All in, muck...

[pfapfap]

Hell, I wish the floor at my place browsed and contributed to 2+2 during bits of downtime. It'd be great on-the-job training for them.

[pvn]

[ 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?

[RR]

[ 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.

[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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If it's not a tournament, there's no rule against conceding the hand. So at that point, mucked is mucked. Anyone wanting to run it out anyway after it's mucked, using buzz words like "equity" just pisses me off and sets me on a nut-kicking spree. Besides, "running over the table" is such a misnomer, it should be "I don't the skills or the huevos to play against a big stack in a cash game."


Al

[psandman]

[ 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.

[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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand the reason for exposing all cards that make it to showdown in a tournament.

In the cash game example, though, we're not talking about exposing cards that someone tried to muck. We're talking about cards that have *been tabled* *at showdown* and then were mucked.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about cards that have *been tabled* *at showdown* and then were mucked.


[/ QUOTE ]

He is protected, but this protection does not extend to watchign the dealer push the pot and then speaking up. This would be similiar to being first to act and allowing the players behind you to act. If you allow the other players to act you have given up your rights. In the cash game example he is protected, but has an obligation to speak up when he sees the pot going the other way.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The dealer would be right in a cash game.


[/ QUOTE ]

No he wouldn't.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Because cards speak?

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

b