I let it go.

[Josh W]

I let it go. No, I'm not talking about a hand. I'm talking about a well deserved verbal berating.

The hand in question was...I called a raise with 99 on the button in what ended up being a 7 handed pot.

The flop came 973, two diamonds. We capped it 5 ways on the flop. At this point, I think I was in the lead.

The turn was an 8, putting two hearts up there, as well as two diamonds. We capped it 5 ways. The guy who made it threebets here also made it threebets on the flop, so I think I'm still in the lead.

The river was the 5c, missing both flushes, but putting a 5789 on the board. It got checked to me, and I checked. Yes, I usually bet here, because anybody with a 6 would usually bet in a 29 big-bet pot. However, I thought that maybe a 6 would fear either T6 or JT, and maybe a hand like JT would check, going for the checkraise of a 6. So, anyhoo, I checked.

First person mucks, face down (later said 54d, and I believe him). Second person turns over T8o, for a pair of 8s. Third person turns over KTd, for a flush draw, turned straight draw, and river King high. Fourth person stares and stares and stares and stares.

And stares. And stares. Then goes to muck. Never showed his cards to the table. They are now face down, and going ot the muck.

Lady to his left sees his hand, and says "what are you doing, you have a straight?". He says "no, I needed a ten", she says "no, with your 6". He turns over J6o, and I quietly muck.

What I 'let go' was the verbal berating of the lady that she surely deserved. 29 Big Bet pot. Was a split second from being mine. And she opened her yap.

And I didn't say a thing. No, this isn't some sort of "I'm gonna let people walk all over me New Years Resolution". I was in a unique position. The ENTIRE table was on tilt. My EV in this game is roughly 0.93Through-The-Roofs.

And, well, i have this little trait where, when I get into a heated discussion with somebody, and I know I'm right, I get a little steamed. So, i decide to just not say anything right away, to keep it so that I'm THE player not on tilt.

I also tell myself to make sure I mention to her how out of line she was. As an aside, once the guy with J6o left the table (with 5 friggin racks!), the ENTIRE table berated her. she had no idea what she did wrong, and i was going to say something to her on my way out the door, but it was nice to see that the entire table decided to keep their mouths shut around the J6o-for-a-cap-on-a-973-flop-guy.

Just an interesting situation, I thought.

Josh

[Riverman]

Good Post- I dont think I would have been able to keep my mouth shut.

It sounds like she really didnt know how out of line she was, so I could forgive her. But that doesnt diminsh the frustration you experience at the time. Good job.

[etizzle]

yea i wouldve REEMED her, jesus. Better not too though, and let everyone chew her out once the fishie has left.

Nice Hand.

[Joe Tall]

Josh,

That's powerful stuff. Amazing.

Great post,
Joe Tall

[roy_miami]

Very costly missed bet on the river, you throw out one more bet and he mucks without his lady friends help.

Pretty ironic when you think about it...

[Josh W]

Well, other than he may have called out of curiosity. or he may have realized it.

but when it's just him left to act, and it's heads up, and its 30 BB, he may have called.

cuz remember, he put in a cap with J6o on a 973 flop. And two bets preflop.

yeah, he may have folded, though. and, yeah...strange way of looking at it.

[obi---one]

Sorry Josh. sucks when that crap happens. Way to keep your head though. I would have kept my mouth shut and gone on tilt anywayz. The other day i mucked the winner in a 1300 dollar pot after i called the river bet /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[anatta]

I am too tired to write but you did great, very inspiring. Its a tough game, we aint marines in Iraq and I dont want to compare but it takes a warriors heart sometimes, this game tests us. New ways to lose big pots and you were ready and took it in stride. Sweet.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Josh,

What a story! You win by having more class than most of us could ever dream of.

Regards,

~ Rick

[IndianOcean]

Very good self control.

Very nice

[andyfox]

Gosh, I wish you'd post more frequently. An interesting bad beat story with lots to think about.

"I called a raise with 99 . . . The flop came 973 . . . At this point, I think I was in the lead."

-At this point, I know you're in the lead. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


"she had no idea what she did wrong"

-Then she didn't deserve a berating. The one-player-to-a-hand rule, though, should have been explained to her. Politely.

