Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

I can't remember the exact play or board, but its really unimportant to the decision.

Old guy in seat 4 gets his small stack all in for a main pot of about $120. 2 other players, in seat 1 and seat 8, are all in for a side pot of about $60.

Final card is dealt, Seat 4 turn up his hand showing a full house. Seat 1 immediately throws away his hand, closely followed by Seat 8.

The table starts screaming "side pot, side pot" and both players ask for their hands back. Seat 8's cards are about 18 inches in front of him and he reaches for them. Seat 1's cards are laying against the muck and are easily retrievable, and in fact dealer quickly pulls them away from the muck and sets them aside as the table starts arguing over who gets the sidepot, and the floor is called.

Floor hears the story and says Seat 8's cards are live, but Seat 1's cards, since they touched the muck, are dead. Sidepot goes to Seat 8.

Question 1: Did the floor make the right call?

No one like the call, and Seat 8 and Seat 1 quickly agree to chop the sidepot. Floor says if that's OK with you its OK with me, and the dealer mucks both hands then splits the chips 50-50 and ships half to each player.

Question 2: If you're the floor, and the players agree to a deal that overrides your decision, do you let them?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

The very existence of "magic muck" in your title makes it pretty clear you didn't like this. And I don't either. The cards were clearly identifiable, let Seat 1 have them back.

Yes, the players agreeing that the decision of the floor was wrong and unfair and should be undone was fine. Seat 8 gets a halo award.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

It's a case of which is more prevalent in today's cardrooms, stupidity or total idiocy? Belief in magic indicates stupidity, but belief that the muck has magical properties that cause a hand to be irreversibly dead, regardless of the situation, indicates idiocy. Perhaps this is too close to call, when you add in the guy who tossed his hand into the muck in the first place. Generally I allow most things that make all the players happy, so the deal wouldn't bother me, but then I wouldn't make such a dumb decision either.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand. I'm sure the dealer had the best of intentions by pulling Seat 1's cards away from the muck. However, if those cards hadn't been physically retrievable, the floor probably wouldn't have been called to make a decision. And if they had, the decision would have been a lot easier.

But this is moot.

Question 1: Was the right call made? It's not an unreasonable call, provided that it's consistently applied. Some places have rules that say if it touches the muck, it's mucked. Some have rules that say different. The more important point is that whatever the rule is, it should be consistently applied in every similar situation at that venue.

Question 2: Should a deal like that be made? I'm strongly of the opinion that this is very wrong. Pots should always be awarded to pot winners. When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game, and opening a whole can of worms.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this myself, but cases like these always usually cause problems with the nits.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this myself, but cases like these always usually cause problems with the nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

And more problems are caused by trying to keep nits happy then any other single cause.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand. I'm sure the dealer had the best of intentions by pulling Seat 1's cards away from the muck. However, if those cards hadn't been physically retrievable, the floor probably wouldn't have been called to make a decision. And if they had, the decision would have been a lot easier.

But this is moot.

Question 1: Was the right call made? It's not an unreasonable call, provided that it's consistently applied. Some places have rules that say if it touches the muck, it's mucked. Some have rules that say different. The more important point is that whatever the rule is, it should be consistently applied in every similar situation at that venue.

Question 2: Should a deal like that be made? I'm strongly of the opinion that this is very wrong. Pots should always be awarded to pot winners. When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game, and opening a whole can of worms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Nit Award of some kind that we can give to this poster?

"dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand" The dealer is not a hired assassin, trained to kill hands at every opportunity. If you think he is, then it sounds like you hate the idea of awarding the pot to the best hand, whenever possible, in the interest of fairness.

When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game This line alone sewed up the Nit Award for you. There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

I can just imagine both players agreeing to chop the sidepot; the entire table relaxes, relieved that a fair solution was reached; the calm is then shattered by The Lone Nit, who rises out of his seat to give a fiery speech about life, liberty, truth, justice, and "jeapordising the integrity of the game..."

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand" The dealer is not a hired assassin, trained to kill hands at every opportunity. If you think he is, then it sounds like you hate the idea of awarding the pot to the best hand, whenever possible, in the interest of fairness.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, dealers are not hired assassins. However, when ambiguous situations like this are permitted to occur (eg. did it touch the muck, is it actually in the muck) they can result in the floor being called to make tricky, line-ball decisions. And let's face it, that's what floor staff are there to do. But procedures that minimise the need for this are, in my view, good poker room management.

[ QUOTE ]
When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game This line alone sewed up the Nit Award for you. There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

I can just imagine both players agreeing to chop the sidepot; the entire table relaxes, relieved that a fair solution was reached; the calm is then shattered by The Lone Nit, who rises out of his seat to give a fiery speech about life, liberty, truth, justice, and "jeapordising the integrity of the game..."

