What is the correct ruling?
 

I experienced a situation a few days ago that the table discussed for a while afterward. We were all pretty sure the floor made the wrong decision (usually they are very good about this sort of thing). I know both players. One player, Mo, raises preflop. One guy calls him down on a Q high board. I don't remember the exact texture, but it turned into a 4 card straight board. This other guy kept asking mo, do you have it? do you have it?. Mo flipped up one card (which didn't complete the straight). This guy threw his Q face up into the middle like you would if you were mucking, and mucked the other card. Mo (and the rest of us) took this as a sign this guy wasnt calling. Mo flipped up ace high and the dealer started to ship the pot to him. The other guy says "i havent called or folded yet (which we were all pretty sure that was his intention". Floor comes over and rules that the other guy's hand is still live and that he would be given a chance to call or fold; obviously he called since he knew what Mo had. Did the floor make the right decision? The whole table was convinced this other guy had mucked his hand and had no intention of calling. Seemed like a total angleshoot to me at the time.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

if he mucked one of his cards he no longer has a live hand, even if he would win with a pair of queens, the fact is he no longer can win the pot. Had he flipped both of them face up without stating fold or call, and clear of the muck his hand would likely be ruled live.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

Another stupid floor decision costs a player money. Sigh. We should keep a database.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

If the guy mucked the other card the dealer should have instantly perma-mucked it in an irretrieveable manner. This would eliminate any need for the floor. If his other card had not been mucked properly by the dealer then quite unfortunately his hand would still be live.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the guy mucked the other card the dealer should have instantly perma-mucked both of his cards in an irretrieveable manner before pushing the pot. This would eliminate any need for the floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the guy mucked the other card the dealer should have instantly perma-mucked it in an irretrieveable manner. This would eliminate any need for the floor. If his other card had not been mucked properly by the dealer then quite unfortunately his hand would still be live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree with you on this. I agree that the dealer should have made the cards irretrievable first, however i disagree that the failure to do so renders these cards live.

While facing a bet the player threw his cards towards the muck, with one of these face down, this is a fold, and even more so because it was done in such a way as to lead the otrher player into believeing it was a fold.

The hand is dead.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

PokerPro type tables solves alot of these types of problems.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This guy threw his Q face up into the middle like you would if you were mucking, and mucked the other card.

[/ QUOTE ]


I know what I mean when I say "mucked", I'm just not sure what you mean.

Tossed it into the middle of the discards?
Tossed it 3 inches forward face down, but 3 feet short of the discards?

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the guy mucked the other card the dealer should have instantly perma-mucked it in an irretrieveable manner. This would eliminate any need for the floor. If his other card had not been mucked properly by the dealer then quite unfortunately his hand would still be live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree with you on this. I agree that the dealer should have made the cards irretrievable first, however i disagree that the failure to do so renders these cards live.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for this. Dealer errors in procedures like this should NOT change the decision as to whether a hand is alive or dead. The dealer's failure to bury the mucked cards is immaterial.

Re: What is the correct ruling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the guy mucked the other card the dealer should have instantly perma-mucked it in an irretrieveable manner. This would eliminate any need for the floor. If his other card had not been mucked properly by the dealer then quite unfortunately his hand would still be live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you need to have two cards to win a hand. If you've mucked one of your cards, how do you satisfy this requirement.