Re: And the winner is.....??
[ QUOTE ]
And it ignores the definition of muck. See my response to Taso for information on that.
[/ QUOTE ]
It ignores your definition of muck. You're adding to the definition for the sake of your own argument.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm debating this for the sake of a good debate...
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, this isn't a good debate, it's a semantics match. The world has shades of gray, really it does. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that while it is accepted that a players hand when face up is live there are no facts to back it up.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can't disprove a negative. There's nothing that specifically states that if a player takes his cards and puts a chip on them and makes valid bets through the river that his hand is live, either. Nothing specifically states that anywhere. But if nothing happens to kill his hand, it's assumed that his hand is live, even if the rules don't specifically spell out the exact series of events.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone can provide a defintion of "tabling ones hand"? I can't find one.
[/ QUOTE ]
From Robert's, under The Showdown, #1:
[ QUOTE ]
To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your definition of muck is that the hand is thrown away or gotten rid of. Since the Showdown has a specific rule (it's #1, even) that states what must happen, anybody who does that has complied with the requirement. The rule states simply "on the table", it doesn't specify where. The player is throwing his cards face-up on the table to claim the pot, as per the rules. Therefore, it's not a muck.
Is that enough for you? By and large you've seemed a sensible person, but you're going off the crazy side with this one. This isn't an argument or a debate, it's you with blinders on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|