On the contrary, a lot people ITT have stated unequivocally that a hand is live until it is irretrievable and unidentifiable. If instead they think that IWTSTH should kill a hand, then they have silently acknowledged an exception while outwardly arguing that there are no exceptions. It's a much steeper burden to argue that there shouldn't be a second exception.

I have been assuming that people are saying what they mean.

Yep.

Pay attention and this wouldn't have happened. Simple truth. Once the dealer has his mitts on your cards good luck getting them back even if they haven't been added to the wash yet.

As for OP. It's really going to rely on the rules of the card room. I can see arguments for both. Seat 7 obviously meant to muck the cards but seat 8 deliberately flips them for 7 after seeing that 7 misread his hand.

The three closest situations I can think of this would be...

7 meant to muck his hand but the cards bounced off another players hand and got tabled. No intent by second player. I think we all agree this is an obvious pot push to seat 7 although seat 6 would be ticked.

7 throws cards to the middle and it bounces off the dealer's hand and lands face up. Again it's a tabled hand and seat 6 is ticked.

7 throws cards in but they don't touch anyone. Seat 8 says "no you won flip your cards" seat 7 either tables hand himself or asks the dealer to do it. The pot gets shipped to 7 and seat 8 gets 86'd and seat 6 gets pissed probably racks and leaves.

The big question here is whether seat 8 intentionally tabling the cards kills the hand. I think it's a terrible spot to put the dealer/floor in. Unless there is a specific rule in the cardroom, my assumption is that the pot would get shipped to 7 and 8 would get 86'd. The floor would hate to make the ruling and seat 6 probably racks and leaves but the hand never touched the muck or another players cards so they're gonna rule that the hand was never unprotected and its a tabled hand.

Could you imagine if this had been a jackpot hand and 7 didn't realize? How much you wanna bet the ruling changes from the floor?

You have absolutely no way of knowing what 7 vo7ld or could not do. It definitely is not a fact.

No one has attempted to defend what 8 did. But you don’t punish 7 for what 8 did.

What other OPTAH violation kills the hand? Especially if the player with the hand does nothing wrong.

The floor can literally rule anyway he wants anytime. Now if abused he may not have a job long. Or if not reigned in the players will handle it by disappearing.

But in this case there is obviously no clear ruling to draw. If there was the thread would have died long ago.

Btw, while I believe the pot should go to 7, I have already said I don’t have a big issue wi5h the floor giving pot to 6 using best interest rule. But I don’t think twisting and contorting other rules for 5his scenario is needed.

IWTSTH is specifically addressed in the rules. That exception doesn’t rely on interpreting a players intentions or how quick he moves or other such extrapolations.

Yeah no **** the floor can rule any way they want to. In fact that rule pretty much makes every single other rule on that list a suggestion. In practice, that’s not how that rule should be applied. It’s just a CYA for the casino on any floor decision.

I'm glad that IWTSTH 'finally' made it into the thread since that was the first thing that came into my mind.

Seat 7 attempted to muck.
Seat 8 'technically' initiated IWTSTH, thus killing Seat 7's hand since he no longer held a live hand.
Seat 6 gets the pot .. last live hand.

We should always avoid the 'intention' route as much as possible .. and we certainly aren't fortune tellers.

Seat 8 could've blocked Dealer, yelled or whatever to encourage Seat 7 to table his own hand, but he didn't .. and that cost Seat 7 the pot IMO.

I say all of this due to the 'release' of the cards by Seat 7. If a Player (or rail bird) randomly turns over my cards while I'm still contemplating action or involved in a Showdown, then my hand would still be live.

All of these spots are timeline dependent and it depends on how well the Dealer can lay that out to a Floor in an effort to get the best ruling. GL

That's a strange use of the word technically.

IWTSTH is something done by a dealer, not a player. Also not every room allows players not in the hand at showdown to ask to see the hand.

"I want to see that hand" is a verbal statement/request. This Player blew right by the formality of asking for, and allowing the Dealer to table the hand for view. There's probably a better word, but I had to walk by that word every day when I was in college so it comes to the forefront often!

If the room had no opinion or option on IWTSTH, then we still have a moral/fair play dilemma associated with a Player interfering with someone else's action/decision making process. .. which 'technically' is OPTAH, eh? GL

Neither TDA nor RRoP ruleset mentions anything explicit about how to handle a hand which is tabled by someone other than the "correct" player.

For the purposes of argument/discussion, let's talk about IWTSTH. It is worth noting that IWTSTH in TDA rules is much, much different than in RRoP.

TDA:
RRoP:
In TDA, to ask to see a hand, you must have made it to showdown, and either still be holding your cards, or have tabled them. And you can only ask to see the hand of the last aggressor. Any other request is at TD discretion only.

