What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

A player opened UTG for $15 in a 2/5 game. The BB defended.

Flop comes

Q-10-2 with two spades

BB checks, UTG bets $30, BB raises and UTG moves all-in and BB calls.

BB has Q-10, UTG has QQ. The action is sort of irrelevant.

BB turns his hand over, as does UTG. BB sees he's up against top set then picks his cards up and throws them forward face down about a foot in front of him. They never touch the muck. A player says to the BB "it could come spade-spade", and as the dealer turns a spade, the BB picks his hand up, pulls it back to him, and then the dealer turns over a river spade, making the BB a spade flush.

The hand never touched the muck, the dealer never touched the hand, but the BB did make a motion towards the muck.

What's the proper ruling here?

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

As the hand was called (all moneys in) and the card could clearly be identified and recoverable, the hand is live. The ruling will vary on the card room, floor, and exact details of this "mucking" and how close the cards were to the muck, and the dealers and other player's confidence in their recall of what exactly happened, but I believe most floors would rule this way.

Note: The only player dumber than the BB is the "player" that made the comment. Don't be that fool.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

I have seen this exact situation where the player flips over his cards and tosses them face down into the muck, thinking he is drawing dead.

The dealer pulled them out and set them beside the other hand and above the flop cards and dealt the turn and river.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

They are all-in, he doesn't have an opportunity to act until showdown. It sucks that someone opened his mouth and possibly influenced the play, but at the time the player threw his cards down he was acting out of turn. His hand was live when he retrieved it, and the best hand wins.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

Big-mouthed player should get a "one player to a hand" warning.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

It could also come Ten, Ten. People mucking their hand on the flop after getting allin are idiots. There is almost always some sort of runner runner draw. At least twice I've seen ace high get allin vs. a set, and then 2 wheel cards hit and they try to dive into the muck and they are sh*t out of luck.
Anyway, where I used to deal, we were told to muck a hand once a player "mucked" it. Having already seen the hand should technically not affect this. Since the hand was retrieved by the player, it would stay live in most if not all casinos, although I'm sure a floor could rule that the player mucked his hand, and even though he retrieved it, it was still mucked and dead.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

Was the hand tabled, or just held up for all to see and then mucked? If tabled, it helps even more, but I say the hand is live and the talky player gets KITN.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

Hijack:

If the player indeed throws his hand into the muck (not near the muck but right into the pile) after this flop, and if no one says anything, is the dealer trained to push the pot to the guy with the set and not deal a turn/river or is he supposed to deal the turn/river and then push the pot to the winner?

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

It seems pretty clear to me at least that the hand is live. He already went all in and there is no way to "fold" or muck the hand at this point considering his cards didn't even touch anything else. I believe if he never showed his cards and then threw his hand into the pile of cards, his hand would then be "dead" I believe. But I think thats the only way to kill his hand.

I have a question though: Is the "big mouth" that informed him that he could catch two spades THAT wrong in doing so? I know people say he should keep his mouth shut, and so I don't blurt things out like that. However, I also don't really get that mad at people that do, EVEN if it cost me my pot. I feel like the cards determined the winner, and even if the guy says nothing, won't the dealer give the pot to the "correct" winner anyways? It's like a stranger pointing out that you recieved too much change for your purchase...then the cashier takes some money back. Of course you might think "mind your damn business!" but at the same time, it wasn't really right for you to knowingly take the extra change in the first place. I've seen arguments over pots like this and it actually annoys me that the person is trying so hard to get a pot that's not his. Seems kinda shady to me. Am I wrong here?

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

I agree 100% here. The hand is clearly live, he was all in, his cards were clear and distinguishable, and at this point the action is done.

The player who mentioned that it could run spade spade isn't helping him play his hand, his hand is played. This isn't a one player one hand thing. I won't defend the action of tossing the cards in, that's plain dumb, but since they didn't touch the muck, they're not mucked, and his cards won.

The best cards win the hand here and the guy who mentioned spade spade probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway, as the dealer would have likely turned the cards up.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

In a cardroom where dealers are trained to pull into the muck folded cards as the OP described and Brettski talks about above, then only 1 live hand remains after the flop.

If only 1 live hand remains, there is no need for the dealer to put out the turn and river. The pot could reasonably be pushed to the sole remaining live hand, provided the pot is corrrect.

