For you guys who say its immoral and "stooping to his level" to try to enforce the rule, I have one thing to say: LOL.

First of all, most people generally share moral values that resemble each other on the core concepts (thou shallt not kill, steal, etc). However! I believe that there is a MAJOR greyzone in morality, which is were individual thinking comes in hand. See, we all make our own moral. Its absurd to say that its wrong for individuals to make their own morals, we do it all the time!

Now. Imo, the reasons morals exist is to protect the group. Example: We dont go around killing people randomly because if we did, it would create a worse situation for everyone. Therefore there is an unwritten rule (well written also) that we shouldnt kill each other. HOWEVER, I feel, when somebody breaks a moral rule, then the rules dont apply to that person since they have no respect for the rules.

Example: Being nice to each other. More specifically, having respect for each other. When that guy goes "nice call" he basically broke the moral rule which deals with respect. He broke respect by ridiculing you. As a result, you have no obligation to pay the same respect to him. Ever heard the term "respect must be earned". This is the reason nobody likes people who break social rules all the time. You SHOULD spite this guy, it shows that you FOLLOW the moral rules by punishing those who deviate from them. Wouldnt you kick the ass of a rapist? Wouldnt you steal from thief? Wouldnt you call an ******* an *******??

I can see how many of you are "nice guys" and feel you are morally obligated to siihp him the pot, but its just pure BS. People like this are likely to be pushovers who let people do what they want without retaliating.

HOWEVER, i will make an exception. Of course you might not even care. After all, he had the best hand so he deserves to win right? It really depends what type of morality you choose to implement in your life. Theres is IN NO WAY an absolute morality!

What if, what if, what if, what if.

I think we can all agree that the kinds of situations in the OP can get rulings against the literal rules all the time. As this is the case, where are all the threads talking about all these "what ifs" that frequently come up in these kinds of threads? "We know there's nothing fishy going on now, but what if there were?" Okay, what if?

We don't need to imagine a world in which rulings are based on context and interpretation, because we already live in that world. People are afraid if we live in that world that fire will fall from the sky. Well, we're there already. Where's the fire?

What do you have to say to one of the first rules in the book, which very clearly states that any rule may be bent by the discretion of the floor? Letting the opponent win the pot is following the rules. What's your take on that?

Why is your moral code fluid, pending your opinion of the other person?

Old Simpsons reference/paraphrase.

I agree there is not an absolute morality, but you seem to be missing the point.

The question isn't whether there's an absolute that applies to all individuals, the question is whether your individual morality is adjustable based on your opinion of the other person's quality.

The idea that when someone else breaks your moral code, then your own moral code doesn't apply to your behavior towards that person... well, isn't that the basis of most holy wars? Has this attitude been terribly constructive for humanity in general?

enough.....pfapfap what would have been your immediate action. Would you have waited for the OP to think about it and then wait for the OP to say, I'll give him the other player the pot. You're a dealer right pfapfap?

I help deal charity events from time to time. Without a thought, I would have mucked the K and shipped the pot to the other guy. Furthermore, I got no time for "good call" ******* moves.

OP , "dealer make a decision" please.....the decision was already made.
If we are talking about rules; the hand is dead.
If you want to take that small hit to stack him later....you're the angle shooter. Don't teach the fish doesn't apply here.

This rule is an absolute..

this thread has actually gotten somewhere interesting. i still think op wins the hand, at this point its up to him to choose how he is perceived by his peers (either giving the money back, chopping or keeping).

[x] op mucked the winning (or rather, only valid) hand

Perceived??? Integrity of the game is utmost concern here.

should've chopped the pot, and told him he just got a 50% discount on a valuable lesson

The goal of poker is to try to take advantage of your opponent's mistakes and profit from them. He made a mistake, and you should profit from it. LOL@ anyone trying to turn this into a moral or ethical debate.

Why do you keep turning this into a moral issue? This is a sport/competition. If theres a football game and one team commits a penalty, should the other team stop and consider the moral consequences of accepting/declining the penalty? I fail to see how this is any different whatsoever.

Im quite an emotional person, so my morals have a tendency to be dictated by my emotions. Now, while I won't waiver on core moral values, I will certainly act based on my emotions in these GRAY areas. No matter how much of an ******* I think the guy is, I would never steal his chips or something like that. I would however, try to take this pot from him and you couldnt blame me for it either.

