1/2 NL, 2 players all in preflop

Board runs out AA99x . P1 places his pocket pair of 7s face up on the table.
P2 shows an Ace but leaves his other card face down. At this point, P1 turns his 7s face down and tosses them into the muck. P2’s second card remains face down and is never shown at any time.

Dealer proceeds to count the stacks and make the pot while the Ace is face up on the table and the other card is face down.

P1 says nothing until the dealer mucks P2’s cards and pushes the pot, at which point P1 speaks up and objects, saying P2 can’t be awarded the pot since he never showed both cards.

Floor is called. What is the correct ruling?

*I am not P1 or P2 and I was not involved in the hand*

Some rooms have a rule that you only need to show one card to win the hand, in which case this is an easy one. The player with the ace showing wins the hand.

Let's assume that this is not one of those rooms.

Did the dealer muck P2's cards and was P2's 2nd card never tabled at any time? KITN to the dealer for mucking the cards before pushing the pot. KITG (kick in the groin) to P1 for being an angle-shooting scumbag and deliberately mucking his own hand after tabling it, only to be an opportunist and speak up at the last moment.

P1 gets the pot for being the only player to have a valid hand that was tabled. Dealer gets a write-up and a lesson on procedure. P2 learns a costly lesson about how to properly table your winning hand. P1 also gets a verbal reprimand from the floor in front of the entire table about not being an angle-shooting scumbag.

P2’s second card was never tabled or shown to anyone.

The dealer mucked P2’s cards and pushed the pot towards P2 simultaneously, for all intents and purposes.
Some time had elapsed while the dealer was counting the stacks and making the pot.
P1 spoke up immediately after the pot was pushed, after all cards were face down in the muck.

In most rooms, the pot would be reluctantly pushed to P1. One card does not constitute a legitimately tabled hand, so once it has been mucked, P1 is the only player with a live hand.

The only out I would see here is if the floor interprets P1 turning his cards over and mucking them as a declaration or surrender. Some rooms have rules that if a player declaration induces the other player to muck, the declaring player forfeits the pot. While that may be a stretch, it is effectively what happened here.

I don’t think it’s a stretch, since 77 mucked his own hand while the other players hand was still live. I would award pot to P2. Also, Rule 1.

As soon as P1 picks up his hand and tosses it face down into the muck, he has conceded this hand to P2 who has an obvious winning hand. He doesn't get to steal the pot later just because P2's 2nd card was never shown.

Angleshooting DB. Any floor that gives this pot to P1 should never be allowed to work in gaming again.



SIDE NOTE:

Had P2 only turned over one card and it was a 7 or smaller(depending on what X was), then we have an issue.

Agree with suit. Never shipping this to P1, as described. If he complains I will tell him to ask to see the second card next time.

Dealer will also get a talking to afterwards. He should tell P2 "show both to win".

I thought that once a hand was properly tabled, it could not be killed?

In past threads on this topic, I thought that it was generally ruled that direct instructions like that violated OPTAH

Not by me.

I had a hand a few years ago at 2-5 at the RIO similar hand 99xAA board, I table TT and villain tables Ax, I say nice hand but what was your other card ( wanting to see if he had a FD on the flop or had hit the low pair, like 3 people including the dealer tell him to open he grabs his card as the dealer collecting the pot is reading the pot to ship, and then fires his card face down into the muck...the dealer stops and says you don't have a valid hand...you rule the same way?

The big difference between this hand and the OP hand is - you tabled your 10-10 and didn’t muck , the 7-7 guy mucked his cards while the other hand was still live.
Which is why I believe P2 should’ve won the OP pot.


What actually ended up happening :

After checking with the cameras to confirm that the 7-7 was tabled, floor awarded the pot to P1 & presented P2 with a $100 food voucher for his troubles.
(Pot was around $150).

Lots of KITNs to go around. The dealer for not knowing the rules. P1 for angle shooting. The floor for caving in and trying to make everyone happy.

I operate under the principal that the best hand should win the pot at showdown. Therefore I'd rule that P1 objected too late and the next hand was starting. I'd address the rules with the dealer to make sure they are clear in the back room. He should have told P2, "You have to table both cards to win the pot. If you don't, I'll have to give the pot to P1." I'd also tell the floor to stop wasting the room's money by giving away vouchers because he isn't capable of defending his decisions.

One more to P2 for not tabling both of his cards.

Yeah giving out food vouchers seems like admitting a mistake was made. Even though his hand was mucked, it was tabled and once tabled should remain so IMO (obv I don't mind floor using Rule 1 since guy was obv shooting an Angle...)

...in my hand the floor gave me the pot, and I offered to split the pot (which he obv accepted) I guess if I was truly sporting I would have shipped him the pot...in the moment the chop felt fair since I thought he was denying me info and claiming the pot at the same time, but in hindsight I just think his english wasn't great and was used to home games where simply showing a better hand works...

The guy mucked his own hand while someone else had a live hand. If the dealer mucked the hand it would be a slightly different situation, but I think the floor should rule in the best interest of the game.

I would have sat out pocket 77’s for 20 min or given him the boot.

Since you never turned your hand face down and sent it to the muck, no. I would give you the pot since the other player never tabled his hand. You obviously never conceded the hand. In both cases, the show one card guy learns it is not a good practice.

I stand by this. This floor is easily swayed. I bet I could convince him to do almost anything. That's sad.

This is basically how I see it & why I think P2 should’ve rec’d the pot.

In every room I play in- If there are 2 players remaining after the action is completed on the river and one of them mucks, the other one gets the pot without even having to show 1 card.
The last remaining live hand gets the pot regardless..

That’s an insane rule and I seriously doubt that is true in one room you play in, let alone every room. That would mean a properly tabled AA could lose the hand in the OP.

No my last post was referring to a situation where no player tables a hand, but one mucks and the other is still holding cards.

Like people sometimes do when they get caught bluffing- they don’t show , they just muck and give up. The bluff catcher would not have to show.

This is different than the situation in the OP though.

But you agree with checkraisdraw who is using "to muck" to mean "to throw one's own hand into the muck" regardless of whether it has been tabled.

Then you say that in every room you play in, the last of two hands to have not been mucked wins the pot.

A tabled hand can either be muckable or not muckable for every one definition of the word. Pick one.

Sounds like a great angle to me:

Heads up at showdown.

I insta-table my hand and then turn it back over and throw it in the muck hoping that you will not show your hand. Then after the pot is pushed I say "WAIT!! He didn't show. I win!!"

There's a lot of discussion points in this thread, but IMO this is a clear case of common sense (Rule #1) needing to step in and push the pot to Ax guy barring any potential backlash from Gaming in that area.

The choice to 'reward' 77 guy for challenging the technicalities of a rule is poor, but also perhaps were based on a possible challenge to Gaming had they ruled otherwise. Hard to say what happened in 'the booth' related to this hand or any other precedent that may have been in place.

1) I don't consider the mucking of a properly tabled hand a concession. What if there had been a missed 4-flush out there (in a different Board scenario)? It would have to be a local rule IMO.

2) Dealer is in an interesting spot ... He shouldn't push the pot to Ax UNLESS we also consider 77 mucking a concession. Then it doesn't matter if he tables the other card since he has the last 'live' hand. I prefer the Dealer to not push the pot and remain silent until prompted as to why they aren't pushing the pot. Most Dealers want to keep the game moving along and skip this in that effort.

This is a combination of 'last live hand', 'properly tabled hand' and 'winning hand'. The 'winning' portion of a hand was properly tabled ... and then a bunch of stuff that shouldn't happen did happen. GL

We aren't talking about someone mucking a winning hand that was previously tabled here. That is a different scenario and would obviously have a different opinion.


IMO when he was shown one card and that card is enough to beat him he decides to turn his hand over and muck it, that is a concession and we can treat it as such. In fact, this happens all the time and there is never a word said about it.

You know I'm splitting hairs here just to get an eye roll ... but ... P1 did muck the 'winning' holding (since it was the only one that was properly tabled ). That's the whole basis of his angle to get the pot. I don't want to give P1 the pot by any means, but I'm leaving the door open for a room that may be forced to due to Gaming circumstance. And I'm certainly taking care of P2 somehow if that were to occur. GL