"i have this little trait where, when I get into a heated discussion with somebody, and I know I'm right, I get a little steamed."

-Maybe the other guy knows he's right too. Steam is not an effective tool of pedagogy, as you know.

You're a good man, Josh.

Regards,
Andy

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I let it go. No, I'm not talking about a hand. I'm talking about a well deserved verbal berating.

The hand in question was...I called a raise with 99 on the button in what ended up being a 7 handed pot.

The flop came 973, two diamonds. We capped it 5 ways on the flop. At this point, I think I was in the lead.

The turn was an 8, putting two hearts up there, as well as two diamonds. We capped it 5 ways. The guy who made it threebets here also made it threebets on the flop, so I think I'm still in the lead.

The river was the 5c, missing both flushes, but putting a 5789 on the board. It got checked to me, and I checked. Yes, I usually bet here, because anybody with a 6 would usually bet in a 29 big-bet pot. However, I thought that maybe a 6 would fear either T6 or JT, and maybe a hand like JT would check, going for the checkraise of a 6. So, anyhoo, I checked.

First person mucks, face down (later said 54d, and I believe him). Second person turns over T8o, for a pair of 8s. Third person turns over KTd, for a flush draw, turned straight draw, and river King high. Fourth person stares and stares and stares and stares.

And stares. And stares. Then goes to muck. Never showed his cards to the table. They are now face down, and going ot the muck.

Lady to his left sees his hand, and says "what are you doing, you have a straight?". He says "no, I needed a ten", she says "no, with your 6". He turns over J6o, and I quietly muck.

What I 'let go' was the verbal berating of the lady that she surely deserved. 29 Big Bet pot. Was a split second from being mine. And she opened her yap.

And I didn't say a thing. No, this isn't some sort of "I'm gonna let people walk all over me New Years Resolution". I was in a unique position. The ENTIRE table was on tilt. My EV in this game is roughly 0.93Through-The-Roofs.

And, well, i have this little trait where, when I get into a heated discussion with somebody, and I know I'm right, I get a little steamed. So, i decide to just not say anything right away, to keep it so that I'm THE player not on tilt.

I also tell myself to make sure I mention to her how out of line she was. As an aside, once the guy with J6o left the table (with 5 friggin racks!), the ENTIRE table berated her. she had no idea what she did wrong, and i was going to say something to her on my way out the door, but it was nice to see that the entire table decided to keep their mouths shut around the J6o-for-a-cap-on-a-973-flop-guy.

Just an interesting situation, I thought.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best post I've read on this forum in a while. Thanks.

scrub

[BarronVangorToth]

Josh,

Your actions were commendable. Great job -- something I wish I would do in your place, but I certainly wouldn't.

Kudos.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[nolanfan34]

Great post.

If it were me, I'd be calling my lawyer with my one phone call right now.

[phifediggy]

wow. just wow.

[mosta]

I'm not clear on how she saw his cards if they were face down and going to the muck. I was in a small live tournament recently. An underset got all in against TPTK. Both hands tabled face up on the flop. the pair rivered trips and started jumping for joy while everyone at the table, inlcuding the opponent, patted him on the back. I stood up and said, No, that fills the other guy up. Was that a faux pas? "Cards speak" in card rooms generally. If you table your hand and misannounce it as a loser, the dealer corrects you and gives you the pot. Does it not apply in this case b/c he showed it only to her, or only accidentally exposed, partially, on the way to the muck? If he had tabled the hand and the dealer missed the straight, but the woman pointed it out to him, would that be the same? I thought not.

[Kevin J]

If you knew for sure his hand was still live, I think you did the right thing and agree with everyone else's admiration of your conduct. However..

In some card rooms a forward motion with face down cards constitutes a mucked/dead hand. If this was the case, you should've called it for a 29 big bet pot. Even if you were unsure about the rule, let the floor make the decision. If it was just a matter of you being in a charitable mood, you could have waited until you got home, and written a 29 big bet check to your favorite charity. So in that sense, I disagree with everyone else's admiration of what you did. Yes, you should always strive to keep a poor player happy, but it will take a long time to get 29 big bets back from him. There is also the matter of this lady needing to know that it is unethical behavior to coach another player while others are still in the hand. IMO-

[Kevin J]

Rick-

In the cardroom where you work (or worked?), what constitues a mucked hand? In the room I play in, any forward motion (with face down cards), is a mucked hand. There's a difference between "class" and outright charity.

