Need help with ruling

[pfapfap]

I personally agree with your line of thinking. This is why I don't like strict enforcement of string bet or one chip rules. If you can immediately clarify intent, no harm no foul.

However, what you stated is sadly not how it is everywhere. In my room, here's how it would likely go...

Case 1: Player B gets the pot. The other players whine and moan. The floorman comes over and waggles his finger.

Case 2: Player B gets the pot. It didn't touch the magic muck.

Case 3: Player A gets the pot. Pixie dust dissolved B's cards.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally agree with your line of thinking. This is why I don't like strict enforcement of string bet or one chip rules. If you can immediately clarify intent, no harm no foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside I should credit Scott Olson for clarifying this sort of ruling for me a few years back. Scott is a long time time floor at the Bicycle Casino who now fills in as shift manager. He is one of the most honest and decent people you could ever find on a poker floor; the Bike is lucky to have him.

Rest of your post is funny stuff [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[Brettski]

I like your reasoning. If only more people would try to understand the principles behind rulings rather than just being able to quote a rule.

Having said that, my verdict would be:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot
Case 2: Player B gets the pot
Case 3: Player B gets the pot

I don't believe in pixie dust. I also don't see an enormous amount of difference between Case 2 and Case 3.

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
... I call the floor and it is ruled that she did not muck and her hand holds up. To me this is the completly wrong decision as she made a verbal and physical indication of conceding the hand, it also helped her that 4 or 5 of her friends were at the table and disputed what myself and the other guy with the straight said. Is this the correct ruling of am I an angleshooting douche?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line here is that the dealer should muck her hand as soon as she discards it. Once that didn't happen, the dealer must step forward to describe to the Floor what happened. You don't say here what the dealer said, however, that should have discounted completely what the 4 or 5 friends were trying to do/say. If the player also lied about what happened, the Floor should have given her a warning and told her that she was not tio be believed in any future disputes.

If I am the Floor, I award you the pot (as he admitted he should have done) and I escort the 4 or 5 friends out of the casino. They not only violated the one player to a hand rule - but they then lied about it.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your reasoning. If only more people would try to understand the principles behind rulings rather than just being able to quote a rule.

Having said that, my verdict would be:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot
Case 2: Player B gets the pot
Case 3: Player B gets the pot

I don't believe in pixie dust. I also don't see an enormous amount of difference between Case 2 and Case 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't do anything wrong. He mucked his hand. You should really ask what the rest of the table did wrong to have his hand zombified.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... I call the floor and it is ruled that she did not muck and her hand holds up. To me this is the completly wrong decision as she made a verbal and physical indication of conceding the hand, it also helped her that 4 or 5 of her friends were at the table and disputed what myself and the other guy with the straight said. Is this the correct ruling of am I an angleshooting douche?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line here is that the dealer should muck her hand as soon as she discards it. Once that didn't happen, the dealer must step forward to describe to the Floor what happened. You don't say here what the dealer said, however, that should have discounted completely what the 4 or 5 friends were trying to do/say. If the player also lied about what happened, the Floor should have given her a warning and told her that she was not tio be believed in any future disputes.

If I am the Floor, I award you the pot (as he admitted he should have done) and I escort the 4 or 5 friends out of the casino. They not only violated the one player to a hand rule - but they then lied about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You my friend will not have many poker games if every time you make a ruling you throw out the people who disagree with you about what happened. When people tell different versions of an event it often isn't because they are lying, but because they have differnt perceptions.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Once again someone is trying to win the pot without the best hand. I'm really getting sick of explaining the same thing over and over so just remember this:

The casino doesn't provide towels for crying in, so bring your own.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case 2, another player helped someone read their cards, breaking one player to a hand. Since Player B showed no claim to the hand ("Wait, I think I have a flush"), we can't assume he'd have figured it out in another second or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Case 2, what did Player B do wrong? If he's going to be penalised by having his hand killed, he deserves to know what crime he has committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B didn't commit a crime; he simply overlooked his winning hand and it is highly unlikely he would have retrieved it without help from his neighbor. At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced. My first post in this threat is an example where it can be enforced fairly. In the other two cases I mentioned Player B either retrieved his hand on his own or could have conceivably figured out he had a winner without the help from a neighbor (since he had possession of his cards).

I've always been a "best hand wins whenever possible" type when I worked the floor or as a NL host. But as mentioned in my follow on Scott Olson at the Bike makes a good case for where to draw the line.

~ Rick