Need help with ruling
 

Last night with a ~$650 pot with three players all-in, myself and the player to my left table a J high straight, player to my right shows 9 high straight and fourth playe says "I'm [censored]" and tosses cards forward, face down. Her boyfriend grabs her crds from the edge of the muck and says turn them over anyway and HE flips them over, showing a full house. I call the floor and it is ruled that she did not muck and her hand holds up. To me this is the completly wrong decision as she made a verbal and physical indication of conceding the hand, it also helped her that 4 or 5 of her friends were at the table and disputed what myself and the other guy with the straight said. Is this the correct ruling of am I an angleshooting douche?

Re: Need help with ruling
 

She actively threw her cards away. That is a fold. You were not angleshooting.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Cards were almost touching the muck pile when they were pulled back.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

I don't care if the cards were touching the muck or not. They were tossed forward face down with the obvious intent to fold. If THAT player had instantly grabbed them back, I'd let her play them, but this violated one-player-to-a-hand. Part of the game is knowing what you hold, and if you aren't smart enough to figure that out on your own all you have to do is table it at every showdown to get help. If you're mucking 'em face down at the showdown I presume it's because you don't want your opponents to know what you were holding, so if this bit of attempted strategy backfires on you I don't have a lot of sympathy.

You got screwed.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Ya about 10 minutes after making this call, the floorman came back and said that he made an error in awarding the pot the way he did, no apology, no comp or anything.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Her hand is the best hand it, it was tabled. She should get the pot and her boyfriend needs to be invited to leave.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Her hand is the best hand it, it was tabled. She should get the pot and her boyfriend needs to be invited to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meep? Her hand was mucked, not tabled. A person not even in the hand reached out and turned the cards over. NO WAY! She gets not a penny.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Her hand is the best hand it, it was tabled. She should get the pot and her boyfriend needs to be invited to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meep? Her hand was mucked, not tabled. A person not even in the hand reached out and turned the cards over. NO WAY! She gets not a penny.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know she wasn't about to do the same thing, but now due to the other persons actions she wasn't able to?

You don't. Thats why she gets the pot and the interfering person leaves.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Her hand is the best hand it, it was tabled. She should get the pot and her boyfriend needs to be invited to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meep? Her hand was mucked, not tabled. A person not even in the hand reached out and turned the cards over. NO WAY! She gets not a penny.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know she wasn't about to do the same thing, but now due to the other persons actions she wasn't able to?

You don't. Thats why she gets the pot and the interfering person leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so if I am sitting in seat 9 next to the muck, and instead of the boyfriend turning up the hand, I turn it for [censored] and grins. Does she still win? What if the dealer turns it up?

One player to a hand, sorry.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Her hand is the best hand it, it was tabled. She should get the pot and her boyfriend needs to be invited to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meep? Her hand was mucked, not tabled. A person not even in the hand reached out and turned the cards over. NO WAY! She gets not a penny.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know she wasn't about to do the same thing, but now due to the other persons actions she wasn't able to?

You don't. Thats why she gets the pot and the interfering person leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so if I am sitting in seat 9 next to the muck, and instead of the boyfriend turning up the hand, I turn it for [censored] and grins. Does she still win? What if the dealer turns it up?

One player to a hand, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you agree with me that if she reached out and turned up the cards she would have the winning hand, I can't see how you would allow another person (player or spectator) to take away her ability to reach out and turn over the cards. But that is what you are suggesting (gee I reach out and turn them over they are dead so I don't have to worry that she does it)he way to enforce the one player to a hand rule here is to kick out the boyfriend, but not kill her hand.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

I would call for the shift manager in this situation and absolutely refuse to let the game progress until that person made a ruling. I would make a big stink about this - having an observer tell someone to turn their hand over that they were trying to concede is absolutely unacceptable.

Jeff

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Ya its a small card room and there is only one floor person on at any one time, I am going to let his boss know about it when I see her next.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Psandman,

You are taking a very newbie friendly line here. You are saying that as the long the hand is not completely buried in the muck it should win the pot. The problem is that at some point players are responsible for defending their own action. For me, and most people that point is that person needs to turn their cards face up during showdown. This is includes if the cards are face up but skid across the table. Once a player releases their hand face down and away from themselves during showdown it is a clear muck. The reason why magic muck should not exist is because we believe that the clear intent of a player to table a hand should be respected and upheld. The problem with your idea is that players will never learn a critical aspect of poker. Namely, reading a board to determine hand values.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Psandman,

You are taking a very newbie friendly line here. You are saying that as the long the hand is not completely buried in the muck it should win the pot. The problem is that at some point players are responsible for defending their own action. For me, and most people that point is that person needs to turn their cards face up during showdown. This is includes if the cards are face up but skid across the table. Once a player releases their hand face down and away from themselves during showdown it is a clear muck. The reason why magic muck should not exist is because we believe that the clear intent of a player to table a hand should be respected and upheld. The problem with your idea is that players will never learn a critical aspect of poker. Namely, reading a board to determine hand values.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you reach this conclusion. certainly don't say that its acceptable for the boyfriend to do what he did say that I would have him kicked out. If he had been another player in the game I would give him a stern warning the first time, but as a spectator I would just toss him.

