Yet another Floor Decision question (the magic muck)

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no "slippery slope" in the OP's story. Unusual circumstances sometimes call for unusual solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should probably expand on this point a little.

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with the concept that unusual situations may require unusual solutions when it is in the best interests of the game. In fact you will find this "rule" codified in rulebooks used in poker rooms and tournaments.

It isn't, however, a "get out of jail free" card that can be pulled out if the going gets tough.

The reason that the "unusual circumstances" concept exists is because we simply can't write a set of rules that will cover every single situation that may arise. But before we invoke this rule, we should make sure that there isn't a rule that does cover the situation!

Another point to consider is consistency. If an "unusual" ruling was to be made to chop a pot (like in the OP's situation) are you happy for this same ruling to be made whenever this situation occurs? You may or may not, depending on your point of view. But this is something that has to be borne in mind when making "unusual rulings".

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both hands were tossed toward the muck. I guess you feel the dealer should have "irretrievably mucked" both.

Then who gets the side pot?

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1: Did the floor make the right call?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think the Floor has to make this call because the cards are touching the muck.

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


[/ QUOTE ]
I would let them.

If I was in seat 8 I would have asked player 1 to identify his cards before turning them over. Then I would have given him the whole side pot if his hand beat mine, and the mucked cards matched - and I would have kept the whole side pot if my hand was best.

But I can see the chop the side pot logic as well - it assumes both hands were mucked.

[Kevroc]

Okay, heres my two cents...

You have to pay attention at the table. These guys both forgot there was a side-pot (cmon man PAY ATTENTION).

If one guy mucks, the other should be awarded the side.

Since both mucked their hands (I dont care if it TOUCHED the muck.. he made the folding motion).... I think the side-pot should be split among the two doofuses.

A fold is a fold.

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]

"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some very good points.

One question, however, comes out of this: how is a pot awarded "correctly"?

Example 1: Player A shows two-pair at the showdown. Player B flashes pocket Aces to the players sitting next to him, then angrily mucks his cards. The other players then shout out that he had the Ace of Spades and made a flush on the last card. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Example 2: Player A shows an Ace-high flush at the showdown. Player B rolls over the 10 of Hearts to make a straight flush (using four cards on the board) and throws his second card into the muck. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Example 3: Player A, sitting next to the dealer, makes quads on the river and bets. When he does so, he flashes his cards to the dealer. The floorman, standing behind, also sees his cards. Player B, who has made a full house on the river, calls and turns over his cards. Player A then exclaims, "where's my cards?". It turns out they weren't protected, and were accidentally mucked by the dealer. Player A clearly had the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?

Now these examples are all pretty academic and crop up from time to time in forum discussions. What they illustrate is that fairness and the best interests of the game are served by the consistent application of rules and principles. These examples are about the need to be able to prove that you have a hand that's eligible to claim a pot.

To go back to the OP's situation in a round-about way, I do not believe the pot was awarded "correctly". A pot that has been divided by mutual agreement is not, in my view, a correctly awarded pot. But mine is only one view amongst many.

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, another situation where a dealer didn't quickly and irretrievably muck a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both hands were tossed toward the muck. I guess you feel the dealer should have "irretrievably mucked" both.

Then who gets the side pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew someone would ask that! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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? Yeah. Does it suck, even a little bit? Yeah. Thing is though, I believe that chopping pots sucks more, as it set dangerous precedents, especially in tournaments.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people out there who would argue that chopping a pot in this instance would, in fact, suck less. That's cool; it's a perfectly valid opinion. What that illustrates is that some situations will arise where there are no perfect rulings. The key is to be able to make the least imperfect one. I'm sure the floorman (in the OP) believed that was what he was doing.

[PantsOnFire]

Why do people believe that cards touching the muck somehow gain a new property, namely that they are forever lost. This is simply not true.

The only thing regarding cards touching the muck is that it reduces them being "clearly identifiable". Obviously a mucked hand in front of a guy is clearly identifiable. Two cards tossed face up on the muck are also clearly identifiable. However, when two cards touch the muck, the clearly part of identifiable is reduced.

Nonetheless, the muck is not a magic disappearing pond where everything that touches it vanishes.

I don't like the floor's decision. I would trust the dealer to give me his level of confidence that he retreived the correct cards and also call upon the player to identify his hand. If the dealer is certain and the player identifies his hand correctly, then give the sidepot to the best hand.

As a matter of fact, I would expect a good dealer to stop those cards from getting into the muck and becoming less than clearly identifiable.

Having said all that, if one player's hand does actually become buried in the muck (perhaps he shoved them right into it) and the other sidepot player clearly mucked even though his cards are alone, I would split the side pot. So overall, I give the floor a solid F.

[Poshua]

[ QUOTE ]
These examples are about the need to be able to prove that you have a hand that's eligible to claim a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why these examples don't apply. In this situation, Seat 1 and Seat 8 both could prove their hands. One hand never touched the muck at all, and the other, though it had come in contact with the muck, was retrievable and identifiable.

[sirpupnyc]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that chopping pots sucks more, as it set dangerous precedents, especially in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, of course two players can't agree to chop a pot in a tournament, and if they tried you'd be right to nit yourself into a tizzy.

In cash games, however, it's perfectly acceptable for a player who feels he may have been awarded a pot unfairly to chop it. They both made the same mistake, why should one be punished and the other rewarded?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

One question, however, comes out of this: how is a pot awarded "correctly"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just shove me the pot! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]

Example 1: Player A shows two-pair at the showdown. Player B flashes pocket Aces to the players sitting next to him, then angrily mucks his cards. The other players then shout out that he had the Ace of Spades and made a flush on the last card. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player A gets the pot. Player B never tabled his hand, not even just the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Also, by your description, he only showed some of the players. If Player A did not see the card, try to convince him he 'lost'.

[ QUOTE ]

Example 2: Player A shows an Ace-high flush at the showdown. Player B rolls over the 10 of Hearts to make a straight flush (using four cards on the board) and throws his second card into the muck. Player B clearly has the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player B flogged 124 lashes with fettucini (al dente). Made to sweat. Impound the pot and "look at the security tape". Then give it to him along with a lecture, hoping he has learned his lesson. Next time give Player A the pot. I know you are supposed to show both cards to win the pot, but with so many rookies playing, it is hard to insist on blind adherence to a technicality.


[ QUOTE ]

Example 3: Player A, sitting next to the dealer, makes quads on the river and bets. When he does so, he flashes his cards to the dealer. The floorman, standing behind, also sees his cards. Player B, who has made a full house on the river, calls and turns over his cards. Player A then exclaims, "where's my cards?". It turns out they weren't protected, and were accidentally mucked by the dealer. Player A clearly had the best hand. How should the pot be correctly awarded?


[/ QUOTE ]

Player B gets the pot. Dealer gets fired.