isnt it in the best interest of the game that the winning hand receive the pot(and that the guy gets banned after)? i also don't think it matters if the players intent was to muck. the cards got tabled.

Ship the pot and a month-long ban to the straight flush; possibly permaban if this is a problem child.

Best hand wins.

But I'd rule that if the guy wants just a one month ban he can ship the pot to the Queens or he can keep the pot and take a permaban.

Dead and 86d
what an idiot.

Rule 1. It is not in the best interest of the game to give this player the pot. If you give him the pot, you've rewarded him for his behavior to both the other players and your dealers. He threw his cards at the dealer. The fact he can't slice a carrot with them isn't a mitigating factor. Throwing him out for the night is virtually meaningless. The room might as well give him a free meal along with it.

"Sorry sir, as soon as you ripped those cards they are no longer in play. You don't have a hand, the pot goes to the other player. You're done for the time being in this room. Tomorrow or whenever you come back, you can see the manager on what you'll need to do to get reinstated."

That way, he has an incentive to leave and behave in the future.

Banned for a month?

I think he gets perma-banned. In 6 months if he comes back begging to be let back in you can then consider a probation period.

Its very unlikely that a player who does this is someone who is good for the room.

A while back on this or another forum someone told a story about a card breaking in half when it was pitched....... If the card just broke without the player trying to tear it.... would you come to the same conclusion about it not playing?

I understand why you guys want to find a way to take this guys pot away ..... I don;t *******s like this either. And my job would be a lot more fun if I could just kill people's hand whenever they acted like a jerk .... but unfortunately thats not the way poker works.

Usually we use the "in the best interest of the game" rule from RR to drag retrieve cards from the muck when angle shooters make people muck. In this case I agree with venice10 that it's in the best interest of the game to let the hand be declared dead. (Even though that would make me disagree with psandman - which scares me! )

And what if 1½ cards were tabled? Would the hand then be dead? How many percent of a card needs to be tabled for it to be live?

Bobby the Bus received a one week ban from foxwoods for tearing up a pair of jacks.

He was a reg and the floor knew he was a daily grinder as well as a sort of emotional guy and i am sure that figured into the relatively short ban period for him.

I guess it's reasonable for the floor to decide the scope of the penalty based on the player and his history and other situational factors.

Can the cards be used again? Are all of the players now going to be inconvenienced while the deck change occurs?

Screw the "best hand tabled" rule. You wouldn't be able to play out the pot, if the cards were ripped in the first place, so F him.

My only question is, were the cards paper or plastic? Plastic cards are next to impossible to just rip spur of the moment..especially into four pieces.

#1- good addition, I'll add it to my underground room rule book.

#2- Possible, but I might not be able to pull this off. Think you'll have to do without this one.

So, the only donks in your games are the aholes? I think you WOULD want to play, once my UC opens.

Why does it matter? Are you really going to give a pass to paperSuperman?

I wouldn't feel comfortable playing in a room where the pot gets awarded to the worst hand based on how the dealer/floor feels about the players involved.

In case you haven't figured it out .... IRL I'm kind of an *******. Not at the poker table .... but everywhere else.

My first instinct is definately to kill his hand because he has intentionally fouled the deck, and I'm still leaning that direction.

However, I do see the other side of the argument. So, if I was ever forced to rule in his favor, the conversation would go like this:

Floor: "Mr. Hero, I apologize, but he did table a winning hand and, as much as I would like to rule it dead, it still plays".
Hero: "That's RIDICULOUS etc etc".
Floor: "However, Mr. Villain, I'm going to give you a choice. Since the hand is live, you can take the pot, surrender your players card, and come with me so that I can permanently ban you from this casino. Or, you can forfeit the pot and I will ask you to leave for just 24 hours, with the understanding that if this ever happens again you will not be welcome here. Before you answer, please understand that if you choose the first option, you will never, ever be eligible to return".