I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

[/ QUOTE ]hats all well and good if you play in a room were your hand is dead when you release it. But in my room thats not when the hand is dead.

T

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

[/ QUOTE ]hats all well and good if you play in a room were your hand is dead when you release it. But in my room thats not when the hand is dead.

T

[/ QUOTE ]

So, verbally and physically folding your hand < "she might have turned it over anyways"?

Re: Need help with ruling
 

lets start from the begining here. She was not facing a bet here, verbal concession is irrelevant (At showdown you announcing you got me or I missed does not constitute a fold).

Next if a player releases there hand but then reaches out and grabs it and turns it over the hand is live in most rooms I've played (I have seen this called differently but it is a bad ruling).


If you believe that either announcing "I'm no good" or releasing your hand is the immediately kills your hand then you are are correct.

But neither of those things constitute the killing of a hand in the rooms I have dealt in or most rooms that I have played in.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

i have seen this situation (minus the boyfriend action) and every time the hand is considered mucked.

i think with the extra fact that her boyfriend flipped the cards and not herself closes the deal to it's mucked..

pitboss error. they always seem to be the 'nice guy' when the pressure is on them to make a decision like this.. but once the pot has gone to the wrong person.. then they come around and are like hey, maybe you were right.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
lets start from the begining here. She was not facing a bet here, verbal concession is irrelevant (At showdown you announcing you got me or I missed does not constitute a fold).

Next if a player releases there hand but then reaches out and grabs it and turns it over the hand is live in most rooms I've played (I have seen this called differently but it is a bad ruling).


If you believe that either announcing "I'm no good" or releasing your hand is the immediately kills your hand then you are are correct.

But neither of those things constitute the killing of a hand in the rooms I have dealt in or most rooms that I have played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's back up even further to a more general set of examples (I've written about this before but it's easier for me to retype than search for old stuff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

We probably agree that the best hand should get the pot whenever possible. We also probably agree that sometimes rules collide or contradict. In this case it's "one player to a hand" versus "best (clearly identifiable) hand gets the pot". Here are some guidelines I learned for good rulings when these two rules collide:

In all cases there is equal action on the river. That means bet/raise-call or check-check. In all cases Player A shows first and announces two pair or something similar. Player B sits across the table from Player A, holds his hand up in clear view of his neighbors and shakes his head in disappointment (let's say he missed his straight draw).

Case 1: The player sitting next to Player B says "Hey, you back-doored a flush; you have the best hand." Player B now tables the flush.

Case 2: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. Now the player sitting next to Player B says "Hey you had a flush". Player B reacts quickly and pulls back his hand. It never intermingled with the muck. He now tables the flush.

Case 3: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. It touches the muck but is clearly discernable. He wakes up and quickly retrieves it and announces "Hey, I just realize I back-doored a flush". He tables the flush. There is no dispute that these are his cards.

From what I've learned a reasonably competent floorman thinking and ruling reasonably would make the following rulings:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Who could say that player B wouldn't have eventually figured out he had the best hand on his own?

Case 2: Player A gets the pot. Reason. Player B's hand was on it's way to the muck. It's highly unlikely he would have realized he had the best hand without help from his neighbor. Even though the hand was easily discernable there was a clear and consequential violation of "one player to a hand".

Case 3: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Although it touched the muck it is clearly identifiable. He retrieved it with no help. Best hand wins the pot.

Hope this helps.

~ Rick

Re: Need help with ruling
 

I personally agree with your line of thinking. This is why I don't like strict enforcement of string bet or one chip rules. If you can immediately clarify intent, no harm no foul.

However, what you stated is sadly not how it is everywhere. In my room, here's how it would likely go...

Case 1: Player B gets the pot. The other players whine and moan. The floorman comes over and waggles his finger.

Case 2: Player B gets the pot. It didn't touch the magic muck.

Case 3: Player A gets the pot. Pixie dust dissolved B's cards.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I personally agree with your line of thinking. This is why I don't like strict enforcement of string bet or one chip rules. If you can immediately clarify intent, no harm no foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside I should credit Scott Olson for clarifying this sort of ruling for me a few years back. Scott is a long time time floor at the Bicycle Casino who now fills in as shift manager. He is one of the most honest and decent people you could ever find on a poker floor; the Bike is lucky to have him.