None of these elements are true in this hand: seat 8 has no cards (he mucked them just prior, and therefore has lost "any rights or privileges to ask to see any hand"), and seat 7 was not the last aggressor (ostensibly, since seat 6 tabled first, though I guess we don't know this for sure from the OP). The TD certainly did not use his discretion to force the hand to be tabled.

Furthermore, TDA rules make no mention about whether such a hand (tabled as a result of the request of another player at showdown) is live or not, and do not make any distinction between the current winner making the request vs. any other eligible request. [My contention is that they should be governed by Rule 14, and treated as live cards in all cases, though others may disagree.]

RRoP is different. It includes no discussion about what hands are live at showdown, is explicit that players must protect their hands (even though cards speak), and has an explicit IWTSTH rule which would make a hand dead if a non-winning player asked to see it. Though it's maybe a stretch to get from "a player turned over someone else's hand" to "that player is making a de facto IWTSTH request" as opposed to "that player is tabling a live hand".

RRoP was also last updated 10 years ago, and is not keeping pace with the modern game or customs.

anyone feel differently if table 7, being new, is just confused? Showing to seat 8 from seat 7 is on the same line as showing the dealer. Say board is K9532. Seat 6 tables AK. Seat 7 holds up 95 at seat 8 and the dealer, tosses them in face down, and seat 8 flips. What if 7 says "wow I got lucky haha two pair!" and then tosses face down. Still too bad so sad?

TDA does indicate that a 'fouled' hand is still live even if exposed. They don't really define fouled.

There are also some behavior clauses imploring a Player to not touch another Player's person, chips or cards .. but again no direct guidance for a spot like this.

As we know, penalties are typically given out after a hand is complete.

Showdown requires properly tabled hands, but doesn't address properly tabled by whom directly.

So it appears that we should have a live hand with a penalty given to Seat 8 more than likely. I still lean towards the pot going to Seat 6 as being the right thing here. GL

I don't think anyone here wouldn't want the ruling to go in the favor of 6. I'm just not positive that's what happens.

When I first saw the hand my first inclination was seat 6. But after thinking it through I would bet my card room would shove this to 7 and reprimand/86 seat 8.

I do “want” the ruling to go for or against anyone. I just want the rule properly applied. Personally i believe by rule the pot goes to 7. I think 6 is getting screwed by 8 but if the pot goes to 6 then 7 is getting screwed.

So pot goes to 7. But house somehow tries to make up at least some to 6. 8 gets some kind of penalty. IMO

I think by rule, the pot has to go to Player 7. If the floor chose to overrule that because, in their estimation, Player 7's hand was close enough to being mucked that there was no chance that he was going to change his mind and table his hand, I would not balk, but it should be clear that this is a deviation from the written rule in order to prevent a precedent from being set (of course, maybe that isn't a big issue, as floors will vary the decision from floor to floor, and even from day to day, with no regard to precedent or consistency).

It can never be ruled that player 8's action killed the hand. You can only argue that Player 7 killed his hand through his display of his intentions.

But I absolutely hate rulings based on interpreting intentions.

Now that I've looked at the rules again I think this is a clear push to the seat 6. OPTAH kills the hand according to the rule. IWTSTH also kills the hand.

I think this particular hand is now an obvious rule violation of OPTAH since seat 8 physically tables the hand. He didn't change 7's action of folding verbally which would be a closer call, he physically acted to play the hand for 7.

Also an obvious rule enforcement of IWTSTH. Any player other than the winning player that asks to see the hand makes the hand dead. However, if the player that is in the pot asks to see the hand then the hand is live and properly tabled by the dealer. So the best hand wins. Be careful asking to see hands if you're about to get shipped a pot due to a "fold"

So, ship that baby over to seat 6 and reprimand/86 the attempted cheater.

What?

OPTAH should never kill the hand. IWTSTH could maybe be stretched to apply here, but to me it is troublesome because the hand was not in the dealers control, so was still live.

According to which rule?

There are a lot of things where people in this thread disagree and I can understand both sides of the argument. But not this one. Killing the hand because of OPTAH would be a horrible ruling.

So when you and me are in a pot on the river, my friend can tell the dealer he wants to see your hand and kill it? Cool..

How about a link to the rule book we're all supposed to use? That would help.

And OPTAH according to the rule book I saw can kill the hand. Again, give me the rulebook we're all supposed to use and I'll do my own research.

Thanks!

You want us to...demonstrate the negative by way of a book? How about you provide the rule that asserts the positive? Let's start with the practical.

Not to mention, it should be immediately obvious why OPTAH can't kill a hand. No player at the table can unilaterally kill another player's hand FFS.

Here are the two main rule book bases.

TDA: https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

RRoP: https://www.homepokergames.com/roberts-rules-poker.php

Each room may have a different rulebook, but most are going to be based on one of these two baselines.

Neither one says that OPTAH should kill a hand.

Wonderful, Thank you for actually answering my question instead of being a d***.