Messy hand, weak ruling

[mikech]

Horseshoe 1-2 NL, no max buy-in. UTG (a local who is apparently a regular in this game) puts up a live straddle, MP (older gentleman on my right with about $300) raises to $25, only UTG calls. Flop comes 10-3-7, UTG fires out a $100 bet, MP pushes out a stack and then reaches back for more to move all-in. He's told it's a string bet and the raise is not allowed; he's not happy about it. Turn is another 7, UTG says all-in (he has MP well covered) and MP immediately calls, obviously still upset. River is a blank, the money was already in on the turn so MP flips his cards over and says, "Two pair," showing 10-3. UTG holds his cards up vertically, bending the corners back and forth, says, "Give it to him," and throws his cards face-down toward the dealer, landing at his left elbow but not in the muck. The player sitting on UTG's left tells him, "You have the winner," UTG reaches out and grabs his cards back, turns over K-10.

The floor is called and at first she awards the pot to MP, citing face-down/forward-motion, clearly his intent was to muck. But UTG argues that as long as his cards did not hit the muck, and with no action behind, i.e. not facing a bet on the river, his hand was still live. I wasn't involved in the pot so I kept my mouth shut, but I wondered about UTG+1's decision to remark on the hand, whether that was kosher or not, even if he couldn't avoid seeing UTG's cards the way they were held up. Finally, the floor decides to split the pot, which I thought was a half-assed ruling. So, whose pot is it?

[pudley4]

MP wins the hand. UTG clearly stated he was folding - "give it to him", clearly indicated he was folding by trying to muck his cards, and only showed his cards because of prompting by a second player (one player to a hand rule).

[DeuceKicker]

I've seen this ruled differently--even at the same casino--but I'd say UTG gets the pot.

Most often in these situations, I hear the floor rule that the cards are retrievable if they didn't hit the muck. However, UG's "Give it to him" tips the scales. I've been told by casino personnel and other gamblers that a statement like "You win" (even it is only a 'prediction' that you probably have the best hand) or something similar is a fold, and the other player should immediately muck his cards to avoid a showdown.

Either way, the ruling is horrible. The floor should have clear rules for this situation (it happens fairly often) and follow them.

[bigfishead]

1st off, you throw them cards to me you aint getting them back. They go in the muck so fast so deep you can never retrieve them. One very important lesson in protecting the players includes mucking the cards accordingly. End of discussion on that part.

Now, a REAL PROBLEM exists if some player says "hey you have the best hand, show it." One player to a hand. At this point(I have done this) I immediately call the floor and try to stop player from showing since he still has possession and has declared "you win". The floor will sometimes kill the hand and rule the "outsider" to shut the hell up or he will be asked to leave the game. THAT IS BRUTALLY OUT OF LINE. Posted on almost all poker rooms is "players are responsible for protecting their own hands" and "1 Player per hand".

The worst part of this is the floor did not stand by the correct first ruling of forward motion. This is not a floor person. Floor people BEFORE making any decision need to be clear of what happened. Meaning, sometimes dealers deliver the information poorly or maybe english is a 2nd language to them and they incorrectly word the info. Good floorpeople will also look to 1-2 trusted players at the table to confirm info accordingly in such cases.

90% of the floorpeople that I know, that are good, WILL muck/kill this hand and award it to the 10-3 player.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
However, UG's "Give it to him" tips the scales. I've been told by casino personnel and other gamblers that a statement like "You win" (even it is only a 'prediction' that you probably have the best hand) or something similar is a fold, and the other player should immediately muck his cards to avoid a showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cards speak. Words spoken by players on the end have no bearing on the outcome of the hand. Very clear.

As for the original poster, the cards were not mucked - he should have been awarded the entire pot.

Regards,

T

[Rick Nebiolo]

First, I agree that this is the type of situation where you are likely to get different rulings in the same casino with different floormen.

In Los Angeles the primary rule is "cards speak". This trumps "one player to a hand". Hands are retrievable if they are clearly discernible and if retrieving them doesn't impact the action (the part about "doesn't impact the action" isn't clearly written in the rules or understood by many floormen). Anyway, in this case it doesn't.

The "you win" rule (which was dropped from the Los Angeles rulebook about 1997) was originally intended to protect a player who discarded his hand because another player told him his hand was good. With about 1000 different languages spoken in the Los Angeles card clubs, the trend in rules had been more towards cards speak.

More later but I gotta run ...

~ Rick

[mikech]

OK, so we have bigfishead who I gather is a dealer saying that MP ought to be awarded the pot, and on the other hand Rick who works at the Bike saying it's UTG's pot. This talk of "90% of good floors" making a certain ruling and "different floors at different times even in the same casino" making different rulings is all very fuzzy. Is there a definitive ruling? If not, maybe this particular floor did the right thing to split the pot: why penalize one player or the other when there's no clear-cut answer?