I witnessed this last light. The dollar amounts are small, but that made it seem even skeezier. Worst part, is old dude seemed to have no idea he was an *******.

Pot is small, like $15-$20 at a 1/2 table. Guy in seat 5 bets $15 on the river. Folds around, dealer scoops him the pot, and mucks his cards, then old dude says I call and lifts his hands from covering his cards in seat 3. Seat 5's cards are truly irretrievable. Floor rules old dude only live hand, very sorry all that. Old dude is smiling like he found a million dollars.

Dealer pulls back pot minus seat 5's bet and sends it to old guy. Old guy says, hey what about his $15 bet. That's mine too.

Should of been a chopped pot. Happened before, and competent floor ruled it chopped pot. Both players should of been aware of who was in the hand. And since dealer was the one in error, the pot should of been chopped with no rake.

Context is important - how quickly was small pot pushed and cards mucked, was villain legitimately distracted by something else at the time, etc.

But 90% of the time I am giving pot to seat 5 and warning old guy about angling.

0% of the time is old guy ever getting that $15.

If this happened the first time, you might give old guy the benefit of doubt and chop the pot. Second time, seat 5 gets the pot and old guy gets a warning.

I don't like giving old guy the pot, but I am OK with that ruling unless he also gets the river bet. That sounds ridiculous to me.

This, and this thread is why I like to hold onto my cards until the pot is pushed.

I think in this case it is obvious the guy is angling based on his behavior. The normal response from seat 3 in this situation is "wait, I still have cards," not "call." He made it way too obvious he's trying to take advantage of the situation.

OP said that the dealer scooped the pot to seat 5 before mucking the cards.

Yes, but now seat 3 had time to make an objection, which is the main reason why his hand is dead and seat 5 gets the pot.

IMO, there is too much action, even if not typical too much. Old man hand is dead as he doth protest too late.

If the angler sat there and watched the pot get shoved, how is that not 'action accepted'. You had a chance to object, you didn't. You accept the outcome.

This is dirty, scumbag stuff. I would probably rack up and leave no uncertainty as to what I thought about that player, probably with language that would get me an evenings rest.

That's not what "action accepted" means. That term refers to betting action.

That's clearly not what happened? Floor ruled old guys hand dead and awarded the pot to him, not to seat 5.

I think you mean "live" there.

"Old Dude" is told that it was too late to call and he forfeited the hand. If the floor tried to enforce his actual ruling, I'd politely let him know that I plan to ask every player at the table each hand if they have cards remaining before giving up my cards. I'll let the room manager figure out how much money that "rule" is costing them.

Dealer did not ask "Old Dude" if he calls, raises or folds? Did not see that he had cards? Seems like dealer error and that floor could have ruled differently. Seems awfully late to reverse the hand like that. "Old Dude" connected reg maybe?

I haven't read the exact verbiage, but I take it to mean 'You accepted the tables action at the time, you cannot change your mind after the fact'. Yes, it is a bit of an extension of the rule, but it is the same principle. By staying silent when he had a chance to object to an obvious mistake, he accepted the action.

I could also see a floor saying that his concealing of his cards was akin to an false declaration meant to indice a muck, and award the hand based on that rule.

And finally, the floor should just invoke rule 1, award the hand, and issue a warning.

Yeah, this is a terrible ruling. No matter what else happens, when a pot is pushed to you, you have to be allowed to give up your cards without fear of losing the pot. Otherwise you would never be able to move on to the next hand.

I meant what I said. I was saying what should have happened, not recounting what did happen. My wording caused confusion. To clarify, the floor made a bad ruling. Seat 5's hand should have been killed and the pot awarded to seat 3.

OP said the old guy covered his cards with his hands. Which I'm sure the dealer could attest to if the dealer didn't see his cards. Idiot floorman.

bad ruling but when doing nothing think about similar situations and what to say to make the ruling go your way.

in this spot just insist that the old man clearly said fold when the action was on him.
then the floor can justify giving you the pot.

1) Player error when action passed by him and he didn't stop it .. timely.
2) Dealer error for not knowing who was in hand.
3) OP (?) error for not knowing who was in hand.

4) Floor error for not using common sense ... although technically the next hand hadn't started and old man did have the only live (?) hand at the time.
5) Not really into suggesting that OP misrepresent the facts ("He folded") in an effort to fight for a pot that might be taken away.

I like the idea of using context and timing here ..
A) Where was the Button?
B) Was Seat 3 in SB/BB and had already checked (or been skipped) on the River?
C) How long did it take for Seat 3 to say 'Call'?
D) How many other players folded after Seat 5's bet?

Although I agree that 'pot pushing' doesn't end the hand I think I would need to know more about that previous action. I'm not sure where in the rules it suggests a chop as a solution, but I don't mind a chop as an option if the Floor reads it that way. Hopefully the Floor can get the straight scoop on the spot ... but sometimes there are just 'robotic' Floors and they don't care who made the error(s) and the 'live' hand will get the pot. GL

Almost anytime the ruling is to chop the pot, it is a bad ruling. Now, if the players involved want to chop the pot, then of course, let them. But if the floor says to chop the pot, that really just means he doesn't know what to do, or doesn't want to do it, and is trying to "compromise" his way out of it. Bad ruling!