Rest of your post is funny stuff [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Need help with ruling
 

I like your reasoning. If only more people would try to understand the principles behind rulings rather than just being able to quote a rule.

Having said that, my verdict would be:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot
Case 2: Player B gets the pot
Case 3: Player B gets the pot

I don't believe in pixie dust. I also don't see an enormous amount of difference between Case 2 and Case 3.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
... I call the floor and it is ruled that she did not muck and her hand holds up. To me this is the completly wrong decision as she made a verbal and physical indication of conceding the hand, it also helped her that 4 or 5 of her friends were at the table and disputed what myself and the other guy with the straight said. Is this the correct ruling of am I an angleshooting douche?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line here is that the dealer should muck her hand as soon as she discards it. Once that didn't happen, the dealer must step forward to describe to the Floor what happened. You don't say here what the dealer said, however, that should have discounted completely what the 4 or 5 friends were trying to do/say. If the player also lied about what happened, the Floor should have given her a warning and told her that she was not tio be believed in any future disputes.

If I am the Floor, I award you the pot (as he admitted he should have done) and I escort the 4 or 5 friends out of the casino. They not only violated the one player to a hand rule - but they then lied about it.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like your reasoning. If only more people would try to understand the principles behind rulings rather than just being able to quote a rule.

Having said that, my verdict would be:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot
Case 2: Player B gets the pot
Case 3: Player B gets the pot

I don't believe in pixie dust. I also don't see an enormous amount of difference between Case 2 and Case 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't do anything wrong. He mucked his hand. You should really ask what the rest of the table did wrong to have his hand zombified.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... I call the floor and it is ruled that she did not muck and her hand holds up. To me this is the completly wrong decision as she made a verbal and physical indication of conceding the hand, it also helped her that 4 or 5 of her friends were at the table and disputed what myself and the other guy with the straight said. Is this the correct ruling of am I an angleshooting douche?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line here is that the dealer should muck her hand as soon as she discards it. Once that didn't happen, the dealer must step forward to describe to the Floor what happened. You don't say here what the dealer said, however, that should have discounted completely what the 4 or 5 friends were trying to do/say. If the player also lied about what happened, the Floor should have given her a warning and told her that she was not tio be believed in any future disputes.

If I am the Floor, I award you the pot (as he admitted he should have done) and I escort the 4 or 5 friends out of the casino. They not only violated the one player to a hand rule - but they then lied about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You my friend will not have many poker games if every time you make a ruling you throw out the people who disagree with you about what happened. When people tell different versions of an event it often isn't because they are lying, but because they have differnt perceptions.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

Once again someone is trying to win the pot without the best hand. I'm really getting sick of explaining the same thing over and over so just remember this:

The casino doesn't provide towels for crying in, so bring your own.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B didn't commit a crime; he simply overlooked his winning hand and it is highly unlikely he would have retrieved it without help from his neighbor. At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced. My first post in this threat is an example where it can be enforced fairly. In the other two cases I mentioned Player B either retrieved his hand on his own or could have conceivably figured out he had a winner without the help from a neighbor (since he had possession of his cards).

I've always been a "best hand wins whenever possible" type when I worked the floor or as a NL host. But as mentioned in my follow on Scott Olson at the Bike makes a good case for where to draw the line.

~ Rick

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Player B didn't commit a crime; he simply overlooked his winning hand and it is highly unlikely he would have retrieved it without help from his neighbor. At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced. My first post in this threat is an example where it can be enforced fairly. In the other two cases I mentioned Player B either retrieved his hand on his own or could have conceivably figured out he had a winner without the help from a neighbor (since he had possession of his cards).

I've always been a "best hand wins whenever possible" type when I worked the floor or as a NL host. But as mentioned in my follow on Scott Olson at the Bike makes a good case for where to draw the line.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that he makes a good case, and that the "one player to a hand" principle must be enforced.

I do believe, however, that one should try to avoid penalising a player for crimes they didn't commit (it seems to me that the only thing the player in Case 2 did wrong was to have good hearing!). I acknowledge that this is not always be possible, and players will be disadvantaged through no fault of there own. An example of this might be where a player picks up his opponent's cards, throws them in the muck, and they are irretrievable. In this case, the player who's hand was mucked didn't do anything wrong (except not protect his hand) but his hand would still be dead.

I also believe strongly in the principle that hands should not be killed by Tournament Directors if there are other remedies and penalties that can be used.

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there are a number of principles that have to be carefully weighed when making decisions such as these.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But the rule can be enforced against the person violating the rule by warning or removal from the cardroom. enforcement of a rule does not require that a hand die.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

I would say she clearly mucked. And I would also say that the only way her hand can be brought back to life is either by the floor for a reason like somebody miscalled their hand or by the winner of the pot who wants to see that hand.

