How would you handle this? - Page 3

supafrey · #21 07-16-2007, 11:47 AM

no pots can be officially reclaimed after the dealer has started shuffling (this doesn't sound like he's just started collecting the cards, either, but rather well on his way, despite 2 cards remaining out). B keeps the pot, but maybe gets encourage to offer some sort of consolation.

pfapfap · #22 07-16-2007, 12:33 PM

KITN to the dealer for not taking all the cards.

The idea of awarding the pot to the person who then shows the nuts doesn't sit well to me. What if he had ace-high? How, in either case, can you prove that the other player didn't have a hand that beat or tied it? He did something which caused action, and it wasn't until well after that action was underway that he changed his mind.

At what point did the player throw in his hand when he said "you got it"? If he threw it forward, that's a muck, regardless of whether they touched a magical pile.

Khabbi · #23 07-16-2007, 04:05 PM

I'm glad I missed the short version of this story because the added detail changes everything.

Player B had been awarded the pot and the cards were already being shuffled.

The hand is long past done, finished, and awarded to Player B. Player A handled the situation well, because really, he had not right to a pot he didn't show his cards down for either.

Lottery Larry · #24 07-16-2007, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he threw it forward, that's a muck, regardless of whether they touched a magical pile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, you might want to rethink that stance, unless there's a lot of angleshooting of that type (fake muck, then pull back) going on.

Making the cards able to be retrieved more easily is in the better interests of the game, in most cases. The "magical pile" helps that.

alliniwin · #25 07-20-2007, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NL home cash game. Player A bets big on the river. Player B calls. Player A says clearly: "Nice call you got it.". Player B says "thanks" and fires his cards into the muck and scoops the pot .

Player A sheepishly flips his cards over and says he has 9 high and missed his flush draw. But he actually hit a weird inside straight draw which gave him the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the pot has been collected by a player the hand is over. I thought this was a well-established principle. The guy who conceded should not get a penny...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree

Manomanman · #26 07-20-2007, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NL home cash game. Player A bets big on the river. Player B calls. Player A says clearly: "Nice call you got it.". Player B says "thanks" and fires his cards into the muck and scoops the pot.

Player A sheepishly flips his cards over and says he has 9 high and missed his flush draw. But he actually hit a weird inside straight draw which gave him the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the majority opinion here. "Nice call, you got it" = "Fold", and verbal actions are binding. It's not different than pointing to the next player to signify a check, rather than a "by-the-book" table knock. If I said, "I fold" and then flipped my cards up, would you guys claim I should have the pot awarded to me? Absolutely not.

Player A has 0% claim to the pot.

JacksonMassey · #27 07-20-2007, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NL home cash game. Player A bets big on the river. Player B calls. Player A says clearly: "Nice call you got it.". Player B says "thanks" and fires his cards into the muck and scoops the pot.

Player A sheepishly flips his cards over and says he has 9 high and missed his flush draw. But he actually hit a weird inside straight draw which gave him the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the majority opinion here. "Nice call, you got it" = "Fold", and verbal actions are binding. It's not different than pointing to the next player to signify a check, rather than a "by-the-book" table knock. If I said, "I fold" and then flipped my cards up, would you guys claim I should have the pot awarded to me? Absolutely not.

Player A has 0% claim to the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I'd like to agree with this, this logic clearly flies in the face of the most well-defined law of poker: the cards speak for themselves. You need to protect your hand at all cost. The other rule here is that on a called hand, the player calling the hand must show his cards. The original bettor does not have to show theirs. Player B should have flipped his cards over instantly after the call, as action dictates that by calling the raise he had no problem with showing his hand. By mucking without showing, he actually made the worst play by not protecting his hand. If his cards did not hit the muck pile and were easily retrievable, he should be allowed to pull his cards from the middle of the table and show them up. If he had the worst hand upon pulling his cards back, then he lost.

Lottery Larry · #28 07-20-2007, 04:27 PM

"The other rule here is that on a called hand, the player calling the hand must show his cards. The original bettor does not have to show theirs."

Umm, what?!? You have this backwards, don't you?

JacksonMassey · #29 07-20-2007, 04:43 PM

From Robert's Rules:

THE SHOWDOWN

5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

I take this to mean that the called player does not have to show their cards, unless requested by the winning player. I may be interpreting this wrong though. We had a discussion about this on Wednesday at our game, and most of the player's (including several who spend lots of time playing in casinos) seemed to agree.

If I am wrong in this case, I'd love to find out why.

Edit:
I also understand that you are paying with your call to see the other person's hand. However, my understanding is (as stated above) that they must only show the hand if requested. I guess as a general rule, to conteract the OP's problem, the caller at our game always shows his hand.

pfapfap · #30 07-20-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

I take this to mean that the called player does not have to show their cards, unless requested by the winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing different points of the game. This rule deals with after the showdown, i.e. after the pot is awarded. This would apply if someone bets as a bluff and is called, and the bluffer mucks. The winner doesn't have to show to collect the pot, but IWTSTH could be invoked.

If there's aggression on the river, the last aggressor shows first. You are calling to see the hand. You are paying for the privilege. Think of it this way. "I am betting $5 I have the best hand." "I don't believe you. Here's $5. Prove it." The onus is on the person claiming to have the best hand to demonstrate s/he has the best hand. Only after that point are others required to dispute that claim with proof.

[ QUOTE ]
If I am wrong in this case, I'd love to find out why.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong because you misunderstood the wording.

However, having said all of that, if you feel you have the best hand, just show it, regardless of who is "supposed" to show first.