I was playing PLO the other night at my local casino.

There were around 4 players to the flop, and somebody second to act bet $100. It folded to me, and I went all in for $360, which the dealer announced. It folded to the guy who bet the $100, who then threw in his cards well over the line towards the dealer (though the cards were distinguishable from the muck pile by a few inches). The dealer announced fold, threw me the initial bettor's $100 chip, and was going to ship me the pot. I then slid my cards over the line with a $1 tip as a chip, knowing I won the pot. Then the problem arose.

The initial bettor suddenly acted confused, and said he thought everybody else folded. I announced, and the dealer echoed, that he clearly mucked his cards, so I won the pot. The floor was then called over to assess what to do.

We explained the situation to the floor, and I emphasized again that the first player clearly mucked his cards after I raised his bet, throwing his cards well past the line towards the dealer after I went all in.

How should the floor rule?

Did you push $360 worth of chips forward, or was it just a verbal declaration?

Neither hand in the muck. (if the Dealer thought that Opponent had folded, he should have buried the cards into the muck)
Neither hand exposed.

Cards returned to players.
On Opponent to call or fold.

This is way more important than the denomination of your tip chip, OP.

True, but as we know, that he didn't bury them doesn't mean he didn't think that Opponent had folded. The guideline is that retrievable hands may be returned, not that they should be.

This looks like a fold to me, especially because the raise was announced by the dealer. I'd still like to hear how the bet was made.

If both hands are retrievable, then the floor may rule that action is back on V and play continues.

If either hand is in the muck/not retrievable, then the pot is yours (V folded his hand while facing a bet).

Throwing your cards forward while facing a bet or raise is a fold. Unlike at showdown, there is no rule-based reason to suggest his hand is retrievable and therefore may be ruled live. Floor should explain that it is his responsibility to follow the action and protect his hand, and in the future he should not discard his winning hands until he is being pushed the pot if he wants to avoid situations like this again.

Having said that, he was last to act on your raise, his cards were retrievable, and no damage was yet done to you or other players as a result. There is an avenue to use rule 1 to rule his hand live, return his cards to him, and put action back on him. I don't hate this ruling if it's an obvious misunderstanding, but I probably wouldn't make it myself (as a floor...as a player I would almost certainly offer it instead of calling for the floor, unless the player were a real dick and/or rules stickler himself).

Was the original bettor wearing headphones?

I don't see how he could think everyone folded if someone still had cards when he folded his hand (not to mention the dealer announced raise).

I would think they awarded the pot to the guy who went all in. You can't fold your hand then change your mind when facing a bet, even if it was your own mistake.

Pushed all chips forward and over the line. The dealer verbally announced that I was all in.

Then it's even more clear that he folded and it's your pot.

Sounds like you did everything right. It's your pot for sure.

Strategically, though, I tend to not enforce it. With the caveat that most of my experience is LHE where the ratio of value betting to bluffing is super high, because most of my range is value bets, when faced with these scenarios I always try to give off a "I have a pretty strong hand so I don't mind if you call but it's not invincible so I don't mind if you fold" vibe, and offer to let them call if they want.

Dealer error, he should never be pushing the pot before mucking villains cards. And a tip, as a player you should never be releasing your cards until you receive the pot and/or are sure everyone else's hands are dead.

He should rule the pot goes to you (the player that raised all in). However, there isn't anything stopping the floor from making the following ruling:
Is this a bad ruling? No. Being there and talking to the table would give a better idea if this would be reasonable, but generally that is a folded hand and the dealer needs to be corrected for not mucking it before pushing the pot. If the dealer does their job correctly, this is a no brainer. The other player needs to pay better attention.

Any other ruling is bad.

Yeah I could go other way on this one.

Play on, I say.

Tell the dealer when he gets up that mucking V's cards after pushing the pot, is not any easier than mucking them before pushing the pot. His shortcut wasn't any shorter. Just do things the right way from now on, plz.

In this case OP should get the pot , but don't be shocked if from time to time a floor will rule against you. After all , the rules are always what the dealer/floor says they are for that hand.

Play on unless you gave off some indication about the strength of your hand.

I would understand if Floor ruled it was a fold. It was a fold. Except that the player misunderstood the action...

As a player I would offer play to continue. But I would take the tip back. I don't like to win on technicalities. And I don't like to tip bad dealers.

Also put yourself in the other player's shoes. It seems like an honest mistake. No harm done. Would be nice to be allowed to call the $260 and play on.

I don't like it. I don't like any ruling that allows a player to indicate one action, gauge a response, then change that action. Even in this case where it may have been innocent and no advantage was gained, I hate this precedent. And not only does this fall under a players responsibility to protect their action, I find it hard to believe, assuming OP is being fair and accurate, that a guy would make a $100 bet, then tune out to the point where they missed the player announcing all-in, the dealer announcing all-in, and chips being pushed across the line.

Put it another way, let's say a player raises small, a second player raises huge, a third player says 'call', then notices the raise and tries to retract his action. Absent extenuating circumstances, this would not be allowed, so why should he be aloowed to retract his action in this case.

