muck pile, we should assume they folded. If someone moves their cards up 2 inches to create space to assemble a bet, we should certainly not assume they folded. Everything in between is a grey area unless the card room enforces a hard line when it comes to moving your cards.

The game has a lot of nuances, so of course there will be exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. If you’re mad at that, blame people like the jerk in the OP who angleshoot. Sometimes rules have to be made to protect every player at the table, but these will create some confusing application of the rules.

Definitely wasn’t happening here…dealer was very green, that was in fact the third time of that down we’d had to call the Floor on him. (5 minutes before that it was when he didn’t know what to do when a guy responded to a $50 bet by throwing out three $25 chips…)

Not what either what is in this thread, or what I described.

I agree. In fact, I think that all cases where a hand is deliberately released toward the dealer, or muck - face down - is a fold and therefore, the hand is dead. What is annoying is the opinions expressed here fly in the face of the: "There is no magic muck" argument from previous posts.

To make a game run smoothly, intent needs to be expressed and understood clearly.

The #1 rule in poker - expressed, or implied - is to protect your own hand. Releasing it, unprotected should always be a fold. No matter if a rule states it or not. Are there exceptions? Sure, that's why we rely on the judgment of a floorman.

Nothing in this hand is about mucking though. We're talking about a situation where players are facing action to which they can respond with folding/calling/raising.

The "magic muck" conversation is one we have in situations where players do not face action.

Nobody in those other threads argues about what should happen if a player discards their hand when facing a bet.

One thing I agree with you on: If the difference between facing action on the flop and facing no action at showdown is difficult to understand for someone like you who has been playing poker for decades, I don't think it's fair to assume new players should know about that let alone understand it.

How did you even get to this hand if the dealer refused to muck cards in earlier hands??

This wasn't my thread (even though I'm posting a lot in it...)

What happens when dealers don't muck a hand at showdown that has clearly been mucked to avoid showing the exact bluff is that typically the other player shows their hand, gets pushed the pot, and because the guy who mucked was bluffing, its the best hand and that speeds things up.

With the relatively new rule in Tournament poker where the other player doesn't have to show their hand if the bettor has mucked, a lot of people just accept the pot that is pushed to them and the dealer then puts both mucked hands in with the other cards.

But if the Dealer happens to put the caller's hand in the muck pile first then the Bettor can grab the hand they mucked, turn it over and claim the pot. As the only player who tabled their hand.

How I get to the next hand is I demand that the dealer mucks the other players cards and stop pushing me the pot. If they don't stop I start yelling at them to stop. If they still don't stop I put my arm across the table to stop the pot from being pushed to me and start yelling for the floor. It happens rarely (twice to date when I was the caller). Most dealers are good or better than good. I am happy to expose the really bad ones to the Floor.

No they don't. They are completely unrelated.

No it doesn't. My home game runs smoothly despite a player who expresses an intent that contradicts the meaning of his one-chip calls, for instance. We don't even consider his intent.

Come to think of it, that player has tried to pull his fold back before. To consider his intent would actually give you the opposite understanding of reality. Not recommended!

You misunderstood my question.

I meant if the dealer is never mucking hands, how did you ever get from one hand to the next without the floor coming.

But now I guess you meant he only want mucking them in this exact circumstance, which hadn't yet come up. Still pretty bad though!

I understand your motivation but not your choice of action.

You're correct that all kinds of shenanigans can happen if your hand isn't the last one in the muck. So why not just hold onto your hand until then?

If questioned why you're holding onto cards with the chips in front of you, sure, explain what you explained here. But why would you demand the dealer not push you chips? Why would you raise your voice?

(One good reason I suppose is to train the dealer for other players who might naively release their cards. In that case "more flies with honey," &c.)

If the situation is seriously at a deadlock, and the opponent won't resolve the deadlock by verbalizing intent, and other players aren't pushing the dealer to muck losers, then sure, politely asking for a floor seems reasonable.

I started to say I couldn't believe the dealer would sit there, pot pushed, refusing to muck the opponent's pushed forward cards until you released your cards.

Then I recalled in Seattle once, where there's apparently a strong culture of not protecting one's cards, I got into a battle of wills with a dealer who would NOT push me the money until he had his cards back. (This didn't concern another live hand; rather, I'd learned from 2+2 and from my own experience in several other states to wait for the chips before releasing. No one had ever cared much until I moved there.) Apparently he was willing to slow his game down to teach me a lesson that my standard procedure in every other state with live poker would not fly there.

I should have just relented but I'm kind of proud I got asked to leave my first time there simply for PMH until the money was pushed.

So anyway I guess nothing is really that surprising in live poker.

For years the room I dealt at used the common rule that OOT folds are binding the moment it occurs, regardless of whether actions changes or not. So the cards were to be mucked immediately. But they were still dead even if left on table. Standard stuff.

Then one day management put out that if a player retrieves their folded cards before dealer mucks them they are still live, oot or in turn. Lots of us questioned why the change but never got an answer other than "thats the new rule". This was one of the largest and busiest rooms in the country, not some 5 table room somewhere.

"See, the dealer didn't push Jackie's cards into the muck"
Discarded hands.
While I understand the distinction you (and others) have made, I simply disagree. A hand released, face down, toward the dealer, or the muck, is a fold. Also, in a live environment, I know some agree with me and some agree with you.

Nice dig, though I'm unimpressed. I hope you feel proud of yourself for coming up with it.

You didn't introduce it as a disagreement between you and those people but as one between two positions held by those people. However, to those who acknowledge the distinction, there is no contradiction. The positions can be logically and — not sorry — easily held simultaneously.

Obviously if you won't acknowledge a distinction where others do, then you will see contradictions where they don't!