Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[Poshua]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurt notes:

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mention that this was a California cardroom, and in my (admittedly small) experience the magic muck rule is always invoked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, maybe the muck actually is treated as magical in whatever cardroom Kurt plays at. If so, he's not wrong in the context of the room he's describing. His best course of action would be to start playing in a room whose rules don't suck.

[KurtSF]

Slight tangent, this reminds me of one of the most misunderstood baseball rules. The schoolyard saying is "tie goes to the runner", but the actual rule is written that to be called safe the runner must "beat the throw". So in reality, in the event of an actual tie the runner didn't beat the throw and is therefore out. Yet all across the country millions of little kids grow up thinking the "tie goes to the runner".

If everyone thinks the muck is magic, does it become magic?

(I wish it weren't; it doesn't make sense.)

[bav]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
So what's gonna happen to the pot in my scenario? Player 1 throws his cards in face down, dealer never touches them to the muck. I'm the only one with cards and I then toss mine. Are they REALLY gonna award the pot to player 1 in many California rooms?

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably should have worded this better to avoid confusion. I should have said "the first hand that hits the muck should be properly mucked by the dealer."

For the record, I don't believe in the "magic muck". I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

In the OP's scenario, I would have ruled the hand that touched the muck was live. If that was the case, both hands claiming the side-pot could be tabled, and the pot awarded to the winning hand that way.

But this didn't happen. The floor ruled the hand dead. And hey, if that's the rules of that card room, then that's the rules of that room.

I think the point is that if a hand (one way or another) is not irretrievable, then it will always be at risk of being called live. That's one of the reasons why smart players who've won a pot will hang on to their cards until all folded hands have been mucked.

[Brettski]

bav and pfafap, I am in agreement with you both (in case my last post wasn't clear enough!).

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably should have worded this better to avoid confusion. I should have said "the first hand that hits the muck should be properly mucked by the dealer."

[/ QUOTE ]
I usually quickly muck hands because IWTSTH slightly irritates me and this helps avoid it. However, in the situation as posted, I would make a deliberate effort not to muck the hand.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why do you want dealers to muck them so quickly?

bav...

[ QUOTE ]
So what's gonna happen to the pot in my scenario? Player 1 throws his cards in face down, dealer never touches them to the muck. I'm the only one with cards and I then toss mine. Are they REALLY gonna award the pot to player 1 in many California rooms?

[/ QUOTE ]
Y'know, I can imagine that some of floorpeople would rule your hand dead, yes. I think most of the people I know would rule you the winner, but there are a couple I know in particular that are dim enough to go with "it touched the muck first". Robert's Rules isn't heard of much 'round these parts. But then, I know that you know better than to toss your hand before getting the pot, anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that just because cards hit the muck they are automatically dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why do you want dealers to muck them so quickly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 90% of potential disputes are solved that way before the floor gets called.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that you know better than to toss your hand before getting the pot, anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I do know better, but that doesn't mean I always do it right. And I shouldn't HAVE to do this. Floor people shouldn't reward angle shooters. And in my experiences in Vegas, they very rarely do. Playing in a backwater place or somewhere I'm not familiar with, I tend to be more cautious.

[augie_]

I am always in favor of returning cards from the muck if they are easily identifiable. For example, if just a corner is sitting in the muck, or they are half way in, or even if they are sitting on top of the muck. (I would never return cards buried in the muck). Poker is stressful, it makes people do stupid and clumbsy things. Especially in a small stakes game like this, keeping the players happy and keeping things "fair" is more important than a technicality.

If I were the floorman, and the dealer told me for certain he knew which two cards seat 1 holds, I turn the hands over and the best hand wins the sidepot.

If the players were to agree to a chop of the side pot before I got there, I would go along with that. I would also allow them to overrule me. It's their money.

[Brettski]

Here's another grenade I thought I'd throw into the discussion: [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Andrew, Billy and Charlie are playing a 1/2 No Limit game. There's an all-in player, with Andrew and Billy playing for a side-pot. The all-in player rolls over the nuts, and both Andrew and Billy throw their cards towards the muck. Andrew's cards are touching the muck but it's clear what they are. Billy's cards are face down, but further away.

The floor comes over and rules Andrew's cards dead (because they touched the "magic muck") and Billy's cards live. Billy turns to Andrew and offers to chop. Andrew turns to the floorman, who says he doesn't mind. So they chop.

The very next hand ... you wouldn't believe it ... the exact same thing happens!

There's an all-in player, with two players vying for a side-pot, and this time those two player are Billy and Charlie. Again, the all-in player turns over the nuts and the other players go to muck their hands. Charlie's hand is touching the "magic muck", but it's clear what they are. Billy's cards, once again, are a bit further away.

The floor is called, and rules Charlie's hand dead and awards the side-pot to Billy. Charlie then turns to Billy and says "did you want to chop it?" Billy says NO. The floor shrugs his shoulders in apparent agreement with what's gone on, and walks away.

Two questions:

1. If you were Charlie, what would you say (or do) next?
2. If you were the floorman, how would you justify what was going on?