[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, this is what my original question was.

I did not post for a lesson on morals or ethics - I knew I would be berated for my original silence. But I was a little bothered by the fact the floor had not seen anything, the dealer had not seen anything, and it was simply the word of 2 players not even in the hand. And of course myself, and since I saw it I gave the chips up, but I still disagreed with the floor decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

But WarD, here's the problem- when players take your attitude towards their personal involvement in the "cards speak" rule, they force these kinds of rulings to have legitimate weight.

You knew you were only entitled to half the pot, yet said nothing before the pot was pushed to you. Others in this thread agreed with your actions.

That requires the floor to make these types of "blind" decisions to make sure the game is following the rules and that players can't arbitrarily decide when the correct decisions should be made and when they should be skipped.

I don't like these floor recreations either, as they can be fraught with peril on future situations. However, if you caused this situation, you can't complain when the floor rules correctly that you didn't deserve the FH's portion of the pot.

Answer this- if you hadn't been involved in the hand and would have seen this occur at your table, would you have spoken up before the dealer mucked the hand? Or afterwards?

Would your answer change if the scooping player was a feared opponent and the FH was not?