Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[Brettski]

[ 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.