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example given by the OP, a decision was made that one hand was dead, and the only remaining live hand would be awarded the side-pot. What is so unusual about this situation that it required an unusual ruling to be made? In what other situations would it be acceptable for players to chop a pot? How similar would they be to the OP's situation? Where do you draw the line?

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]

In the example given by the OP, a decision was made that one hand was dead, and the only remaining live hand would be awarded the side-pot. What is so unusual about this situation that it required an unusual ruling to be made?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brettski,

"The only remaining live hand wins the pot" is fair and easy to apply. That makes it a good procedure for executing the overriding goal - awarding the pot correctly.

Here, however, determining which of those hands is more or less live is neither fair nor easy. Both players did the same thing. One was simply closer to the muck.

To base the ruling solely on this procedure would undermine the overriding goal of awarding the pot correctly.

You seem to think the opposite - that by awarding the pot correctly it undermines the procedure. But the procedures exist to serve the game, not the other way around.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should probably expand on this point a little.

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with the concept that unusual situations may require unusual solutions when it is in the best interests of the game. In fact you will find this "rule" codified in rulebooks used in poker rooms and tournaments.

It isn't, however, a "get out of jail free" card that can be pulled out if the going gets tough.

The reason that the "unusual circumstances" concept exists is because we simply can't write a set of rules that will cover every single situation that may arise. But before we invoke this rule, we should make sure that there isn't a rule that does cover the situation!

Another point to consider is consistency. If an "unusual" ruling was to be made to chop a pot (like in the OP's situation) are you happy for this same ruling to be made whenever this situation occurs? You may or may not, depending on your point of view. But this is something that has to be borne in mind when making "unusual rulings".

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both hands were tossed toward the muck. I guess you feel the dealer should have "irretrievably mucked" both.

Then who gets the side pot?

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1: Did the floor make the right call?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think the Floor has to make this call because the cards are touching the muck.

[ QUOTE ]
Question 2: If you're the floor, and the players agree to a deal that overrides your decision, do you let them?


[/ QUOTE ]
I would let them.

If I was in seat 8 I would have asked player 1 to identify his cards before turning them over. Then I would have given him the whole side pot if his hand beat mine, and the mucked cards matched - and I would have kept the whole side pot if my hand was best.

But I can see the chop the side pot logic as well - it assumes both hands were mucked.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Okay, heres my two cents...

You have to pay attention at the table. These guys both forgot there was a side-pot (cmon man PAY ATTENTION).

If one guy mucks, the other should be awarded the side.

Since both mucked their hands (I dont care if it TOUCHED the muck.. he made the folding motion).... I think the side-pot should be split among the two doofuses.

A fold is a fold.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]

"The only remaining live hand wins the pot" is fair and easy to apply. That makes it a good procedure for executing the overriding goal - awarding the pot correctly.

Here, however, determining which of those hands is more or less live is neither fair nor easy. Both players did the same thing. One was simply closer to the muck.

To base the ruling solely on this procedure would undermine the overriding goal of awarding the pot correctly.

You seem to think the opposite - that by awarding the pot correctly it undermines the procedure. But the procedures exist to serve the game, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some very good points.

One question, however, comes out of this: how is a pot awarded "correctly"?

Example 1: Player A shows two-pair at the showdown. Player B flashes pocket Aces to the players sitting next to him, then angrily mucks his cards. The other players then shout out that he had the Ace of Spades and made a flush on the last card. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Example 2: Player A shows an Ace-high flush at the showdown. Player B rolls over the 10 of Hearts to make a straight flush (using four cards on the board) and throws his second card into the muck. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Example 3: Player A, sitting next to the dealer, makes quads on the river and bets. When he does so, he flashes his cards to the dealer. The floorman, standing behind, also sees his cards. Player B, who has made a full house on the river, calls and turns over his cards. Player A then exclaims, "where's my cards?". It turns out they weren't protected, and were accidentally mucked by the dealer. Player A clearly had the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Now these examples are all pretty academic and crop up from time to time in forum discussions. What they illustrate is that fairness and the best interests of the game are served by the consistent application of rules and principles. These examples are about the need to be able to prove that you have a hand that's eligible to claim a pot.

To go back to the OP's situation in a round-about way, I do not believe the pot was awarded "correctly". A pot that has been divided by mutual agreement is not, in my view, a correctly awarded pot. But mine is only one view amongst many.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both hands were tossed toward the muck. I guess you feel the dealer should have "irretrievably mucked" both.

