|
|
#1
07-13-2007, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
How would you handle this?
NL home cash game. Player A bets big on the river. Player B calls. Player A says clearly: "Nice call you got it.". Player B says "thanks" and fires his cards into the muck and scoops the pot.
Player A sheepishly flips his cards over and says he has 9 high and missed his flush draw. But he actually hit a weird inside straight draw which gave him the nuts. 
|
|
#2
07-13-2007, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
Oh jebus.
It's sort of like overcalling your hand to induce a muck, and by that logic Player B gets it because Player's A statements caused action. But it's not an overcall, it's an undercall, and if Player B still had cards, then Player A clearly wins the pot. I say chop the pot and give them both a solid KITN.
|
|
#3
07-13-2007, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
Player A had the best hand.
Player A also was the only hand still left at showdown (although this is a d-bag move). I don't see how anything other than Player A gets the pot and issues a huge apology is the correct outcome.
|
|
#4
07-13-2007, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
The ideal resolution to this situation is for Player B to voluntarily ship the pot to Player A. Player B did not deserve to win this pot and should not be trying to claim it.
If the players cannot reach this agreement, and an "official" ruling is required of the game host, then there can be one of two outcomes: 1. (Standard) Cards speak. Player B mucked. Player A has cards. Unless Player A was deliberately undercalling his hand (obviously not the case here), then Player A gets the pot. 2. (Non-standard). "You got it" = verbal binding action. Player A therefore mucked first and sacrificed the pot. I do not like #2, and would always use #1 if I were the host. -Andrew
|
|
#5
07-13-2007, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
Was there any kind of showdown at all? I mean, player B mucks his cards - what about player A? Were any cards shown at all?
If player A did show his cards (which he is supposed to do anyhow because he executed the last action), I agree with Andrew stating: [ QUOTE ] Cards speak. Player B mucked. Player A has cards. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#6
07-13-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
[ QUOTE ]
The ideal resolution to this situation is for Player B to voluntarily ship the pot to Player A. Player B did not deserve to win this pot and should not be trying to claim it. If the players cannot reach this agreement, and an "official" ruling is required of the game host, then there can be one of two outcomes: 1. (Standard) Cards speak. Player B mucked. Player A has cards. Unless Player A was deliberately undercalling his hand (obviously not the case here), then Player A gets the pot. 2. (Non-standard). "You got it" = verbal binding action. Player A therefore mucked first and sacrificed the pot. I do not like #2, and would always use #1 if I were the host. -Andrew [/ QUOTE ] Nicely put.
|
|
#10
07-14-2007, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would you handle this?
Cards speak. B didnt show cards. A got the pot.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
