And the winner is.....??

[scott1]

Also from Robert's Rules -

"Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling."

[PantsOnFire]

Congrats on becoming a mod Larry. Wow, that must have happened in the last half hour or I'm losing my mind.

[Taso]

Smallfry, you're trying to debate something that isn't debateable.

My response to your post was correct. There's no doubt here, its just correct. It's like 2+2 = 4. It can't be debated.

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
And it ignores the definition of muck. See my response to Taso for information on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
It ignores your definition of muck. You're adding to the definition for the sake of your own argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm debating this for the sake of a good debate...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, this isn't a good debate, it's a semantics match. The world has shades of gray, really it does. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that while it is accepted that a players hand when face up is live there are no facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't disprove a negative. There's nothing that specifically states that if a player takes his cards and puts a chip on them and makes valid bets through the river that his hand is live, either. Nothing specifically states that anywhere. But if nothing happens to kill his hand, it's assumed that his hand is live, even if the rules don't specifically spell out the exact series of events.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone can provide a defintion of "tabling ones hand"? I can't find one.

[/ QUOTE ]
From Robert's, under The Showdown, #1:
[ QUOTE ]
To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your definition of muck is that the hand is thrown away or gotten rid of. Since the Showdown has a specific rule (it's #1, even) that states what must happen, anybody who does that has complied with the requirement. The rule states simply "on the table", it doesn't specify where. The player is throwing his cards face-up on the table to claim the pot, as per the rules. Therefore, it's not a muck.

Is that enough for you? By and large you've seemed a sensible person, but you're going off the crazy side with this one. This isn't an argument or a debate, it's you with blinders on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really. You need to define "tosses his hand away." Did he do it face up? Face down?

Face up, whoever has the best hand wins.

Face down, Player B wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this for a definition: Muck, according to Robert's rules is "to discard ones hand" . To "discard" means "to throw away or get rid of". So we have Muck meaning to throw away or to get rid of ones hand. No mention of the position of the cards or where they're thrown.

So we have a situation where it is Player A's turn to act. He has been called and now, as first to act, he can either show his hand or he can muck it. By the defininition above, by tossing his hand into the middle of the table, or away, he has elected to muck.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was at the Venetian in a tournament a while back. It was heads up on the turn. I moved in with air against an opponent I knew would fold unless she had one particular hand. Well she called and had that hand and I tossed my cards face up and they landed on the muck. Villain tried to scoop the pot but the dealer pulled my cards off the muck and dealt the river which gave me an inside straight that I didn't even consider. Villain called the floor over and the floor ruled in my favour saying my hand was still live because it was tabled.

And dat's da truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe you. But, I started this thread because I wanted to discuss the specifics of a cash game.

I assume by moved in you mean that you're all in. Tournament rules are different than cash game rules. In a tournament a player who is all in cannot fold. So even if your cards landed face down on the muck pile they should be retrieved and turned face up. An all in player necessitates a showdown.

[DavidSRT]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. You need to define "tosses his hand away." Did he do it face up? Face down?

Face up, whoever has the best hand wins.

Face down, Player B wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it ignores the definition of muck. See my response to Taso for information on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
It ignores your definition of muck. You're adding to the definition for the sake of your own argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm debating this for the sake of a good debate...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, this isn't a good debate, it's a semantics match. The world has shades of gray, really it does. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that while it is accepted that a players hand when face up is live there are no facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't disprove a negative. There's nothing that specifically states that if a player takes his cards and puts a chip on them and makes valid bets through the river that his hand is live, either. Nothing specifically states that anywhere. But if nothing happens to kill his hand, it's assumed that his hand is live, even if the rules don't specifically spell out the exact series of events.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone can provide a defintion of "tabling ones hand"? I can't find one.

[/ QUOTE ]
From Robert's, under The Showdown, #1:
[ QUOTE ]
To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your definition of muck is that the hand is thrown away or gotten rid of. Since the Showdown has a specific rule (it's #1, even) that states what must happen, anybody who does that has complied with the requirement. The rule states simply "on the table", it doesn't specify where. The player is throwing his cards face-up on the table to claim the pot, as per the rules. Therefore, it's not a muck.

Is that enough for you? By and large you've seemed a sensible person, but you're going off the crazy side with this one. This isn't an argument or a debate, it's you with blinders on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the part about a hand being live until it's declared dead and not being able to disprove a negative.

It's not my definition of muck, it's from Robert's Rules.

I have a problem with the showdown though. We've discussed this previously and most said a showdown only occurs when more than one player has cards, otherwise there is no requirement for the last player with cards to show. (I'm sure you recall this post). So under my logic (however warped it may be) player A has mucked. This action preempts the showdown. So the rules for a showdown don't apply.

Guys, I appreciate the responses. I don't expect to change anything and I surely wouldn't immediately muck a players hand if he tossed it out on the table face up. I still say the rules are ambiguous at best. However, there is, or at least appears to be a universal acceptance as to what a tabled hand is, whether this is specifically defined or not.


p.s. Pfapfap - Did you miss the demented part? Thanks for playing along with me though. When all is said and done I do agree with you and everyone else (well, almost everyone. Somebody out there will probably get it wrong.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
Congrats on becoming a mod Larry. Wow, that must have happened in the last half hour or I'm losing my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

My congrats also. Larry's a Mod and Pfapfap has acheived pooh bah status. No wonder the stock market has been going bonkers lately.....lol.. well done guys.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
Congrats on becoming a mod Larry. Wow, that must have happened in the last half hour or I'm losing my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird enough, a week ago I was reading one of his posts (I'd always assumed he was a mod) and then I saw his name wasn't green and I was shocked. So its about time Larry, congrats.

[Lottery Larry]

Thanks, POF, SF and Taso