It is absolutely unacceptable for the dealer to push me the pot when the outcome of the hand has yet to be determined. I would prefer for the Floor to see this behavior than to defer and have the Dealer think they are doing the right thing.

If the dealer isn't responding to the reality of the situation when I calmly explain it and is continuing to do a very wrong thing then I raise my voice to get their attention and stop their action. Yes they may get mad at me but it changes everything. The Floor if they are in the area will hurry over.

I could also say that when my anger gets riled up I raise my voice. And that would be true. In this case I am feeling threatened which is what actually drives my anger.

I would say in 17 years of playing professionally I have raised my voice 4 times at a dealer. Two of the times it involved the dealer pushing the pot incorrectly and I was trying to stop them from doing the wrong thing when I was in the hand. Once it was when a dealer overtly lied about what happened at the table after calling the Floor over for no reason. And the other one was when a dealer (and I) were told to stop talking about something by a Floor and then when the Floor left the dealer immediately began talking about it again (and putting me down).

The problem arises from trying to create rules from exceptions.

This isn’t really that confusing. If you are facing a bet and release your hand with a forward motion, you have folded and your hand is dead. If you are not facing a bet (such as at showdown) and do the same, your hand is not dead and you may retrieve and table it so long as the dealer has not mucked it and the cards are clearly identifiable. The key difference is whether or not you are facing a bet.

Looks like to some people it is that confusing. We should never assume something is obvious to everyone just because it is obvious to ourselves. I didn't mean it as a dig or in any kind of mean way when I said that if the concept is difficult to grasp for someone as experienced as JayKon it's probably also difficult to grasp for a lot of other players.

It's also fair to ask *why* there's a distinction between facing a bet and not facing a bet. Personally, I think the way it is handled right now is in the best interest of the game even though it might be non-intuitive to some. But I get why some might disagree with that.

Since you believe one can fold at showdown, even though it has been explained to you numerous times, I understand why you are confused.

58: Non-Standard Folds
Any time before the end of the final betting round, folding in turn if there’s no bet to you (ex: facing a check or first to act post-flop) or folding out of turn are binding folds subject to penalty. See also 15-B.

68: When folding, cards should be pushed forward low to the table, not deliberately exposed or tossed high


As has been pointed out directly and indirectly .. this thread is about two things ..

1) Was Jackie's OOT 'action' a binding Fold? .. and ..
2) If not, how was the Floor to handle the spot when called into it.

So #1 is pretty easy .. The Floor ruled that Jackie didn't act OOT. Whether or not Jackie gets talked to about his 'arbitrary' actions is tied to the house rules. The Dealer should also discuss the spot away from the table (unless they actually did act according to house rules).

Next, is there an avenue where Bernie gets a do-over? IMO if the Floor feels that Jackie did pull an (extreme) angle then there's a crack of opportunity for Rule #1 to kick in. This is by no means part of any rule set I've ever run across. Typically an angle is 'legal' and therefore shouldn't change the normal course of the hand and the Player pulling the angle is (sometimes) talked to after the hand.

I don't like the ruling, but I can see where it's 'possible'. Who is harmed by the do-over? You can argue both ways. Bernie gets to reconsider his action with additional intel on Jackie. Hero is sitting there behind all the action knowing both Players have interest in continuing. You have to get by the fact that Jackie's hand is not dead. IMO Hero is probably harmed the most since he may now get 'forced' out of the hand instead of seeing some cards. Is it fair to 'protect' Bernie's action in lieu of Hero's? I think not .. but as we've all seen, never say never in poker.

Angles and penalties are 'always' taken care of after the hand is over .. Dealer, we have a call and call .. let's see a Flop. GL

Not to be RESULTS ORIENTED, but what happened:

Bernie did in fact get to re-shove. Jackie called the re-shove. I’m pretty sure Jackie is angle-shooting us both with Aces (while I only have QQ) but figure I’m close to having set odds and also figure there’s a chance he’s not cheating, he’s just dumb, so I re-shove when it gets back to me. Jackie calls.

Queen in the window and I triple up. Jackie just had AK. Bernie doesn’t show.

Interesting dynamic that Bernie was willing to take a Flop HU against Hero but not willing to do so unless Jackie was all-in.

There will be some eye rolls now that you brought up set odds .. It comes down to your range against Bernie's since the side pot is fairly large and/or what percentage of your stack was already committed after you 4b. If you look at 80bb as a 'unit' you're only getting 2.5 to 4 in the combined pots and 1 to 1 (really worse) in the side.

IMO Bernie may have had AA/KK and just didn't want to see an 'opposite' card OTF.

Nice win .. Not sure if you should tip the Floor for the bad ruling since it may lead to others. GL

Bernie was a whale on tilt—I was almost certain I was a 4:1 favorite vs him. His money was dead money as far as I was concerned, lol.

Since at least the 1970s, dealers have been taught to muck folded hands. So, the question arises, how does the dealer know the hand is folded? Well, it's when a player releases their hand, face down toward the dealer, or the muck. This is a near-universal action among the player population.

Now, you can argue all you want that a player doing this, when not facing action is not folding, because you can't fold when not facing action. But, if the player isn't folding, because he can't, then the dealer would be wrong to muck the hand - which dealers are taught to do.

So, are dealers being taught incorrectly and that a hand discarded when not facing action should be left untouched, or is the player actually folding?

Unless the player is mucking.

It has become impossible to take you seriously. You want us to believe that you are irreversibly thrown by "all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats".