[Philuva]

Could have been an angle from the woman. If I were her, I am sure I would rather those 29 big bets go to Mr. J6o than Mr. Josh W.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
In the room I play in, any forward motion (with face down cards), is a mucked hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the norm. "Hitting the muck" is usually the rule.

~D

[SA125]

"it was nice to see that the entire table decided to keep their mouths shut around the J6o-for-a-cap-on-a-973-flop-guy."

Great post Josh and great point. I was recently playing with a J6o guy who was going from stacks to felt, stacks to felt. More than a few guys at the table were absolutely hating and ridiculing him.

When he left with stacks, I looked around and asked no one in particluar "Is that a good thing or a bad thing." The basic consensus was good riddance. Great post.

[Kevin J]

With this being the case, I agree with the way Josh handled it, since there was no way he could've been awarded the pot. At best, the lady would've been warned about the "1 player to a hand" rule and this does nothing to help Josh and only makes Jr. J-6 feel like a fool.

[IgorSmiles]

I was involved in a hand not too long ago where I flopped bottom two pair and got counterfeited on the river when the board paired. I turn my two pair up, and the guy holds his cards high in the air and says, "You win, I just have a king." and goes to muck, his pal next to him physically grabs his arm and says, "No!" And he realizes his goof and takes the pot down. I didnt call the floor over, I should have.
Another recent hand, I have top two and bet all the way, the board has 2 hearts and I know this guy is on a flush draw. River does not complete his flush but does make a five card straight on board. Of course I cant bet my 2 pair. So I check. He says, "you have me beat." not realizing the board plays and we should chop. The dealer also misses this, pushes the pot towards me, then goes for the cards. A player long out of the hand says, "No, that's a chop." And we chop. The chips were already intermingled with my stack. Again, I dont call the floor. So the point is a good one Kevin, sometimes you have to speak up and let the floor rule.

[Kevin J]

Wow, I know I'm coming off like a real nit/jerk here, but I'm really not. This is just common sense. In the hand where both of you played the board, were his cards ever shown?

A dealer cannot push a pot on hearsay. All players remaining after the final round of betting must show their cards in order to be awarded any part of the pot. Even when the board plays, both hands must be shown. So if the other guy failed to turn over his hand, how can it be a chop?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Rick- In the cardroom where you work (or worked?), what constitues a mucked hand? In the room I play in, any forward motion (with face down cards), is a mucked hand. There's a difference between "class" and outright charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I used to work the floor at Hollywood Park and do "other stuff" at the Bike. I just got home and am exhausted to the point of delirium but this very subject came up today.

In my estimation you would get somewhat different rulings depending on the location (e.g., Los Angeles versus Las Vegas), the card club or casino, and even the floorman within a club. I was planing on starting a well-researched, well thought through thread sometime in the future. That said, maybe a less well-researched and thought through post will have to do for now /images/graemlins/grin.gif. (Just the thought of searching the various archives and nooks and crannies of this forum for previous posts on the subject gives me a headache!)

Generally, modern poker rules, such as Bob Ciaffone's Rules of Poker (http://www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach/RobsPkrRules5.htm), which are similar to the rules used in Los Angeles (Bob was instrumental in the rewrite of the rule book in 1997) tend to favor awarding the pot to the best hand i.e., "Cards Speak", as long as the action is complete and the hand is discernible. That said rules collide, somewhere there still exists a "one player to a hand rule" (don't ask me to look it up now).

OK, enough background. Let's say Player A and Player B are heads up on the river. The action is check-check so its time for the showdown.

Player A tables two pair face up. Player B was on a flush draw but has made a backdoor straight that he has overlooked (at least for now).

Case 1: Player B pushes his hand face down toward the muck, then realizes his mistake and retrieves it before it touches the muck and turns it face up.

