TBH, my problem isn't so much that he tore up the cards (whether that is possible or not), it is that he threw them at the dealer. That's how they landed on the table. That crosses the line for me. If he took two knives, put the cards through them, then tried to stab the dealers' hands with them, we'd rule, "Gee, don't do that, but you've tabled your hand since the cards are face up stuck to the table, take the pot?"

I would love to take the pot from him, but I can't.

If he has no history he gets the pot, a short vacation, and buys the house a set-up.

If he has a history of this kind of behavior he gets a longer vacation.

I should agree here.... but, really, I just can't. Harsh penalties, please.

In this insanely improbable scenario, yes I'd award him the pot and then call the police.

Edit: Plus the difference between throwing two plastic cards at the dealer and trying to stab the dealer is HUGE... unless of course you're using plasticware.

Ripping up the cards to me counts as mucking the hand.
Clearly his intent was to fold.
Award the hand to player B send player A home, lesson learned.

I would likely impound that pot and wait for the resulting legal proceedings. I would not award it to the worst hand.

If you rip up $100 bill and it comes in two pieces, should you present those two pieces to a bank, the $100 bill will be treated as if it were a $100 bill...

RE: tearing up cars

Last time I was in vegas in January, a player at my table (Ballys) got sucked out on, he had a set vs a gutshot straight draw and the straight got there. He shows the set, curses like a sailor then tears up the cards and throws them down.

Dealer calls the floor and the player begins walking away. Floor chases after him after he was told what happened, tells the player to come over to the brush stand (he does). Security comes, and escorts him off the property. As this is happening, the dealer explains to the table that tearing up cards is considered destruction of casino property and results in PERMANENT ban from the property. Here is the kick, this guy was STAYING at Ballys, so I dont know what happened after that, but they did indeed escort him out. Not just that, the ban apparently covers all "owned" properties. Ballys is owned by Harrah's, so this guy got banned from all Harrah's properties, WSOP events, etc.

I have seen stuff like this happen where bans occur, but not permanent bans from all properties, maybe this is just a Harrahs thing, dunno.

Yeah, i really don't think there is any debate necessary here about awarding the pot to cardripper - altho it was in a bizarre fasion, his hand was tabled, the cards speak, he wins.

The only mitigating circumstance i can see is if the cardroom had a specific rule about ripping cards up killing a hand.

wtf was the ruling?

Especially in California. I saw a guy attempt to tear cards in NorCal. He couldn't (plastic) but he ruined them for further use. Not even a warning. In SoCal you could probably set the cards on fire and not get a warning.

I booked the Holyfield/Lewis fight. The result was a draw, which stunned everyone who saw the fight. I had a lot of people trying to cash torn up tickets.

(If the tickets could be salvaged by scotch tape, they got paid. The guy who tore his into 100 pieces was SOL.)

I agree with giving him the pot and a permanent-ban.

I don't think you can let him buy his way out if he voluntarily gives up the pot. What if he really did have a losing hand there? His actions would have been the same, warranting the same penalty, but he would get a different penalty simply because of his cards?

I think there are two distinct arguments here. The first, he tabled his cards, they play. The second, he tabled pieces of cards, therefore they are not cards, they do not play.

Which makes me wonder...what if he balled it up, chewed it, and spit it out so we could see the Jd? What if he set it on fire and threw it on the table in a manner that we could still see the Jd? Essentially, all the scenario's (including OP's) are the same, the card is still identifiable (regardless of the state it is in).

Would everyone who says "Give him the pot" still allow that card to play?

Without playing what if, I just asked my shift supervisor about this one.

After he stopped laughing he said the player would win the pot and be asked to leave the room for the rest of the day.

If he was in a tournament, he would win the pot but then be DQ'd and the chips taken out of play.

I would be far less inclined to let the cards play if they came out of view (the players mouth) as this creates an issue of game integrity that is not prsent in the OP's scenario.


If the player lit the cards on fire they would not be identifiable, and even if they were as in the case where he tries to stab the dealer i would be inclined to confiscate the pot not award it to the worst hand.


So now lets go back to my hypthetical ..... what if the card split without the player trying to tear it? Would you still kill it?

From RRoP:

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player."

I believe that tearing up your cards and throwing them at the dealer are NOT in the best interest of the game so his hand should be dead.

http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/...-ripping-hand/

related card ripping story from a lowball game

But that rule is not applicable as the cards where not thrown in the muck.

Great story. Interesting that they mention they changed the rule about "mutilated" cards the next day. We can only assume they changed it to rule the hand dead.

I wonder if the rule is still on the books at Artichoke Joe's?

I guess his hand is considered tabled and he gets the pot but I'd have no issues if a card room put in a rule that ripping up your cards kills your hand in addition to getting you banned along with a swift kick to the nuts.

yes and if you have only part of a bill but at least 2/3 of it intact it is still redeemable at a bank.

So if a player produces two cards that are missing just shy of a 1/3 of the card each, do they still play?

Point is what does the laws regarding currency have to do with cards?
ZERO.

Hand should play... Hell of a way to ask for a setup imo

Two separate issues here.

First issue is a hand that is inadvertently tabled. Saw this one other time when a guy thinking he had lost a huge pot slapped his cards down, meaning to muck them, and they bounced over revealing he had a flush he hadn't seen while looking at his low straight that had been beat by a higher straight. He was awarded the pot.

Second issue is the destruction of the cards. He gets whatever punishment he deserves for that.

doesnt matter why you tabled your hand. tabled is tabled

What about "almost" in half. There's a little bit of plastic holding them together.