Need help with ruling

[Jeffage]

I would call for the shift manager in this situation and absolutely refuse to let the game progress until that person made a ruling. I would make a big stink about this - having an observer tell someone to turn their hand over that they were trying to concede is absolutely unacceptable.

Jeff

[fraserbrown]

Ya its a small card room and there is only one floor person on at any one time, I am going to let his boss know about it when I see her next.

[chucky]

Psandman,

You are taking a very newbie friendly line here. You are saying that as the long the hand is not completely buried in the muck it should win the pot. The problem is that at some point players are responsible for defending their own action. For me, and most people that point is that person needs to turn their cards face up during showdown. This is includes if the cards are face up but skid across the table. Once a player releases their hand face down and away from themselves during showdown it is a clear muck. The reason why magic muck should not exist is because we believe that the clear intent of a player to table a hand should be respected and upheld. The problem with your idea is that players will never learn a critical aspect of poker. Namely, reading a board to determine hand values.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Psandman,

You are taking a very newbie friendly line here. You are saying that as the long the hand is not completely buried in the muck it should win the pot. The problem is that at some point players are responsible for defending their own action. For me, and most people that point is that person needs to turn their cards face up during showdown. This is includes if the cards are face up but skid across the table. Once a player releases their hand face down and away from themselves during showdown it is a clear muck. The reason why magic muck should not exist is because we believe that the clear intent of a player to table a hand should be respected and upheld. The problem with your idea is that players will never learn a critical aspect of poker. Namely, reading a board to determine hand values.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you reach this conclusion. certainly don't say that its acceptable for the boyfriend to do what he did say that I would have him kicked out. If he had been another player in the game I would give him a stern warning the first time, but as a spectator I would just toss him.

I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

[/ QUOTE ]hats all well and good if you play in a room were your hand is dead when you release it. But in my room thats not when the hand is dead.

T

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't believe that the penalty here is that the girl's hand should be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The floor shouldn't kill her hand, she already did when she folded; the floor shouldn't have unkilled it.

[/ QUOTE ]hats all well and good if you play in a room were your hand is dead when you release it. But in my room thats not when the hand is dead.

T

[/ QUOTE ]

So, verbally and physically folding your hand < "she might have turned it over anyways"?

[psandman]

lets start from the begining here. She was not facing a bet here, verbal concession is irrelevant (At showdown you announcing you got me or I missed does not constitute a fold).

Next if a player releases there hand but then reaches out and grabs it and turns it over the hand is live in most rooms I've played (I have seen this called differently but it is a bad ruling).


If you believe that either announcing "I'm no good" or releasing your hand is the immediately kills your hand then you are are correct.

But neither of those things constitute the killing of a hand in the rooms I have dealt in or most rooms that I have played in.

[slipp3ry]

i have seen this situation (minus the boyfriend action) and every time the hand is considered mucked.

i think with the extra fact that her boyfriend flipped the cards and not herself closes the deal to it's mucked..

pitboss error. they always seem to be the 'nice guy' when the pressure is on them to make a decision like this.. but once the pot has gone to the wrong person.. then they come around and are like hey, maybe you were right.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
lets start from the begining here. She was not facing a bet here, verbal concession is irrelevant (At showdown you announcing you got me or I missed does not constitute a fold).

Next if a player releases there hand but then reaches out and grabs it and turns it over the hand is live in most rooms I've played (I have seen this called differently but it is a bad ruling).


If you believe that either announcing "I'm no good" or releasing your hand is the immediately kills your hand then you are are correct.

But neither of those things constitute the killing of a hand in the rooms I have dealt in or most rooms that I have played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's back up even further to a more general set of examples (I've written about this before but it's easier for me to retype than search for old stuff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

We probably agree that the best hand should get the pot whenever possible. We also probably agree that sometimes rules collide or contradict. In this case it's "one player to a hand" versus "best (clearly identifiable) hand gets the pot". Here are some guidelines I learned for good rulings when these two rules collide:

In all cases there is equal action on the river. That means bet/raise-call or check-check. In all cases Player A shows first and announces two pair or something similar. Player B sits across the table from Player A, holds his hand up in clear view of his neighbors and shakes his head in disappointment (let's say he missed his straight draw).

Case 1: The player sitting next to Player B says "Hey, you back-doored a flush; you have the best hand." Player B now tables the flush.

Case 2: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. Now the player sitting next to Player B says "Hey you had a flush". Player B reacts quickly and pulls back his hand. It never intermingled with the muck. He now tables the flush.

Case 3: Player B sighs and pushes his hand toward the muck. It touches the muck but is clearly discernable. He wakes up and quickly retrieves it and announces "Hey, I just realize I back-doored a flush". He tables the flush. There is no dispute that these are his cards.

From what I've learned a reasonably competent floorman thinking and ruling reasonably would make the following rulings:

Case 1: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Who could say that player B wouldn't have eventually figured out he had the best hand on his own?

Case 2: Player A gets the pot. Reason. Player B's hand was on it's way to the muck. It's highly unlikely he would have realized he had the best hand without help from his neighbor. Even though the hand was easily discernable there was a clear and consequential violation of "one player to a hand".

Case 3: Player B gets the pot. Reason: Although it touched the muck it is clearly identifiable. He retrieved it with no help. Best hand wins the pot.

Hope this helps.

~ Rick