I realize this is a huge (potential) cluster f***, but when the player picked up his cards and threw them face down towards the muck, most places would have the dealer immediately pull them into the muck. It doesn't matter that he had previously properly tabled the hand. That hand is now out of play and in the original post description there is only the one remaining live hand.

Since in the original description the dealer didn't scoop up the cards, the player can retrieve his own cards and re-table them face-up. The dealer created this mess by not mucking the folded cards immediately, thereby ending the need for dealing further board cards.

It would have been completely different if the tabling of hands had taken place after the board was complete. Then the properly tabled hands could have been read even if one of them was subsequently turned face down by the player.

__________________________________________________ __________

edited to add: Hey, after over 2 1/2 years, it's my 400th post! That's like 1 week for MicroBob.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

In a cardroom where dealers are trained to pull into the muck folded cards as the OP described and Brettski talks about above, then only 1 live hand remains after the flop.

If only 1 live hand remains, there is no need for the dealer to put out the turn and river. The pot could reasonably be pushed to the sole remaining live hand, provided the pot is corrrect.

I realize this is a huge (potential) cluster f***, but when the player picked up his cards and threw them face down towards the muck, most places would have the dealer immediately pull them into the muck. It doesn't matter that he had previously proprely tabled the hand. That hand is now out of play and in the original post description there is only the one remaining live hand.

Since in the original description the dealer didn't scoop up the cards, the player can retrieve his own cards and re-table them face-up. The dealer created this mess by not mucking the folded cards immediately, thereby ending the need for dealing further board cards.

It would have been completely different if the tabling of hands had taken place after the board was complete. Then the properly tabled hands could have been read even if one of them was subsequently turned face down by the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% sure how the floors in the rooms I play at would rule even though technically a tabled hand should speak. Since the hand was tabled it was identifiable to everyone, including the dealer so when a floor is called it can be retrieved but I'm just not confident that they would all rule that way.

I will say that in an all in situation with no further action if a player throws their hand to the muck but then reaches out and grabs the cards I have no problem with it.
A litle hijack:

The other day I was playing and the board had a flush. Seat 3 tabled his hand (playing the board) and seat 2 was looking at his cards and kind of held them out and was about to muck them when the dealer says "don't throw them away, it's a chop". He tables and they split. Needless to say most of the table went apesh@t and chewed the dealer out and she couldn't understand why everyone was giving her a hard time about it. She said something like "I've been dealing for years and I always tell them when it's a chopped pot". I had a nice talk with the floor in private later on.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

A couple of points I should probably add to all this.

Firstly, the floor can almost never go wrong by ruling that if there is only one player left with cards, they get the pot. You can apply this principle in a variety of cash game and tournament situations.

Secondly, the OP refers to a cash game, and cash game rules sometimes differ from tournament rules. If this were a tournament and the action was complete, both hands would have been required to be tabled, and both eligible to win the hand at the showdown.

On the other hand in a cash game where ...
a) a flop is dealt,
b) a player moves all in and is called, and
c) a player chooses to muck their hand before the rest of the board is dealt out,
... then I would be perfectly happy ruling that the pot must be awarded to the only player remaining with cards.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I have a question though: Is the "big mouth" that informed him that he could catch two spades THAT wrong in doing so? I know people say he should keep his mouth shut, and so I don't blurt things out like that. However, I also don't really get that mad at people that do, EVEN if it cost me my pot. I feel like the cards determined the winner, and even if the guy says nothing, won't the dealer give the pot to the "correct" winner anyways? It's like a stranger pointing out that you recieved too much change for your purchase...then the cashier takes some money back. Of course you might think "mind your damn business!" but at the same time, it wasn't really right for you to knowingly take the extra change in the first place. I've seen arguments over pots like this and it actually annoys me that the person is trying so hard to get a pot that's not his. Seems kinda shady to me. Am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very right. Gambler's attachments and greed impede their ethics, which, unfortunately, affects 2p2ers as well.

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree this sort of training eliminates some disputes and I know for a fact that the dealer in this OP had that sort of training.

~ Rick

Re: What\'s the correct ruling on this situation?
 

[ QUOTE ]
BB turns his hand over,
as does UTG. BB sees he's up against top set then
picks his cards up and throws them forward face down

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand was tabled. Cards speak.
No KITN or one player to a hand warning needed.
Deal the turn and river and push the pot to the flush.

IF he had just flashed his hand and tossed it facedown
I would muck it and push the pot, no turn or river.