I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.

And people who have sympathy for her and say she had the best hand and the best hand should win the pot, well I say just flip over your danm cards if you want to win a pot.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But the rule can be enforced against the person violating the rule by warning or removal from the cardroom. enforcement of a rule does not require that a hand die.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all cases the person violating one player to a hand should be warned. In fact this and inappropriate comments pending action are huge problems these days; floor staff and cardroom management should be more preemptive here (this would be fodder for a whole thread, just not now from me).

Anyway, I wouldn't object to a rule/policy that provides for "best clearly discernible hand wins" even in cases where the player is helped (whether the cards are on there way to the muck or not) or the cards touch the muck (but are discernible and retrievable). But my example showed a reasonable guideline that lies between that sort of policy and "touch the magic muck and your cards are dead". Or I think it would [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever knowingly played in a room with this rule, in fact over the years I've seen probably 8 to 10 times when the IWTSTH rule was invoked, the hand was the winner and the pot was awarded to the "best hand" as it should be.

Jimbo

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever knowingly played in a room with this rule, in fact over the years I've seen probably 8 to 10 times when the IWTSTH rule was invoked, the hand was the winner and the pot was awarded to the "best hand" as it should be.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

There another issue here why this is not a good analogy. If She had tossed her cards in and a player other than the (presumptive winner) asked to see her cards and the dealer took them at the end of hand and showed them her hand would in fact be dead.ut if she tossed them out and someone invoked IWTSTH and she grabbed back her cards and flipped them her hand would not be dead. You see a player saying IWTSTH does not terminate her right to table her hand herself.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
You see a player saying IWTSTH does not terminate her right to table her hand herself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you have been holding to this line right through this post.

I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer. Usually, this rule is invoked by a player by stating (not flipping cards) that he wants to see a hand. And usually the dealer will put those cards to the side, award the pot and then show that hand.

So I think the real question is, how do we handle another player flipping cards over before a pot is awarded. And really that's two questions, what do you do with the hand and what do you do with the player who does this?

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

[/ QUOTE ]
I have only invoked this rule once (guy did it to me twice) and that was at Caesers. It was a three way pot and this guy had gone all-in on the flop. At the river, he mucked before the other players and I asked the dealer to see his hand. He took the two cards and put them beside the muck. He then sorted out the pot between the other two players, mucked their cards pushed the pot to a player and then showed the hand.

I am fairly certain that when I asked to see his hand, it could be considered live but after the pot was awarded to the player, his cards are then dead.

Am I getting this correct or not?

So when that first player mucked, if I had just reached out and flipped his cards over instead of asking the dealer and gone through the process I described above, does that mean his cards are now live again and he can win the pot?

And if this is true, then I suppose I could sit beside a fish and turn his hand over on the river every time just in case he won one of those pots. I want the money to stay with the fish.

Re: Need help with ruling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

[/ QUOTE ]
I have only invoked this rule once (guy did it to me twice) and that was at Caesers. It was a three way pot and this guy had gone all-in on the flop. At the river, he mucked before the other players and I asked the dealer to see his hand. He took the two cards and put them beside the muck. He then sorted out the pot between the other two players, mucked their cards pushed the pot to a player and then showed the hand.

I am fairly certain that when I asked to see his hand, it could be considered live but after the pot was awarded to the player, his cards are then dead.

Am I getting this correct or not?

So when that first player mucked, if I had just reached out and flipped his cards over instead of asking the dealer and gone through the process I described above, does that mean his cards are now live again and he can win the pot?

And if this is true, then I suppose I could sit beside a fish and turn his hand over on the river every time just in case he won one of those pots. I want the money to stay with the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that at the time you said IWTSTH if the player had immediately grabbed back his cards and flipped them before the dealer got them to muck then they would have been live. Your saying IWTSTH does not kill a hand.

Now the procedure the dealer used here was not the procedur prefer, and part of the reason that is the case is that it creates e issue of uncertainty.

When a player tosses his hand and another player (not the putative winner) asks to see it I will immediately grab it in touch it to the muck (ceremonially denoting it was killed) and then flip it over to be seen and then flip it back over and mix it into the muck.

By holding it aside till after the pot is pushed you create the problem of uncertainty as to when the hand got killed (which is the issue you are concerned about) and also it creates a second problem. And that is if for some reason a floor person rules that hand live and it turns out to be a winner now the pot has already been pushed and we have a much bigger problem.

As to your flipping the hand ove abbsolutely believe the hand is live, simply because you cut off the players opportunity to do it himself. But you miss the other point. If you do this you are subject to penalty. And while the first penalty you get may simply be a warning, if as you say you do it everytime the player folds you will find yourself no longer permitted to play.