Also, my action isnt based solely on my opinion of the other person as much as it is a reaction to his behaviour. If someone beats you, you beat them back in defense. If someone makes you feel bad (i.e. "good call") it is natural for you to seek revenge. This is the emotion part that I was talking about.


Morals pervade our lives and everything in it, whether you like it or not. If in your opinion you only think that you should profit, no matter the consequence then you simply believe in different morals than I do.

Do you watch NFL football? Lets take an analogy from there....

Say a defensive back commits a holding penalty. Suppose it was in the total opposite direction of the play and it had no impact on the play whatsoever. Suppose it was a really minor infraction(but the ref called it anyway). Suppose it was totally accidental.

Which of the following do you believe to be true:

1. The offensive team should accept the penalty if it helps their team or decline it if it hurts their team(if they gained a lot of yards on the play, then it may benefit their team to decline the penalty)

OR

2. The offensive team should make a moral decision on the ethical implications of calling a penalty against the defense in that situation and base their decision upon that.




I think 99% of people would pick option #1 and laugh at the very thought of option #2. However, if you believe #2 is correct then I'll be willing to sit back and listen to why you feel that way.

Basically I feel that the mistake the opponent made in the OP is similar to an "unforced error" in any other sport/competition. Examples would be a false start in football, a point guard dribbling the ball off his own foot when walking the ball upcourt, a tennis player committing a double fault, a baseball pitcher hitting a batter, an own-goal in soccer or hockey, etc.

Although you didn't do anything to force these "unforced errors", you still benefit from them in every single example I can think of. So why are we suddenly immoral if we benefit from an unforced error in poker? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

You make light of these what if's, but they are all possible, including hundreds of other strange and rare situations. Individually these what if's aren't likely, but as a whole you never know when something is going on that you aren't aware of. It is unlikely that any one of the scenarios is happening but when you consider the totality of possibilities it isn't so far fetched. "We know there is nothing fishy going on here" Oh really? Because the OP didn't mention it? What if he didn't notice anything. You just don't know, that is why making these decisions that go against the letter of the rule are dangerous.

I have clearly defined why, in my opinion, the rule that allows the rules to be "bent to the discretion of the floor to be what is best for the game" exists in two former posts, feel free to scroll up.

Why do you consider my moral code to be fluid? There is no evidence for that based on what I have said. If I were playing in a 1/2 game and this villian pulled this on me, I would pull for a strict interpretation of the rules. At the same game if a nice old lady did the same thing who was focusing on the game just quickly mucked her second card I most likely wouldn't push for a strict interpretation. This may seem to you like an inconsistent moral code, but it isn't.

First of all, the situations are completely different. In one you have a player who is focused more on making a mockery of himself and the game in order to make a "witty" and "cool" comment and in doing so lost focus on the game in order to show out. In the second example the player was trying to play the game to the best of their abilities and made a mistake not being well enough aware of the rules. But I would go beyond that and say that in either case it isn't a moral question at all. It is just a question of sportsmanship. With the villian, I am not convinced he was a new player and unaware of the rules, but even if he was, his lack of sportsmanship and respect would have lost him the equal treatment from me. But the nice little old lady who just wanted to do her best was being a good sport, and because it is a 1/2, or basically and introductory game, I would allow her to take the pot based on a respect for her sportsmanship. A moral code should have no bearing on enforcing rules. A code of sportsmanship in a marginal situation... sure.

Probably doesn't make a difference, and it might have already been mentioned, but is saying "good call" really a douche move? If I had the best full house, and I only called, thereby losing to quads, I would also consider it a good, perhaps great, call. You could have raised after all. So perhaps "good call" was a compliment after all, and this guy was showing OP some respect.

I don't think it's a moral question, I think it's an ethical question.

The difference is that morals are more abstract. Is it moral to eat animals? You can argue all you want, but logic really won't help you here. It's more of a personal choice in how you feel about it.

Ethics are about the group enforcing what is good for the group. Doctors and lawyers have ethical codes to protect the reputation of doctors and lawyers generally, against bad-apple doctors and lawyers. The codes don't exist to protect those poor, helpless clients, but to protect the interests of the professionals. Logic can help us with ethics.

