Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[KurtSF]

I can't remember the exact play or board, but its really unimportant to the decision.

Old guy in seat 4 gets his small stack all in for a main pot of about $120. 2 other players, in seat 1 and seat 8, are all in for a side pot of about $60.

Final card is dealt, Seat 4 turn up his hand showing a full house. Seat 1 immediately throws away his hand, closely followed by Seat 8.

The table starts screaming "side pot, side pot" and both players ask for their hands back. Seat 8's cards are about 18 inches in front of him and he reaches for them. Seat 1's cards are laying against the muck and are easily retrievable, and in fact dealer quickly pulls them away from the muck and sets them aside as the table starts arguing over who gets the sidepot, and the floor is called.

Floor hears the story and says Seat 8's cards are live, but Seat 1's cards, since they touched the muck, are dead. Sidepot goes to Seat 8.

Question 1: Did the floor make the right call?

No one like the call, and Seat 8 and Seat 1 quickly agree to chop the sidepot. Floor says if that's OK with you its OK with me, and the dealer mucks both hands then splits the chips 50-50 and ships half to each player.

Question 2: If you're the floor, and the players agree to a deal that overrides your decision, do you let them?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

[bav]

The very existence of "magic muck" in your title makes it pretty clear you didn't like this. And I don't either. The cards were clearly identifiable, let Seat 1 have them back.

Yes, the players agreeing that the decision of the floor was wrong and unfair and should be undone was fine. Seat 8 gets a halo award.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It's a case of which is more prevalent in today's cardrooms, stupidity or total idiocy? Belief in magic indicates stupidity, but belief that the muck has magical properties that cause a hand to be irreversibly dead, regardless of the situation, indicates idiocy. Perhaps this is too close to call, when you add in the guy who tossed his hand into the muck in the first place. Generally I allow most things that make all the players happy, so the deal wouldn't bother me, but then I wouldn't make such a dumb decision either.

[TexRef]

If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

[Brettski]

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.

But this is moot.

Question 1: Was the right call made? It's not an unreasonable call, provided that it's consistently applied. Some places have rules that say if it touches the muck, it's mucked. Some have rules that say different. The more important point is that whatever the rule is, it should be consistently applied in every similar situation at that venue.

Question 2: Should a deal like that be made? I'm strongly of the opinion that this is very wrong. Pots should always be awarded to pot winners. When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game, and opening a whole can of worms.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this myself, but cases like these always usually cause problems with the nits.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the cards are easily identifiable the player should be able to get them back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this myself, but cases like these always usually cause problems with the nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

And more problems are caused by trying to keep nits happy then any other single cause.

[youtalkfunny]

[ 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.

But this is moot.

Question 1: Was the right call made? It's not an unreasonable call, provided that it's consistently applied. Some places have rules that say if it touches the muck, it's mucked. Some have rules that say different. The more important point is that whatever the rule is, it should be consistently applied in every similar situation at that venue.

Question 2: Should a deal like that be made? I'm strongly of the opinion that this is very wrong. Pots should always be awarded to pot winners. When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game, and opening a whole can of worms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a Nit Award of some kind that we can give to this poster?

"dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand" The dealer is not a hired assassin, trained to kill hands at every opportunity. If you think he is, then it sounds like you hate the idea of awarding the pot to the best hand, whenever possible, in the interest of fairness.

When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game This line alone sewed up the Nit Award for you. There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

I can just imagine both players agreeing to chop the sidepot; the entire table relaxes, relieved that a fair solution was reached; the calm is then shattered by The Lone Nit, who rises out of his seat to give a fiery speech about life, liberty, truth, justice, and "jeapordising the integrity of the game..."

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
"dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand" The dealer is not a hired assassin, trained to kill hands at every opportunity. If you think he is, then it sounds like you hate the idea of awarding the pot to the best hand, whenever possible, in the interest of fairness.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, dealers are not hired assassins. However, when ambiguous situations like this are permitted to occur (eg. did it touch the muck, is it actually in the muck) they can result in the floor being called to make tricky, line-ball decisions. And let's face it, that's what floor staff are there to do. But procedures that minimise the need for this are, in my view, good poker room management.

[ QUOTE ]
When you permit a pot to be divided up by mutual agreement, you are jeapordising the integrity of the game This line alone sewed up the Nit Award for you. There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

I can just imagine both players agreeing to chop the sidepot; the entire table relaxes, relieved that a fair solution was reached; the calm is then shattered by The Lone Nit, who rises out of his seat to give a fiery speech about life, liberty, truth, justice, and "jeapordising the integrity of the game..."

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example given by the OP, a decision was made that one hand was dead, and the only remaining live hand would be awarded the side-pot. What is so unusual about this situation that it required an unusual ruling to be made? In what other situations would it be acceptable for players to chop a pot? How similar would they be to the OP's situation? Where do you draw the line?

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]

In the example given by the OP, a decision was made that one hand was dead, and the only remaining live hand would be awarded the side-pot. What is so unusual about this situation that it required an unusual ruling to be made?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brettski,

"The only remaining live hand wins the pot" is fair and easy to apply. That makes it a good procedure for executing the overriding goal - awarding the pot correctly.

Here, however, determining which of those hands is more or less live is neither fair nor easy. Both players did the same thing. One was simply closer to the muck.

To base the ruling solely on this procedure would undermine the overriding goal of awarding the pot correctly.

You seem to think the opposite - that by awarding the pot correctly it undermines the procedure. But the procedures exist to serve the game, not the other way around.