I was watching the Aria high roller series this year in which they were televising final tables. There was a hand in which somebody raised and then a guy with KK 3-bet. Another guy 4-bet but the guy with KK didn't see it. The original raiser folded and the KK guy mucked his hand thinking he had won the pot. The Dealer put the hand into the muck as he was supposed to and the guy with KK lost the hand. I'm just saying it happens.

If I was in the hand and I knew there was no intent to get a read and I knew that I hadn't given a read then I will give the other player the opportunity to play on. If I turn my hand face up and the guy then reaches for his cards and says "Wait you raised I thought you folded" no way am I going to let him back in the hand.

This happens all the time with SB's. They call the BB even though they are facing a raise. In many places they are allowed to fold, leaving the limped call in.

This happened in the WSOP main event with the French woman (I forget her name). She raised with KK the SB thinking everybody had folded to him, went all-in, the BB folded, the SB mucked his cards before the French woman could react (and the Dealer put them in the muck pile!). He was allowed to just put in the original raised amount and keep the rest of his stack. She had KK.

The precedent has already been set.

OK, some good points, but I don't agree with them. I will concede that a player can lose track of the action even after raising. it is rare, but doesn't mean that the player is definitely angling.

On your second point, let me make sure that there is a distinction between what I as a player would do and what I think the floor should rule. I, as a player, usually have no problem with a player reversing what I think is an honest mistake. Once the floor is called, though, they have to rule in a way that best preserves the integrity of the game. So it should be less about 'was an advantage gained here' but 'could an advantage be gained here'.

With regards to the Gael Baumann hand, the floor ruled that way because it was unclear with Baumann had said call before Koroknai mucked. I personally think it was a bad call, but i understood the logic. Had she called clearly before he mucked, he would have been out.

Comparing the scenario in the OP to a televised high stakes game or the WSOP ME is not fair.

I'd suggest this rule: compare the amount of money currently at stake with the total EV you expect to make in scenarios like this for the rest of your life.

A $20 1/2 NL pot? If you're a solid winner you are going to win thousands at 1/2 NL, don't **** it up over a $20 pot.

Final table at the WSOP ME? I'm fighting for every penny, both because I never intend to see these people again and also because I'm probably the worst player at the table and only there by sheer luck.

Floor ruling...

Both hands were distinguishable from the muck pile, so they let the original bettor decide whether or not he wanted to call my all in. He ended up calling.

I still 100% disagree with their ruling...it is the player's responsibility to pay attention to the action.

I am 100% certain you lost the hand and would have had no issue with the ruling if you had won, and would have been pissed if you had AA, and the guy is saying he wants to call it off allin pre and the floor didn't allow him to do so with his clearly identifiable hand.

Another of a long list of threads like this one ... They all have similar context and usually require more information than the OP can (or does) provide.

1) Yes, it is a Player's responsibility to pay attention and protect their interest in the hand/pot ... but we are all human and Floor's always have that back door if they deem the conditions merit this consideration.
2) Although part of the human aspect for sure, I don't think we necessarily want to consider the stakes involved in the spot. It's a spot, make a ruling based on the information at hand.

3) Always the first Rule to consider in these spots ... Is a forward motion and release of your cards considered a FOLD in this room. This is not the case anymore in a very high percentage of rooms even though Robert's Rules hasn't been adjusted accordingly. In the vast majority of rooms, a Player can't 'MUCK' his cards unless the forward motion of the cards puts them into the muck pile in an unidentifiable state. The definition of a FOLD is the first consideration.
4) Beyond any other mistakes, including by the Dealer for not 'mucking' the 'released' cards prior to pushing the pot, I think this is a spot where we can back up action and allow the Player facing the all-in to reconsider the action. I don't really like the idea of doing this if the all-in chips were placed in the betting area (and perhaps if the all-in button was tossed out), but I think that any crack in the door should be considered before making the 'standard' ruling. GL

PS .. The previous poster was correct. The KK Player was allowed to stay in the tournament because the Dealer couldn't solidly determine the order of the 'fold' or call occurring. What some also forget is that the KK person is who ended up eliminating 'the French woman' from the tournament one spot from the Final Table.

I don't really think this is true.

When facing a bet, releasing your cards forward is considered a fold in almost all rooms IMO.

What you may be referring to is at showdown. At showdown, releasing your cards forward indicates an intent to muck, but until the cards are irretrievable and unidentifiable in the muck pile, they may be considered live. (Pedantically, you also cannot fold at showdown.)

This post is about a player releasing his cards while facing a bet, not a player releasing his cards at showdown then realizing he won and tabling his hand. His hand should be dead in most rooms, unless overturned by rule 1 for some reason.

Correct .. I should've mention the Showdown part. The issue here is that the Player 'didn't know' he was facing a bet, which put him into 'end of hand' mode, thus causing the release of cards. I was trying to imply that in a room that still enforces the 'release' at Showdown rule it would be easier to rule the hand dead in this case.

The Rules clearly state that even an OOT verbal 'fold' or release of cards is binding, so that certainly would be the case here when facing a bet as well. So we do need to lean on Rule #1 if play is to continue in this hand. GL