All poker players want poker to be played. We want new people bringing a steady supply of action to the tables. If people are afraid to play poker with us because they fear we're all a bunch of tricky sharks that know all the angles, and use those angles to steal money from them whether they've won the hand or not, they'll stop playing. They'll tell horror stories to their friends about poker games. We poker players don't want that.

We prefer a clean, fair environment that benefits intelligent game play (ie, bets, raises, bluffs, hero calls... not angleshooting douchebaggery), not only because it's better for the intelligent players, but because it's inviting to non-players.

You send this guy out the door with no money after he hit quads, you are ruining the reputation of poker. You are doing loads of damage that will take a long time to repair.

Admittedly, bending the rules this way and that is potentially damaging to that reputation, as well. On balance, if the player genuinely doesn't know about this technicality (and, uh, ldo), we really need to suck it up and hand him the pot. We should also buy him a beer (maybe out of his own pot? lol) and give him a stern explanation of appropriate poker table behavior.

ps -- I think the worry isn't so much that his other card is yet another king, but that it's not 1 card. If he somehow collected an extra card somewhere along the line, this was a decent way to get rid of it.

Although I read most of the threads in B&M, I rarely post; however, this is a very interesting conundrum. OP can enforce the rules, angleshoot and be a nit all the while claiming to do so to exact some revenge on the douchebag villian, or he can ingore the rule and take what some perceive to be the moral high ground and allow the douchbag villian to claim the pot simply because the best cards should win. I believe there is a third option.

Have the floor called over and allow the dealer to explain the situation. The floor do doubt will award the pot to the hero. Hero then claims he only took this action because of the douchebag insult of "nice call." However, in the interest of the punishment only being severe enough to match the crime, hero gives villian back 50% of the pot and asks him to try to refrain from insulting poker players for no reason. The hero, not wanting to appear to be taking this action for any personal gain (especially since his hand was beat), then divides the remaining 50% between the dealer and the cocktail waitresses that have been serving the table.

I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not completely schooled in the nuances between "ethics" and "morals" so please forgive any errors I may make in that regard.

As a dealer, I protect the muck and prevent these things before they happen. I've dealt and played enough poker that I can smell it when someone's about to do something like that.

Before the player releases the card I would say, "two to win" and hope it solves itself. If the player still tosses the other card forward, I would protect it from going to the muck and immediately call the floor.

It is not the dealer's place to make judgments like this.

I deal plenty of casino events, and I protect the muck. I also call over the floor any time there's an abnormal situation like this. I do not base my protection of the game on my personal opinions of the players. I have too much respect for the game to do that.

Why? None of the other rules are. Why this one? What's the benefit?

Do you not recognize the distinction between mistakes of strategy and tactics, and mistakes of mechanics and procedure?

You fail to see the differences between football and poker?

Does football have it in, at the top of the rulebook, a provision that the refs can override any technical rule if they feel it is in the best interest of the game? Do they have a provision for penalties that take into consideration the player's past behavior?

Because all that exists in poker. If you're going to draw a direct parallel, you must acknowledge these differences. Otherwise your analogies hold no water.

Okay, so where are all the posts complaining about all these strange situations that happened because someone somewhere was a little flexible on a technical procedure? The rules are bent all the time. Surely by now we'd have experienced this rash of angle-shooting that you fear?

I've played and dealt a lot of poker. These fantastical situations just don't happen very often, and when they do, they have nothing to do with that one time we let a technicality slide in the best interest of fairness.

How is letting quads win the pot going to cause a "what if" to happen? How is taking the pot from quads going to help prevent or solve the "what if" situations?

Like I said, maybe I'm not using the terms properly. So okay, we'll use sportsmanship. I still feel one's own sense of honor and fair play should remain fairly static, and have little to do with one's limited assessment of another person. We don't know what this guy was thinking or what he intended. Maybe in his cultural context, what he's doing is part of the game. Why is your judgment of him a factor in deciding your own sense of fair play?

I feel I should make clear again that I do not judge anybody who takes the pot in this situation. I would not argue with you at the table, and I would not think ill of you at any time. I recognize that there are many ways to interpret the rules, and many ways to approach the game. My way is what sits right with me, and I feel this has been an interesting discussion.