Then who gets the side pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew someone would ask that! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

Is this ruling getting a bit technical? Yeah. Does it suck, even a little bit? Yeah. Thing is though, I believe that chopping pots sucks more, as it set dangerous precedents, especially in tournaments.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people out there who would argue that chopping a pot in this instance would, in fact, suck less. That's cool; it's a perfectly valid opinion. What that illustrates is that some situations will arise where there are no perfect rulings. The key is to be able to make the least imperfect one. I'm sure the floorman (in the OP) believed that was what he was doing.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Why do people believe that cards touching the muck somehow gain a new property, namely that they are forever lost. This is simply not true.

The only thing regarding cards touching the muck is that it reduces them being "clearly identifiable". Obviously a mucked hand in front of a guy is clearly identifiable. Two cards tossed face up on the muck are also clearly identifiable. However, when two cards touch the muck, the clearly part of identifiable is reduced.

Nonetheless, the muck is not a magic disappearing pond where everything that touches it vanishes.

I don't like the floor's decision. I would trust the dealer to give me his level of confidence that he retreived the correct cards and also call upon the player to identify his hand. If the dealer is certain and the player identifies his hand correctly, then give the sidepot to the best hand.

As a matter of fact, I would expect a good dealer to stop those cards from getting into the muck and becoming less than clearly identifiable.

Having said all that, if one player's hand does actually become buried in the muck (perhaps he shoved them right into it) and the other sidepot player clearly mucked even though his cards are alone, I would split the side pot. So overall, I give the floor a solid F.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
These examples are about the need to be able to prove that you have a hand that's eligible to claim a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why these examples don't apply. In this situation, Seat 1 and Seat 8 both could prove their hands. One hand never touched the muck at all, and the other, though it had come in contact with the muck, was retrievable and identifiable.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that chopping pots sucks more, as it set dangerous precedents, especially in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, of course two players can't agree to chop a pot in a tournament, and if they tried you'd be right to nit yourself into a tizzy.

In cash games, however, it's perfectly acceptable for a player who feels he may have been awarded a pot unfairly to chop it. They both made the same mistake, why should one be punished and the other rewarded?

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]

One question, however, comes out of this: how is a pot awarded "correctly"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just shove me the pot! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]

Example 1: Player A shows two-pair at the showdown. Player B flashes pocket Aces to the players sitting next to him, then angrily mucks his cards. The other players then shout out that he had the Ace of Spades and made a flush on the last card. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player A gets the pot. Player B never tabled his hand, not even just the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Also, by your description, he only showed some of the players. If Player A did not see the card, try to convince him he 'lost'.

[ QUOTE ]

Example 2: Player A shows an Ace-high flush at the showdown. Player B rolls over the 10 of Hearts to make a straight flush (using four cards on the board) and throws his second card into the muck. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player B flogged 124 lashes with fettucini (al dente). Made to sweat. Impound the pot and "look at the security tape". Then give it to him along with a lecture, hoping he has learned his lesson. Next time give Player A the pot. I know you are supposed to show both cards to win the pot, but with so many rookies playing, it is hard to insist on blind adherence to a technicality.


[ QUOTE ]

Example 3: Player A, sitting next to the dealer, makes quads on the river and bets. When he does so, he flashes his cards to the dealer. The floorman, standing behind, also sees his cards. Player B, who has made a full house on the river, calls and turns over his cards. Player A then exclaims, "where's my cards?". It turns out they weren't protected, and were accidentally mucked by the dealer. Player A clearly had the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player B gets the pot. Dealer gets fired.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand. I'm sure the dealer had the best of intentions by pulling Seat 1's cards away from the muck. However, if those cards hadn't been physically retrievable, the floor probably wouldn't have been called to make a decision. And if they had, the decision would have been a lot easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the policy of my room that dealers are to protect in these situations (player folding where there is a side pot or a blind folding to no raise)

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

I'll chime in with my opinions.

Question 2 seems a little more clear to me. This seems to be a pull between "floorman's decision is final" and "in the best interest of the game". To avoid the inevitable complaining and potential bickering over the decision, I think its OK to let the players override the decision as long as no one has an objection. If unanimous consensus cannot be reached, the floorman's ruling should be imposed.

