All in, muck...

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the tabled hand is "protected" here, when intentionally mucked, then surely tabled cards which are erroneously mucked by a dealer must also be "protected", no?

[/ QUOTE ]

A tournament is different than a cash game because other players have an interest in the outcome. When the rule was made that you have to turn up your hand in an all-in situation it was to prevent a situation where someone threw away a winning hand to dump chips/allow their friend to continue in the tournament. There are a lot of arguments that this is a bad rule, but given that this is the rule it follows that you aren't supposed to muck in an all-in situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of years ago at a Sit n go at my room a dealer had this issue come up.

Two players in the hand short stack is all-in and shows something like top pair or two pair. the large stack tries to toss his cards in the muck dealer intercepts them and tables them, player has a set. Player admits that he new he had the set and just didn't want to knock his buddy out of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the reason for the rule.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player B is correct. The reason you turn up the hands is you are not allowed to muck your hands. The players saw the cards so they should play. In this situation the dealer should protect the muck to keep the cards from being mucked. And as an aside while I was typing this I had to leave the computer to rule on this smae point.

[/ QUOTE ]

RR,

I agree with this, and "the players saw the cards so they should play" is *exactly* the reasoning I used in the earlier "harrahs makes good floor decision" thread where I argued that the tabled hand, even though it got mucked by the dealer, should have won the pot when the other guy's hand was never exposed, and more importantly, why I think those guys who keep saying it's the player's responsibility to protect his hand are, in this case, barking up the wrong tree (of course, I think it's a good *precaution* to hang on to your cards, but that's a different story).

If the tabled hand is "protected" here, when intentionally mucked, then surely tabled cards which are erroneously mucked by a dealer must also be "protected", no?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two scenarios are completely different.

In this scenario a player tried to muck his hand when the rules specifically say he may not muck his hand.

In the other scenario you seem to overlook the fact that the reason the other player "mucked" his hand was because he was being awarded the pot. The other player did exactly what he was supposed to do, now you would say he wasn't the winner of the pot because he didn't show his cards makes no sense.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A flips up middle pair with no kicker and player C shows a flush. Now comes the interesting part. Player A mucks his hand (power mucks) in a way that his cards are unretievable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how his cards are unretrievable. There is no more action and we know his cards. So turn over the muck pile and fish out his cards.

[elitegimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player A flips up middle pair with no kicker and player C shows a flush. Now comes the interesting part. Player A mucks his hand (power mucks) in a way that his cards are unretievable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how his cards are unretrievable. There is no more action and we know his cards. So turn over the muck pile and fish out his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no floor or dealing experience, but this is exactly my reaction to reading the OP.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If he hadn't mucked his cards, he would have had every right to draw at the runner-runner boat. But by intentionally power-mucking his hand, he conceded the hand, and his right to draw. I'm not one to give the muck magical powers, but in this particular case, mucked is mucked.


Al

[NicksDad1970]

How high was the flush that player had? If it was possible for the turn and river to have been higher of the same suit cards then they could have chopped right? The player with the mucked cards could have played the board?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If he hadn't mucked his cards, he would have had every right to draw at the runner-runner boat. But by intentionally power-mucking his hand, he conceded the hand, and his right to draw. I'm not one to give the muck magical powers, but in this particular case, mucked is mucked.


Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't about his right to draw. It is about the other players' rights for him to draw an hit runner-runner to knock someone out of the tournament.

[youtalkfunny]

If I was dealing that hand, I would've called the floor before proceeding (please don't take that as Monday Morning Quarterbacking).

If I was the floor, I would agree with Player B 100%, and do what needed to be done to remedy the situation.

(To those of you who fail to see Player B's point: Player B sure doesn't want to play a tournament with a big stack sitting to his left. Player B has a very vested interest in the outcome of this hand.)

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
If he hadn't mucked his cards, he would have had every right to draw at the runner-runner boat. But by intentionally power-mucking his hand, he conceded the hand, and his right to draw. I'm not one to give the muck magical powers, but in this particular case, mucked is mucked.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that, because this is a tournament, Player A can't concede the hand. Chip dumping is very unethical in this situation. Additionally, if a hand is tabled after an all-in, cards speak and the hand cannot be killed.

The turn and river should be dealt, and Player A should be given a warning from the floor.

[bernie]

If he tabled it, card speak is attached. Even if he mucked after tabling.

b