So please don't view the questions I ask as judgment. I am more trying to hold up a mirror, and my questions are meant to help dig deeper into the various mindsets presented here. I know I tend to come off as overly argumentative, but it's really more because I enjoy discussing these topics. I appreciate those who have taken the time to share their thoughts and put them up next to mine.

well argued. I'm glad you cleared that up for us.



to be honest, if you look up "ethics" and "morals" in the dictionary, you'll get almost complete overlap. I like to make the distinction sharper, because it makes things clearer to me.

I do believe thinking about ethics this way makes this sort of question MUCH easier to analyze rationally. I come at it from sociology/biology/neurology reading which uses game theory to explain a lot of "ethical" and other social behavior very well.


This is one crux of things, for sure. I'm guessing he doesn't, actually.

Using the sports analogy, if the pitcher balks, he's made a technical error and the runner advances. The purist strategy view would be that the umpire pulls the pitcher aside and gives him a lecture and asks him not to do it again? We want the pitcher to win and lose based on movement, velocity, and location, not formal procedural BS.

To a pro, knowing the rules is just another aspect of the game to master, and he wants that skill to count towards his bottom line...



more to the point: is football played between amateurs and professionals for money?

If your local high school team played the Patriots, winner pays the loser, as a way to buy new uniforms, and by some miracle scored more points by the end of the 4th quarter, but then the Pat's refused to pay because their highly-paid lawyers negotiated a contract with an obscure escape clause that the your volunteer assistant coach didn't catch, that would be the end of high-school teams agreeing to play the Patriots. It goes from being a long-shot to just donating money to the pros with no hope of success at all.

That's what we're fighting. The sense that even if you win the hand, the pro will find a way to take the pot anyway.

I would do this, just for that 'good call' bs.

Fair enough, re-reading the OP I guess it depends how fast after he showed the King that the other card went into the muck. Usually, before any charity event we go over the basic rules of poker and poker etiquette. I know I know it's a cash game at a casino.


I Like 99% of posts here; many are "depends". The douchebag move made by the guy with quads did not alter my decision but it sure would have made me move the chips to the OP faster!!

interesting situation OP, but I really believe this is one of the more simple ones. I mean the card hit the muck. Two cards to win.

Pfap please comment on my other post where I wrote that if the OP gives the pot to the quads player, that the integrity of the game is at stake and that it is an angle shoot. For all those posters who write they would stack him later, don't teach the fish doesn't apply here.

For a more simple analogy; if the teacher says that chewing gum in class will result in detention, then detention is what you shall receive. No get out of jail free card. Two cards must be show (a huge rules poster in my old home casino shows this as a top rule BTW) to take a pot. They must be shown; no bull**** ignorance excuses, no whining etc. A rule is a rule. This is not an ethics or morality debate. The OP was incorrect in giving the pot up.

Based on your other posts I have concluded (it's damn obvious) that you are an elegant, thoughtful and diplomatic poster. I hate disagreeing with you here and we may have to agree to disagree but I don't see any "ifs, ands, or buts" around this situation ever.

Thanks Dave

The example I used earlier is one. What if the villian noticed a floor decision at another table and realized that the floor just made a decision in favor of someone who "didn't know the rules". Lets say in this particular hand the villian raised preflop with K3o and he had to this point garnered a solid reputation. Now he is in a position to mask the identity of his hand. He just mucks the 3 (after all he was repping AK this hand, the 3 is just gonna hurt his image now). When he goes to retrieve his "Ace" from the muck he comes up with an offsuit 3 instead (the villian in the hand couldn't retrieve the correct card from the muck in the OP....), imagine that. He know thinks "after all I have the K, so there is a good chance the floor won't come over, but if he does it is likely he will rule in my favor cause he just ruled the same way on another table, plus if he does rule against me I will mention that he let the other guy off when he didn't know the rule, it wouldn't be fair not to do that for me, I'm golden...."

Sure this scenario is unlikely, but are there people who go through this line of thinking to get an edge? Absolutely. This and much much more.

In my personal opinion this sort trash talk behavior is unsportsmanlike. When someone is unsportsmanlike, I generally (as most people do I'm sure) get very competitive. I certainly would not be doing them any favors (as in my view, giving him the pot most certainly would be).