Question 1 seems like a trickier question to me. It seems to be a pull between a "fair" ruling and a "consistent" ruling. There's a couple things that come into play, I think. I didn't mention that this was a California cardroom, and in my (admittedly small) experience the magic muck rule is always invoked. If its 100% consistent, every time, I have less of a problem with it. It becomes a quirk of the game if everyone knows and understands that simply touching the muck kills your hand, rather than some technicality opening up angle shots and pissing off new players. On the other hand, both Seat 1 and Seat 8 made the same mistake. I think possible rulings are "both hands are live, turn them up" and "touching the muck kills the hand, ship it the other way". The first fails to hold 2 players accountable for protecting their hand, but awards the pot according to the cards. Any time you can get to cards speak I think its good - every knows what beats what. OTOH, if the magic muck is 100% universally enforced, then I have less problem with how the floor ruled. Both payers made a mistake - folding - but one was glaring because his cards actually reached the muck. Its a shame only one player gets his cards pulled back after dropping them, but I suppose its a lesson to the loser about protecting his hand.

As you can see I'm a little torn. That's why I posted.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

Is this ruling getting a bit technical?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't technical, it is just wrong. As it hinted at in the title of the OP there is nthing magical about the muck that kills hands.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both payers made a mistake - folding - but one was glaring because his cards actually reached the muck. Its a shame only one player gets his cards pulled back after dropping them, but I suppose its a lesson to the loser about protecting his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The player in seat 1 can give his cards a slight toss to the right and one can easily touch the muck. Player 3 or 4 can give a good 3-4 foot toss and miss the muck completely.

It seems like the "magic muck" rule is disadvantageous for players sitting beside the dealer who have a much higher chance of accidentally reaching the muck since it's so close. I've seen some dealers put the muck right in front of player 1.

Personally, if there is a dark hole at the poker table, I want to sit as far away from it as possible, lest my hand get accidentally sucked up. Yeah, I know, protect yourself at all times. However it's easier to protect yourself if the guy with the sword is across the room rather than right behind you.

I think this whole "magic muck" hogwash was created by floors who don't want to make the tough calls.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Ugh, magic muck. I've had the floor rule that a hand was dead when just a tiny little corner of it touched the muck for a fraction of a second. Of course, throwing ones cards in doesn't count as a muck until the dealer scoops them up. It's insanity. It's people like Brettski that encourage cardrooms to go this route.

Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.

As to the dealer making a mistake by not mucking everything instantly... hogwash. Were I in that situation, I'd make every effort to prevent the sidepot players from mucking after the main pot player showed his hand. The dealer mistake was in letting them muck, not in leaving the cards clearly identifiable while the floor was called.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

PS, it's crap like this and the ensuing nit-tastic arguments that are going to lead us all to eTables sooner rather than later.

It's in the best interest of the game to RELAX.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.


[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever reason the rule nits out there always seem to miss or not understand the rule about the floor ruling in the interest of fairness even when that means ruling contrary to the rules.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.


[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever reason the rule nits out there always seem to miss or not understand the rule about the floor ruling in the interest of fairness even when that means ruling contrary to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This Fairness Nit hates it when the Floor uses this legitimate exception as a smokescreen for favoritism.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

[/ QUOTE ]
You should shake this notion outta yer head. You keep coming back to the magical muck, and claiming that whatever card first touches it loses. That's just wrong.

Let's hypothesis. Let's say we're heads-up, I make a bet, and you toss your cards face down towards the dealer. Dealer pulls the cards close in but they never touch another card. I then fire my cards into the muck. By your logic, I would lose, because your cards are still on the table, but mine touched the muck first.

In OP's case, question 1 COULD be answered by "who folded first?" but NEVER what cards touched the muck first. I'd be ok with THAT decision if player 8 claimed "I saw seat 1 muck his hand, so I then tossed in my winner". Seat 8 can have the pot. (OP says in his story seat 1 tossed his cards in first.) But the floor ruling as he did claiming it was because Seat 1's cards touched the muck while Seat 8's did not is not good.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Problem with that, bav, is that in a lot of cardrooms (particularly California, it seems), it IS a magical muck.

I find it ridiculous, but there you have it.

Also, protect your hand. Don't fire into the muck until you have the pot. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should shake this notion outta yer head. You keep coming back to the magical muck, and claiming that whatever card first touches it loses. That's just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurt notes:

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mention that this was a California cardroom, and in my (admittedly small) experience the magic muck rule is always invoked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, maybe the muck actually is treated as magical in whatever cardroom Kurt plays at. If so, he's not wrong in the context of the room he's describing. His best course of action would be to start playing in a room whose rules don't suck.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Slight tangent, this reminds me of one of the most misunderstood baseball rules. The schoolyard saying is "tie goes to the runner", but the actual rule is written that to be called safe the runner must "beat the throw". So in reality, in the event of an actual tie the runner didn't beat the throw and is therefore out. Yet all across the country millions of little kids grow up thinking the "tie goes to the runner".

