Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand. I'm sure the dealer had the best of intentions by pulling Seat 1's cards away from the muck. However, if those cards hadn't been physically retrievable, the floor probably wouldn't have been called to make a decision. And if they had, the decision would have been a lot easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the policy of my room that dealers are to protect in these situations (player folding where there is a side pot or a blind folding to no raise)

[KurtSF]

I'll chime in with my opinions.

Question 2 seems a little more clear to me. This seems to be a pull between "floorman's decision is final" and "in the best interest of the game". To avoid the inevitable complaining and potential bickering over the decision, I think its OK to let the players override the decision as long as no one has an objection. If unanimous consensus cannot be reached, the floorman's ruling should be imposed.

Question 1 seems like a trickier question to me. It seems to be a pull between a "fair" ruling and a "consistent" ruling. There's a couple things that come into play, I think. I didn't mention that this was a California cardroom, and in my (admittedly small) experience the magic muck rule is always invoked. If its 100% consistent, every time, I have less of a problem with it. It becomes a quirk of the game if everyone knows and understands that simply touching the muck kills your hand, rather than some technicality opening up angle shots and pissing off new players. On the other hand, both Seat 1 and Seat 8 made the same mistake. I think possible rulings are "both hands are live, turn them up" and "touching the muck kills the hand, ship it the other way". The first fails to hold 2 players accountable for protecting their hand, but awards the pot according to the cards. Any time you can get to cards speak I think its good - every knows what beats what. OTOH, if the magic muck is 100% universally enforced, then I have less problem with how the floor ruled. Both payers made a mistake - folding - but one was glaring because his cards actually reached the muck. Its a shame only one player gets his cards pulled back after dropping them, but I suppose its a lesson to the loser about protecting his hand.

As you can see I'm a little torn. That's why I posted.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

Is this ruling getting a bit technical?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't technical, it is just wrong. As it hinted at in the title of the OP there is nthing magical about the muck that kills hands.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Both payers made a mistake - folding - but one was glaring because his cards actually reached the muck. Its a shame only one player gets his cards pulled back after dropping them, but I suppose its a lesson to the loser about protecting his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The player in seat 1 can give his cards a slight toss to the right and one can easily touch the muck. Player 3 or 4 can give a good 3-4 foot toss and miss the muck completely.

It seems like the "magic muck" rule is disadvantageous for players sitting beside the dealer who have a much higher chance of accidentally reaching the muck since it's so close. I've seen some dealers put the muck right in front of player 1.

Personally, if there is a dark hole at the poker table, I want to sit as far away from it as possible, lest my hand get accidentally sucked up. Yeah, I know, protect yourself at all times. However it's easier to protect yourself if the guy with the sword is across the room rather than right behind you.

I think this whole "magic muck" hogwash was created by floors who don't want to make the tough calls.

[pfapfap]

Ugh, magic muck. I've had the floor rule that a hand was dead when just a tiny little corner of it touched the muck for a fraction of a second. Of course, throwing ones cards in doesn't count as a muck until the dealer scoops them up. It's insanity. It's people like Brettski that encourage cardrooms to go this route.

Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.

As to the dealer making a mistake by not mucking everything instantly... hogwash. Were I in that situation, I'd make every effort to prevent the sidepot players from mucking after the main pot player showed his hand. The dealer mistake was in letting them muck, not in leaving the cards clearly identifiable while the floor was called.

[pfapfap]

PS, it's crap like this and the ensuing nit-tastic arguments that are going to lead us all to eTables sooner rather than later.

It's in the best interest of the game to RELAX.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.


[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever reason the rule nits out there always seem to miss or not understand the rule about the floor ruling in the interest of fairness even when that means ruling contrary to the rules.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brettski, in Robert's Rules, it states clearly and in multiple locations that the rules are a guideline and that the floor has authority to make decisions based on the best interest of the game. It says so. In the rules. So, as a rules nit, you should appreciate and accept this.


[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever reason the rule nits out there always seem to miss or not understand the rule about the floor ruling in the interest of fairness even when that means ruling contrary to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This Fairness Nit hates it when the Floor uses this legitimate exception as a smokescreen for favoritism.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Put it this way: the first hand that hits the muck gets mucked. That leaves ... well ... only one hand left that can claim the pot! The one that hasn't been mucked yet!

[/ QUOTE ]
You should shake this notion outta yer head. You keep coming back to the magical muck, and claiming that whatever card first touches it loses. That's just wrong.

Let's hypothesis. Let's say we're heads-up, I make a bet, and you toss your cards face down towards the dealer. Dealer pulls the cards close in but they never touch another card. I then fire my cards into the muck. By your logic, I would lose, because your cards are still on the table, but mine touched the muck first.

In OP's case, question 1 COULD be answered by "who folded first?" but NEVER what cards touched the muck first. I'd be ok with THAT decision if player 8 claimed "I saw seat 1 muck his hand, so I then tossed in my winner". Seat 8 can have the pot. (OP says in his story seat 1 tossed his cards in first.) But the floor ruling as he did claiming it was because Seat 1's cards touched the muck while Seat 8's did not is not good.

[pfapfap]

Problem with that, bav, is that in a lot of cardrooms (particularly California, it seems), it IS a magical muck.

I find it ridiculous, but there you have it.

Also, protect your hand. Don't fire into the muck until you have the pot. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]