Agree with this. What if the Jd was face up and only 1/2 of the other card was face up? Does the player get the chance to flip the other 1/2? It takes 2 cards at showdown to win, right? Or...what if 1/2 of the Jd is face up and the entire other card? Someone ponts out the straight flush, but does only 1/2 the card play?

My point is, he ripped them and threw the cards in. That itself made his hand dead.

Of course it doesn't matter for the ruling...just trying to lighten the mood.

waht kind of **** cards do they use that can be torn in half at the place i work at i have seen at least 7 different people get pissed and attempt to rip the cards and no one was even been able to tear them plastic cards are hard as hell to rip so i dont buy this story but if it is true its a dead hand and a guy being arressted and permentely banned for destroying casion property

Push him the pot, show him the door.
The jerk needs to be punished, but you can't take a pot from him when he had the best hand.
Unless there is some rule to handle torn cards.
Nice that someone came up with a new bizarre situation, I thought maybe they had all be handled.

what kind of ****** cards was this place using at the place i work at i have seen several people try to rip cards and no one could even put a tear in them plastic cards are hard as hell to tear through so im not buying this but if it is true its a dead hand and the guy would at minimum be permantely banned for destroying casino property if not arrested

I've seen cards torn many times and nobody has ever been removed from the room and certainly not banned for extended periods of time. Usually, they just get a warning.

I'm not a big fan of this, I understand why you might like it, but to me it smacks of a player buying his way out of a ban which he is clearly deserving.


If he give sup the pot and then next week he gets mad at a bad beat and he punches another player, will you feel you made the right decision in letting him buy a 24 hour ban vs a perma ban?

Clearly this guy has self control issues and I don;t think he should be in your poker room whether he is willing to give up the pot or not.

Just out of curiosity .... suppose he didn;t have a winning hand? Suppos ethis was just your ordinary ******* soreloser tears up his cards in a fit of anger ...... do you only give him 24 hours off?

Fact is, I dont' think it's fair that he gets the pot. I really want to kill the hand. But for the sake of argument, I suggested this as an alternative if I was put in the spot where I had to rule the hand played. If the circumstances are different (and he didn't win), of course he gets a long vacation. Or, if I think he's unstable and going to hurt someone, of course he doesn't come back. However, in this case, I feel that trying to get the other player the pot is more important than getting rid of this guy for an extended period of time. I can always boot him next time for a much smaller infraction if I see fit.

You can insert whatever time you like...24 hours, 3 days, 1 week, etc. The point is I don't think he deserves the pot and, if I must rule that he wins it, I want to give him a significant punishment. To me, giving up the pot (which I assume is quite large) is significant. By only offering a 24 hour ban he's more apt to go for giving up the pot. If you get into a week or month, he's going to take the money and run, and I just don't think that's fair to the other player. Of course, this is all assuming he's a regular player. If he's a tourist he's leaving with the money anyway.

If we're killing the hand because he ripped the cards up, do you still kill the hand if he first tables the hand and then rips the cards up when he thinks he's lost?

What if there's a mediocre dealer who simply mucks the QQ without announcing the winning hand and before our player realizes he's won the pot, he rips his cards up? Does he now forfeit the pot?

Does ripping the cards before they're tabled make it possible for him to pull a Criss Angel-like trick and change the contents of his hand?

Just give the guy the pot and ban him for eternity if you wish.

Put me on the side of those saying:

• Give the guy with the best hand the pot -- even if he's torn up his cards.
• Give anyone who tears up their cards a vacation from the casino for a month and a strike on his permanent record.

I feel pretty much the same way about other idiotic moves like, punching your opponent at showdown or throwing your drink at the dealer. 86 the idiot, but the pot still goes to the guy who won the poker hand.

...mostly because someone else at the table doesn't deserve the pot.

...and yes, I understand that tearing up your cards probably (likely) invalidates your hand, but since you've gone to the trouble of asking us, I still rule to award the pot to the guy with ripped cards. [Unless your casino has a specific rule governing this.]