On the other hand, if the other person were new to the game and putting forth effort to learn the rules and was acting in a sportsmanlike manner I would be much more likely to give someone like that a break.

In my view everything is relative, even a sense of fair play (a moral code for that matter). For me, the sense of fair play is determined by the situation. It isn't absolute.

This is way over-dramatic and far fetched. Ruining the reputation of poker? Doing loads of damage that will take a long time to repair? Really??? I'd be shocked if the impact that the average 2p2 poster has upon the welfare of poker is anything but completely negligible.





Yes I most definitely recognize that distinction. However, I think that both are mistakes that you should attempt to profit from. For many online players, learning the nuances of mechanics and procedure in live games is a big part of the learning curve, and this can be a major advantage for experienced live players.

The very first time I ever played live, I was in a $2/5 game in Atlantic City. I don't remember all the details of the hand, but I remember that there was a small bet and I wanted to raise to $25. Not completely familiar with the oversized chip rule, I threw one $25 chip in and didn't say "raise." And I went on to lose a fairly significant pot to an opponent who most likely would've folded had I been able to raise there.....And I'm completely fine with the result of that hand. I made the mistake, and I deserved to lose because of it. However, I will never feel sorry for anyone who makes a similar mistake regarding mechanics and procedure, and I won't hesitate to take advantage of it.


If a QB is scrambling and is hit late, there is a much greater chance of the ref throwing a flag for the late hit than if it were a player at another position who was running. There is nothing that advocates this practice in the rule book, so I'm assuming that the refs are overriding the rules in accordance with the best interest of the game. They also greatly favor the offense when calling pass interference penalties even though the rulebook states that they should be called equally.

This even occurs in other sports as well. In baseball, the ump will often let the defense turn a double play without actually stepping on 2nd base. In basketball, sometimes there will be a really minor foul that a ref won't call, but then that foul will cause the offensive player to lose the ball out of bounds. Since he didn't call the foul on time, the ref can't now call a foul. But often times he'll say the defense hit the ball out even though its extremely clear that did not happen.


On your 6th foul, you're kicked out of a NBA game.

Also many times a player's reputation will influence calls. For example a guy who is known for flopping may not get the call sometimes even when it was a legit foul because the ref assumes he is just flopping again.

The umpire will sometimes warn both dugouts if they have been throwing at each other. Further instances of throwing at each other will be dealt with much more harshly.

On a funny side note. As I was writing that last post, a roommate of mine stumbled in for the night and asked what I was writing and I laid it out for him, very neutral to get his unbias opinion. He doesn't play poker and he went off. LOL. He said he thinks if you play a game you should know the rules, he mentioned relationships to rules in sports, he mentioned that he wouldn't want someone to take it easy on him and not go by the rules, he mentioned it isn't fair to break the rules, then he went off on some serious tangents about trying to strive to be the best and much more. All of this with a 26oz. Heineken in his hand and getting more emotional by the sentence.

If I'm dealing and a player shows just one card I don't even read the hand.

If that one card makes the nuts and he mucks the other I cover the muck
with my hand so he can't go fishing for his mucked card and call the floor.

And where I work that hand would most likely be dead.

I admire your point of view and good sportsmanship.
A long time ago, an Olympic runner stopped in the middle of a race to aid a competitor who had fallen. It certainly wasn't ethically necessary, but it was the right thing for him to do, by his own standards. It cost him the victory, but was widely hailed at the time as an example of extraordinarily good sportsmanship.
Possibly, he would have done the same thing even if the injured runner had been a complete jerk (which would have been even more extraordinary), or possibly not, but it wouldn't have been immoral for him to keep running.
I think that letting someone take the pot here, even though the rules say he should lose, isn't really a matter of ethics or morality, but of manners and positive sportsmanship. It wouldn't be immoral to claim the pot, but it would be a positive, sportsmanlike gesture to cede it. To my mind, it isn't required, but would be a gracious thing to do, and I would normally do it.
But if the other player had acted in a rude, obnoxious way, I think that simply allowing the rules to be enforced would not be an inappropriate (or unethical) response. Nor would it be "descending to his level", since we (hopefully) wouldn't be rude or sarcastic about it.
I do admire anyone whose sense of sportsmanship is so strong that they would disregard the other player's conduct. I'm not sure I could.