That a dealer is trained to muck folded hands does not mean that a dealer is trained to only muck folded hands.

That folded hands are released face-down toward the dealer does not mean that only folded hands are released face-down toward the dealer.

Uh, WTF!?!?

I spent a fair amount of time presenting a cogent argument and you come up with this drivel?

I don't think there was a single event or rule change that we can all point to when "muck" and "discard" and "fold" and "kill" became differentiated in the poker context. TDA rules don't even have a glossary. I suspect we basically inferred the distinction to try to make sense of the ruleset, which simultaneously holds that, for example:
and
and also:
There doesn't even seem to be a TDA rule defining what constitutes a fold beyond 58 above, even though there are sections on:
40: Methods of Betting: Verbal and Chips
41: Methods of Calling
42: Methods of Raising

Honestly, I don't think arguing about semantics is fun or interesting, though it is at times necessary, and maybe this is one of these times. Still, it's better to be kind about it than be an ******* and insist that the other side is dumb or arrogant.

To try to be responsive to JayKon, I would say that:
* A dealer should muck a hand (put it into the muck so it is no longer identifiable or retrievable), as quickly as is reasonably possible, when it is folded (during the play of the hand) or discarded (at showdown) or otherwise made to be dead (at any time), as long as there is no other unusual, irregular, or unclear circumstance that might warrant a clarifying question or a floor call where (turbo) mucking might make properly fixing the situation impossible. Obviously, there are times the rules say this (e.g. 15b), but this often involves some judgement, and isn't a black and white rules issue (new players, hidden hands/cards, angleshooting, etc). Good dealers just know when to do this.
* Having said the above, if a player can retrieve a discarded hand at showdown before it is made irretrievable and unidentifiable by the dealer (or any other way), it is still live. There is a specific rule that says so.

Solid post as ususal, dinesh.

That was an interesting response, and there is one point I do agree with. Most of these class of problems come from dealers not responding correctly to players' actions - in this case, folding.

Since the TDA doesn't define what a fold is, which seems ultra basic to playing a hand of poker, only that it's live if clearly identifiable (a rule that is not 100% universal), the definition, by default, has to be moved to dealer procedures.

That procedure, as already stated, says that if a player releases their cards, face down, toward the dealer, or muck, the hand should be killed. Ergo: that action is a fold. Perhaps it's a fuzzy definition, as sometimes a folded hand can be recovered.

What I don't like about it is two-fold: it violates the concept that you should protect your own hand and that it interrupts the smooth flowing of the game.

This is part of why I hate your definition. If a folded hand can sometimes be recovered, seems like that can cause a lot of problems.

That sounds awful close to my original position that I got blasted for. While I accept that if a hand is 100% identifiable, it can be recovered, I personally don't like it. A fold should be a fold.

I repeat: The number one rule in poker is to protect your own hand.

It's because when you use the definition that you cannot fold when not facing a bet, then a folded hand cannot be recovered, even if it is identifiable.

If it's at showdown and someone tosses their hand forward, they are allowed to grab it back and win the pot. If someone is facing a bet and tosses their hand forward, that is a fold, and they cannot get their hand back no matter where the cards are.

No one ever disputes that. Issues arise when either a player or dealer makes a mistake.

Oh, how I wish this were true. Perhaps someone could even find a rule somewhere stating this. In practice, no matter where (to my knowledge), a discarded hand that is completely clear of other cards will always be recoverable and (evidently) the 100% identifiable rule is used in many rooms.

I played at Thunder Valley a few years ago and found they had a policy to NEVER kill a hand, unless even extreme measures couldn't identify it (like going to the camera). According to the floor I spoke with, this included cards that flew off the table.

How is this working out.

I think you're still not understanding what I and other people are saying, and maybe you're using a different definition for 'killing a hand' as well, because I don't know how a room could operate like this.

Are you saying that in this room, the following can happen? Someone bets the flop, one person calls, the third person throws his hand towards the center of the table. The dealer leaves the cards out there, taps the table, burns and deals the turn card.
The first player bets again, the second player folds. The third player, who never called the flop bet, grabs back his cards and raises.

If that cannot happen at the room, then it is not true that they never kill a hand. It sounds ridiculous, but I can't imagine what else your statement about the room could mean.

Even easier and more ridiculous example:
Seat 8 gets up in the middle of the hand to grab dinner and catch a movie. Later he returns to the table to finish playing the hand he abandoned 5 hours earlier.

Or:
Player A bets, player B goes in the tank. After 5 minutes, A calls for the floor. Floorman comes over, tells player B he has 10 seconds to make a decision. Player B "what will happen if I don't?". Floor "well, we can't kill your hand but will let you know we're very upset with your behavior!".

That the TDA has specific sections for methods of betting, raising, and calling but not one for methods of folding is actually a testimony to the obviousness, universality, and lastingness of the definition of a fold.

An organization with the TDA's mission is not going to regularly meet about and publish revisions to an industry-standard ruleset that doesn't include such a basic definition if its absence were causing any measurable confusion.

A fold is recognized on a near-global — or at least trans-continental —scale. A player can sit down at his first poker game and instantly, almost intuitively know what a fold is. He will need some coaching to understand what a fold isn't (e.g. the difference between facing and not facing a bet), but he will quickly get that too.

Contrast that with the various forms of betting, raising, and calling.

As I mentioned, TDA doesn't have a rule defining what a fold is. But RRoP, which is the basis upon which the vast majority of card room rules are based, does. It just hasn't been updated in 10 years, so I rarely quote it any more.

Anyway, here you go: