What would you reprimand the dealer for? He (she) did it out of clumsiness and not on purpose.

So for the people saying it's live, it's now OK for a dealer to peak at everyone's mucked cards, before it "touches the muck", to see if they mucked a winner by mistake and then it becomes live and wins the pot?

Is that the question? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Absurdum is the Latin root of our word... never mind.

As hypothesized a valid ruling is probably that the displayed hand plays, another dealer taps out the incumbent within about 3 min, and the first dealer never deals again at that room. Or maybeit's a lesser progressive discipline, I dunno. What's the closest thing to that you've ever seen happen?

This thread reaching 50 posts was a stretch to begin with, but here we are.

1) We should all be long over the 'touches the muck' issues .. is it 'confidently' identifiable or not? Had a Dealer tell me this week that they would always avoid saying that they were 100% sure since the cards shouldn't be where they are anyway and why should they now become the focal point .. not the best response I've ever heard.

2) In a regulated .. blah blah blah .. room, if a Dealer ever peeked at a holding and then tabled it then, that should be the last hand/down/shift they ever work in the room without any contractual hurdles that need be overcome.

3) The gist of the thread is that if a hand is identifiable and is 'somehow' tabled then it can lay claim to the pot. All discussions, penalties and consequences should occur after the pot is pushed. GL

Yes and then that dealer is promptly fired.

Oaks card club Emeryville, CA

According to a quick internet search, the following are also sole proprietorships:

Bay 101 Casino (San Jose)
Stones Gambling Hall (Citrus Heights)
Ocean's Eleven Casino (Oceanside)
Lucky Chances Casino (Colma)
Club One Casino (Fresno)
Capital Casino (Sacramento)

A few checks show that we must have different definitions of sole proprietorship.

Those are corporate owned. Bay 101 Casino is owned by Sutter's Place, Inc., Stones is owned by Kings Casino, LLC, etc.

A sole prop is a type of business entity, like an LLC, corporation, or a partnership. A sole prop means whoever owns the place is using himself as the owning entity, such as John Smith doing business as John's Poker Room.

So, the internet isn't perfect. Still, y'all seem to be silent on the Oaks and others. After all, only one was requested.

Oaks appears to be some kind of limited partnership with ~15 partners. But this is all just picking nits. Is Oaks a single room entity? Looks like it to me. But does that really matter? Don't these rooms need follow gambling commission regulations? Is there enough leeway that a random room could have rules totally against accepted procedures? But most importantly, does it matter when asking about a ruling on an internet forum?

The single proprietorship question seems like a red herring anyway. I can't imagine anyone entering into a complex business like gaming/hospitality without incorporating. Suppose a falling chandelier injures a patron and insurance somehow dodges paying the claim. Would you risk your life's savings, fading freakish occurrences like that?

But I also don't see why a small corporation can't own a room with odd house rules. Or any corporation -- MGM can allow different house rules at each property as long as the local gaming authorities allow it, right? Just seems like an irrelevant rabbit trail.

It’s a limited partnership.

I guess what you mean is that they aren’t entities owned by some corporation that runs multiple rooms?

Any room can have their own house rules regardless of the number of owners, partners or business entity type, as long as their state's gambling regulatory bodies allow it.

Sole property

For that hand, sure. Then the dealer is fired immediately.

There is a difference between dealers inadvertently exposing cards due to clumsiness (maybe not even on their part, maybe it was the player that was clumsy), and a dealer intentionally looking at at a discarded hand at intentionally showing it.

Well no surprise but that did not age well.

Sucks for Player A but B wins unless the room has some strange magic muck rules.

I quickly scanned through all 3 pages and no one has mentioned another aspect; you want the best hand to win. You can't have new players to poker get the best hand and lose on a technicality that they they've never heard of.

The rules will also protect the beginning players form getting angled