Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[PantsOnFire]

[ 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.

[pfapfap]

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.

[pfapfap]

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.

[RR]

[ 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.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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.