If everyone thinks the muck is magic, does it become magic?

(I wish it weren't; it doesn't make sense.)

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Problem with that, bav, is that in a lot of cardrooms (particularly California, it seems), it IS a magical muck.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what's gonna happen to the pot in my scenario? Player 1 throws his cards in face down, dealer never touches them to the muck. I'm the only one with cards and I then toss mine. Are they REALLY gonna award the pot to player 1 in many California rooms?

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

Is this ruling getting a bit technical?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't technical, it is just wrong. As it hinted at in the title of the OP there is nthing magical about the muck that kills hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have worded this better to avoid confusion. I should have said "the first hand that hits the muck should be properly mucked by the dealer."

For the record, I don't believe in the "magic muck". I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

In the OP's scenario, I would have ruled the hand that touched the muck was live. If that was the case, both hands claiming the side-pot could be tabled, and the pot awarded to the winning hand that way.

But this didn't happen. The floor ruled the hand dead. And hey, if that's the rules of that card room, then that's the rules of that room.

I think the point is that if a hand (one way or another) is not irretrievable, then it will always be at risk of being called live. That's one of the reasons why smart players who've won a pot will hang on to their cards until all folded hands have been mucked.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

bav and pfafap, I am in agreement with you both (in case my last post wasn't clear enough!).

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I probably should have worded this better to avoid confusion. I should have said "the first hand that hits the muck should be properly mucked by the dealer."

[/ QUOTE ]
I usually quickly muck hands because IWTSTH slightly irritates me and this helps avoid it. However, in the situation as posted, I would make a deliberate effort not to muck the hand.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why do you want dealers to muck them so quickly?

bav...

[ QUOTE ]
So what's gonna happen to the pot in my scenario? Player 1 throws his cards in face down, dealer never touches them to the muck. I'm the only one with cards and I then toss mine. Are they REALLY gonna award the pot to player 1 in many California rooms?

[/ QUOTE ]
Y'know, I can imagine that some of floorpeople would rule your hand dead, yes. I think most of the people I know would rule you the winner, but there are a couple I know in particular that are dim enough to go with "it touched the muck first". Robert's Rules isn't heard of much 'round these parts. But then, I know that you know better than to toss your hand before getting the pot, anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why do you want dealers to muck them so quickly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 90% of potential disputes are solved that way before the floor gets called.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know that you know better than to toss your hand before getting the pot, anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I do know better, but that doesn't mean I always do it right. And I shouldn't HAVE to do this. Floor people shouldn't reward angle shooters. And in my experiences in Vegas, they very rarely do. Playing in a backwater place or somewhere I'm not familiar with, I tend to be more cautious.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

I am always in favor of returning cards from the muck if they are easily identifiable. For example, if just a corner is sitting in the muck, or they are half way in, or even if they are sitting on top of the muck. (I would never return cards buried in the muck). Poker is stressful, it makes people do stupid and clumbsy things. Especially in a small stakes game like this, keeping the players happy and keeping things "fair" is more important than a technicality.

If I were the floorman, and the dealer told me for certain he knew which two cards seat 1 holds, I turn the hands over and the best hand wins the sidepot.

If the players were to agree to a chop of the side pot before I got there, I would go along with that. I would also allow them to overrule me. It's their money.

Re: Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)
 

Here's another grenade I thought I'd throw into the discussion: [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Andrew, Billy and Charlie are playing a 1/2 No Limit game. There's an all-in player, with Andrew and Billy playing for a side-pot. The all-in player rolls over the nuts, and both Andrew and Billy throw their cards towards the muck. Andrew's cards are touching the muck but it's clear what they are. Billy's cards are face down, but further away.

The floor comes over and rules Andrew's cards dead (because they touched the "magic muck") and Billy's cards live. Billy turns to Andrew and offers to chop. Andrew turns to the floorman, who says he doesn't mind. So they chop.

The very next hand ... you wouldn't believe it ... the exact same thing happens!

There's an all-in player, with two players vying for a side-pot, and this time those two player are Billy and Charlie. Again, the all-in player turns over the nuts and the other players go to muck their hands. Charlie's hand is touching the "magic muck", but it's clear what they are. Billy's cards, once again, are a bit further away.

The floor is called, and rules Charlie's hand dead and awards the side-pot to Billy. Charlie then turns to Billy and says "did you want to chop it?" Billy says NO. The floor shrugs his shoulders in apparent agreement with what's gone on, and walks away.

Two questions:

1. If you were Charlie, what would you say (or do) next?
2. If you were the floorman, how would you justify what was going on?