1/2 local casino.

Pot $35, three players on flop. Flop 5/5/6. Small blind leads $30. Big blind throws his cards forward barely past the betting line, hesitates a beat, then grabs them before dealer can react. This makes the other player in hand fold. Big blind then puts chips in to call.

Small blind wants floor called. Big blind says “it can be a call or fold, your choice”. Small blind still wants floor called. Floor says dealer didnt touch cards and they didnt teach the muck so hand is live even though it influenced action.

So the call stands. Turn is a 7, small blind shoves $250, big blind calls with A5 and scoops. Big blind says he knew he had an ace but as he was folding thought the other card might be a 5 and double checked and it was.

Not sure why small blind didnt take up the offer for a fold but he was upset on ruling. Standard ruling?

So the third player folded because BB grabbed his cards back to signal his intention to call? I don't think that's really different from him just putting in calling chips which also would have made the third player fold.

I think that's a good ruling.

A player facing a bet threw his cards forward...that should be ruled a fold.

The third player folded instantly as the big blind put his cards forward and before taking them back.

He folded to a bet, the big blind's hand should be dead, and not because it "didn't touch the muck". That's irrelevant.

As psand said, throwing your cards forward when facing a bet should always be ruled a fold. (The only time it might be a question is if he didn't throw them out beyond the area of his exclusive use and control, like if he "threw" them just a smidge ahead of his chips, where he always keeps his hand when he's not actively looking at them.)

Furthermore, even if there was some ambiguity (which there doesn't appear to be), the fact that his action cause the player behind him to act further cements his action as un-reversible. It should have been ruled a fold.

As played, the floor made a bad decision. But I have no idea why SB called the floor over if it wasn't to ask that BB's hand be declared dead, so if BB was offering that why the hell not take him up on it and avoid the whole floor call?

As an alternate question, would the statement "it can be a call or fold your choice" be binding. If after BB said that and SB says I want you to fold, could the BB say I don't really want to, now knowing the SB wants him to fold.

Well, you're not wrong, it could be an angle rather than a sincere offer. It's definitely not binding, it's table talk.

But it's not like asking for a floor ruling is without risk either, as the SB found out here when the floor made a bad ruling.

If it were me, I would try the easiest option first and tell BB that he folded when he threw his hand forward, and especially when that caused the third player to fold behind him. In my experience this offer is often genuine, from someone who has caused a mini-problem. Then see what happens. If the BB refuses to fold after offering it, then call the floor. Who knows, maybe the floor hearing about that additional angle would be more inclined to then rule the BBs hand dead.

It's not up the the players involved what happens from there. It's up to the dealer or the floor. Everything else is just table talk.

Exactly. A fold is a fold is a fold.

SB thought he had the winning hand so he wanted the floor to rule that the cards were live.

Also agree that the floor should rule the cards dead.

The dealer shouldn't allow the players to make offers as to what to do. He should just enforce what he believes the rule is and if a player disagrees, then call the floor for a ruling. But there should be no player negotiation as how to proceed.

And where I play, the hand would be dead. Cards there can only be quickly retrieved at showdown, not when facing a bet.

I strongly disagree.

I've seen 100's of hands where a ruling was averted in a heads-up pot when one player would offer, "Wanna just do X?", and the second player agreed.

If the two players involved are OK with it, who are you to object? The Rules Sheriff?

Compromise isn't a bad thing.

The purpose of a ruling is to settle disputes. If there's no dispute to settle, deal the next hand!

Though in this case their is a third player involved. Perhaps he calls if the player now changing his action had called...

well we're talking about a cut-and-dry rule here. Are you saying if a guy string bets and the other players agree, he can leave the money in the pot?

You're not allowed to fold and then change your mind and call.

Strickly speaking is a huge angle but not a fold.

I do agree it should be considered a fold though.

He did not announce fold and the dealer did not scoop the cards.
Unless this cardroom has a rule on dead hands past the betting line but I've never seen that.

I won't speak for youtalkfunny but I have done exactly that several times - I allow an opponent to make what would probably be ruled a string had I called the floor.

There are two reasons:

1. They probably aren't angleshooting. It's a harmless mistake and if they truly intended to raise I am fine letting them.

2. They probably are angleshooting. They make a late raise thinking you will object and then check behind on the next street when you check to them. The counter to this is obvious - let them raise if they truly want.

There seems to be blurring of two different situations here. The 'are the cards identifiable?' condition is only relevant when trying to determine if unmucked discarded cards are live when facing no action, i.e at showdown.

The fact that the cards are identifiable here is irrelevant. The only question is, does this room consider commonly used, non-verbal acts to declare action? If the dealer has ever scooped cards discarded in this manner without asking the player if it is a fold, then yes, this room treats the act of discarding towards the muck face down as a declaration of action. Once you have declared action, it is binding and irreversible. It isn't even that terribly relevant that it induced action behind. If you allowed this, you would have to allow someone saying "I raise...no, I mean call'.

Huh? Strictly speaking it IS a fold. He released his hand forward while facing a bet. I would be OK allowing him to pull his cards back if it didn't influence any action behind. The player would be warned that further instances of the behavior would not be tolerated, so he can't start pump-faking folds to get reads.

Here, he influenced action by throwing his hand forward when facing a bet, so he folded. Dead hand.

Releasing your hand forward and facedown, while facing a bet, is the very definition of a fold. You don't have to say anything, nor does the dealer have to do anything. You've folded, period, end of discussion.

As far as players agreeing on their own to do X to solve a dispute, this has always been done and generally allowed in cash games, but probably isn't always a good idea in tournaments.

To all the "know-it-all's" who think just because he threw his hand forward it is a fold, you are wrong. In every single casino I've ever played in, along with the one I work in, a player's card are not dead until they hit the muck. It doesn't matter if the cards are pushed forward. If the player retrieves their cards before they hit the muck, everywhere I've ever played the hand is still live.

If they verbally say fold, then yes it's a fold. Unless they verbally say fold, or the cards hit the muck, they are still live and can be played.

well good thing that you came and settled it then. we can close the thread now

So, you are saying that every time a dealer mucks cards that have been discarded forward with no verbal declaration of action, it is the dealer who is folding the hand, not the player? You are saying that the player has made no binding indication of action, and it is only the dealers initiative that kills the hand.

I think I do not want to play in every casino you have played in, including the one you work in, if a dealer routinely acts to fold a hand when the player has not acted. This seems like a really, really badly run room(s)

Yeah, I completely disagree with that. Just because you end up heads up doesn't turn the game into a home game where players can do whatever they want. It especially causes problems when other players see a rule ignored, especially one as clear cut as when is a hand folded, and then demand the same flexibility later. It allows players the opportunity to enforce one set of rules when they are playing against a buddy, and enforce a different set of rules when they end up in a hand with a guy they don't like.

Most rulings where I play are when a player disagrees with the house rule, and the floor has to come to enforce it, not when two players don't agree on a rule.