What's the correct ruling on this situation?

[Brettski]

I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[onadraw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

[pokerswami]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

In a cardroom where dealers are trained to pull into the muck folded cards as the OP described and Brettski talks about above, then only 1 live hand remains after the flop.

If only 1 live hand remains, there is no need for the dealer to put out the turn and river. The pot could reasonably be pushed to the sole remaining live hand, provided the pot is corrrect.

I realize this is a huge (potential) cluster f***, but when the player picked up his cards and threw them face down towards the muck, most places would have the dealer immediately pull them into the muck. It doesn't matter that he had previously properly tabled the hand. That hand is now out of play and in the original post description there is only the one remaining live hand.

Since in the original description the dealer didn't scoop up the cards, the player can retrieve his own cards and re-table them face-up. The dealer created this mess by not mucking the folded cards immediately, thereby ending the need for dealing further board cards.

It would have been completely different if the tabling of hands had taken place after the board was complete. Then the properly tabled hands could have been read even if one of them was subsequently turned face down by the player.

__________________________________________________ __________

edited to add: Hey, after over 2 1/2 years, it's my 400th post! That's like 1 week for MicroBob.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the most important lessons here is that a hand is never mucked until it's actually in the muck. Rulings on this do vary from place to place, but a hand that a) hasn't been properly tabled and b) is irretrievably mucked can't risk being ruled "live" under almost any circumstance.

When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it wouldn't matter if the cards hit the muck. Action was complete(all in and call) and the cards were tabled. Cards speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

In a cardroom where dealers are trained to pull into the muck folded cards as the OP described and Brettski talks about above, then only 1 live hand remains after the flop.

If only 1 live hand remains, there is no need for the dealer to put out the turn and river. The pot could reasonably be pushed to the sole remaining live hand, provided the pot is corrrect.

I realize this is a huge (potential) cluster f***, but when the player picked up his cards and threw them face down towards the muck, most places would have the dealer immediately pull them into the muck. It doesn't matter that he had previously proprely tabled the hand. That hand is now out of play and in the original post description there is only the one remaining live hand.

Since in the original description the dealer didn't scoop up the cards, the player can retrieve his own cards and re-table them face-up. The dealer created this mess by not mucking the folded cards immediately, thereby ending the need for dealing further board cards.

It would have been completely different if the tabling of hands had taken place after the board was complete. Then the properly tabled hands could have been read even if one of them was subsequently turned face down by the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% sure how the floors in the rooms I play at would rule even though technically a tabled hand should speak. Since the hand was tabled it was identifiable to everyone, including the dealer so when a floor is called it can be retrieved but I'm just not confident that they would all rule that way.

I will say that in an all in situation with no further action if a player throws their hand to the muck but then reaches out and grabs the cards I have no problem with it.
A litle hijack:

The other day I was playing and the board had a flush. Seat 3 tabled his hand (playing the board) and seat 2 was looking at his cards and kind of held them out and was about to muck them when the dealer says "don't throw them away, it's a chop". He tables and they split. Needless to say most of the table went apesh@t and chewed the dealer out and she couldn't understand why everyone was giving her a hard time about it. She said something like "I've been dealing for years and I always tell them when it's a chopped pot". I had a nice talk with the floor in private later on.

[Brettski]

A couple of points I should probably add to all this.

Firstly, the floor can almost never go wrong by ruling that if there is only one player left with cards, they get the pot. You can apply this principle in a variety of cash game and tournament situations.

Secondly, the OP refers to a cash game, and cash game rules sometimes differ from tournament rules. If this were a tournament and the action was complete, both hands would have been required to be tabled, and both eligible to win the hand at the showdown.

On the other hand in a cash game where ...
a) a flop is dealt,
b) a player moves all in and is called, and
c) a player chooses to muck their hand before the rest of the board is dealt out,
... then I would be perfectly happy ruling that the pot must be awarded to the only player remaining with cards.

[Warren Harding]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a question though: Is the "big mouth" that informed him that he could catch two spades THAT wrong in doing so? I know people say he should keep his mouth shut, and so I don't blurt things out like that. However, I also don't really get that mad at people that do, EVEN if it cost me my pot. I feel like the cards determined the winner, and even if the guy says nothing, won't the dealer give the pot to the "correct" winner anyways? It's like a stranger pointing out that you recieved too much change for your purchase...then the cashier takes some money back. Of course you might think "mind your damn business!" but at the same time, it wasn't really right for you to knowingly take the extra change in the first place. I've seen arguments over pots like this and it actually annoys me that the person is trying so hard to get a pot that's not his. Seems kinda shady to me. Am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very right. Gambler's attachments and greed impede their ethics, which, unfortunately, affects 2p2ers as well.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
When I have conducted dealer training I have always emphasised the importance of mucking folded hands quickly and irretrievably. This eliminates many grey areas, and means that arguments such as this one simply don't arise. It also makes the floor's job much easier when they are called over to disputes such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree this sort of training eliminates some disputes and I know for a fact that the dealer in this OP had that sort of training.

~ Rick

[steamraise]

[ QUOTE ]
BB turns his hand over,
as does UTG. BB sees he's up against top set then
picks his cards up and throws them forward face down

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand was tabled. Cards speak.
No KITN or one player to a hand warning needed.
Deal the turn and river and push the pot to the flush.

IF he had just flashed his hand and tossed it facedown
I would muck it and push the pot, no turn or river.