Player A pushes All in
Player B calls
Player A says "You can have it"
Player B throws his cards to the dealer

Player A says to the dealer to pass him the pot, since Player B hand touched the muck and he still has his cards
Player B argue that Player A declared that his hand is dead

Who is the legal winner?

Player A is an DB, player B is not the brightest. Why would A say "you can have it" when he pushed all in? That makes no sense. B shouldn't have given up his cards until A mucked his and he had secured the pot. If B's cards are in the muck then the pot is A's. "You can have it" is not a verbally binding fold imo.

player A scooop

just give player B his cards back. He clearly was not intending to muck his hand.

Player B is a moron who should have the rest of his money taken as a stupidity tax.

To me it is - maybe I'm wrong, but Roberts Rules defines a fold as "To throw a hand away and relinquish all interest in a pot"; and "you can have it" sounds like he's relinquishing his interest in the pot. What else could it refer to?

Not even getting into the complete DB move that this is, just from a techincal standpoint.

If Player A had tried this shady move with something like "Nice call, you got me", and it worked, I could see the argument, but "you can have it" sounds like relinquishing all interest.

But maybe I'm wrong and I'm clouded by the ridiculous angle shot here by Player A.

Player A's comment induced Player B to muck (which wasn't the best choice in this case) however considering Player A then demanded the pot, I'm not going to just give it to him.

IMO, this is no different than misrepresenting your hand to induce a muck by the other player.

If Player B's hand is retreivable, then Player B should be allowed to show his hand and Player A can either show or muck.

If I am the dealer, I call the floor, if I am flooring that day, I'm going to have a showdown and award the pot to the best hand.

Rule 1:

Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

If player A is given the pot, he should also be 86'd for an appropriate period of time as a bonus for his "clever" play(I'm thinking 72 hours to a week)

Actually come to think of it lets give B the pot and send A home for the night, that seems fair to all

Player B's cards were touching the muck but still retrievable.

Seems a fairly easy call to give player B his cards back.

Turn them both up and when B's hand wins A is done for the night.

How is what player A did an angleshot? He got caught and acknowledged it but when player B mucked he simply pointed out the rules state he should get the pot because he's the only one with cards.

Jeez, if my opponent verbally declares he's lost but won't muck his cards and the dealer won't push the pot, I just turn my hand over.

A gets the pot and a stern warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_poker

It is a misconception that angle shooting is breaking the rules. He's trying to win the hand by inducing the other player to muck his hand by pretending to fold, then claim the pot.

The dealer should retrieve the cards, ask both players to show a winner and award the pot to the best hand. Not to start the monthly, "why have to show your hand at show down to take the pot, " debate, but this is an example of what poker rooms are trying to avoid.

The villain in this piece is going to get a warning only if this is his first offense in a while. Only if he's a serial angle shooter and has pissed off the management is he going to get worse.

Why are we assuming he was trying to induce player B to muck by saying "you can have it"? Players say things similar all the time when they get cuaght bluffing on the river, player A just seemed to eager to throw his cards away and player B saw an oppoprtunity to try and get the pot. If I was player B I would make the same case and just go by the floor ruling.
I just don't see how simply saying "you have it" is trying to induce the other player to muck.

You're joking right? No way is Player A on the square. He's trying to win a pot on a technicality and we just don't do that. he enticed B to fold, yeah maybe B is an idiot for folding or maybe this is B's first time in a B and M and at his house when someone says "you've got it" that means he wins. Either way, A only gets money out of this if he has the best hand.

That's because the player didn't say "you have it" as in he has the best hand. He said "you can have it" as in he can have the pot.

If he had said "you have it" then it sounds more like: I have a weak hand and I want you to show first.

But he said "you can have it" which to me sounds like: No way do I have the best hand, the pot is yours.


Either way Player A is trying to get Player B to show his hand first, I see this as an angle shoot. Player B should've sat there and waited for Player A to table his hand or to muck it.

do not release your cards until the pot has been pushed ldo

Player A is an angle shooter. I agree with others, they should turn player B's hand up and let player A show or muck.

One of these days I'm going to go back through the last year of B&M and just start building link lists to all the topics that have been discussed before and to death.

At the very least we'd get to see pfapfap's take on these issues that keep coming up.

From this reasoning, would you say everytime a player tries to get the other when heads up to show first, that is an angle shoot? For Player A here to be truely shooting an Angle, he would have had to have premeditately thought the following: "I am going to make an all in bluff with air on the river. If i do get called, i have to come up with something that sounds like i am giving up, but in reality i am going to keep my cards, and then if Player B mucks, rather than just showing his hand like most people would do heads up in a hand where i have cards left, i will try to call his hand dead"

Could he have been thinking this? Sure, anything is possible, but isn't just equally likely that Player B got caught in a bluff, and just reacted, saying you can have it, just like, you got it, or nice call, i got nothing, ect. Then when Player B mucks while Player A has a hand, he tries to scoop the pot on a technicality. I guess here it would depend on whether you view trying to cash in on a technicality as an angle shoot.

This is a fairly common angle. One reg in a club I used to play in did it often enough that there was a house rule that made verbal concession of the pot binding. In this case, if player b's hand can be salvaged, it should be tabled as he clearly did not intend to muck and the pot should go to the best hand. If it is mixed in and can't be saved, pot goes to player A but with a warning. And yeah, player B should have protected his hand. It can make you look like a dick sometimes, but always wait for the person to either showdown or muck in turn. Or table your hand if it's on you to show first.

If I'm flooring "you can have it" is binding. Ship the pot to B.

Why are we turning player B's cards up?

Make Dbag A show first or muck, then turn B face up and ship accordingly.

If B's hand is clearly identifiable, return cards to B and showdown accordingly.
Else ship pot to A and administer KITN.

Just from a technical standpoint, your interpretation here is wrong. The rules says to throw your hand away AND relinquish all interest. The AND means to do both things. You're interpreting it as an OR (to do one or the other)

Mark