Case 2: Player B pushes his hand face down toward the muck, then realizes his mistake just as one corner of his cards barely touch the muck. He now turns them face up. It is clear to all that he turned up the correct hand, although his hand touched the muck.

Case 3: Player B holds his hand up to his neighbor lamenting his missed draw and is about to fold, but his neighbor says "Hey, you made a straight". Now Player B tables his hand face up.

Case 4: Player B holds his hand up to his neighbor lamenting his missed draw, lays it face down on the table and starts to push it toward the muck, but before it is mucked by the dealer his neighbor says "Hey, he made a straight!". Player B reaches for his cards and turns them face up showing the straight.

I had a "Case 5" partially thought up, but my brain just ran out of gas /images/graemlins/confused.gif.

Anyway, what to you think the ruling should be or would be in the above four cases if the floor was called to the table at your club? Do you think you would get consistent rulings?

I have some thoughts but I need to get some gas for my brain. Hopefully I'll find a filling station before tomorrow /images/graemlins/smile.gif

~ Rick

[Baulucky]

[ QUOTE ]
Just an interesting situation, I thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also interesting is that it was -EV and that you feel proud for it.

I would have asked for the hand to be declared dead at minimum, but WTF do I know?.

[JimRivett]

Rick,

Like you said in your post, it depends on where and by whom, referring to Casino/Location and Floorman.

In Josh's example, the hand of his opponent was live because it hadn't touched the muck, however I feel that perhaps the dealer should have mentioned the "one hand per player rule" to the lady.

With regard to your "case questions", player B's cards are live in all cases except case 2.

And Josh, I was pleased to see that you handled the entire episode with class and dignity which is the very least I would have expected from you. Also, on the flop, you did in fact have the best hand /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Jim

[BarronVangorToth]

Things like this happen at Foxwoods all the time and it always goes in favor of the "villain."

While I wasn't at this specific situation, I will say how it usually goes down -- and works -- as Foxwoods only counts a hand "dead" after it has hit the muck; they don't have any type of rule regarding forward motion towards it or anything, as I have seen people throw their hand away and regrab it if no action has been taken after them AND if the dealer hasn't hit the muck with it and continue on.

That said, here's what happens that I've seen:

All betting is done and the Hero shows his winning hand that is, I don't know, a set of Aces.

The Villain, the only other person left in the hand and all the action is done so he doesn't mind having his hand exposed turns his cards so that he can see them easily -- but so can his neighbors. He looks at them and the board for a few moments seeing if he wins but not wanting to just flip his hand up because he doesn't want to give away that he has playing 10 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif so he's hoping to ONLY show if he wins.

The board has four diamonds but he doesn't notice that part of the equation as he was on a "straight draw" due to the JKA on the board that the hero capped pre-flop, on the flop, and on the turn.

He looks and so his neighbors look on as they aren't in the hand and they'd like to get to the next hand and as he goes to fold one of them will go -- you have a flush, flip up your hand ...

... and the flush will play.

It's annoying and goes against the one-player-per-hand rule but I've seen it happen at Foxwoods a number of times (as well as Mohegan Sun when they had their poker room, not to mention I've seen it in other places as well) and.... it's just idiotic.

But it works.

Josh still deserves mad props for taking this terrible beat like a true gentleman and gamesman.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[slavic]

Hi Josh-

Well played.

Rick-

I'd say cards speak in all 4 cases. I'm assuming that the player didn't let go of the cards when they just touched the muck and they were descernable. In any case complaining about these things seems to me to be wrong. In the typical situation the calling player is fairly live and will offer the same level of play in future hands. Making a complaint will likely make him feel as if the players, rules, house are against him, and likely encourage his departure.

Thanks,
slavic

[andyfox]

I was the beneficiary of two players to a hand not long ago. Jim Rivett was sitting on my right and not involved in the hand. By the river I was head-up and my opponent bet and I called. He turned over two pair and I held my hand up and started nodding "that's good," when Jim pointed out to me that I had a straight. And it was an obvious situation: I think I had K-Q and the board was Q-T-x-9-T or somesuch.

I've seen situations where two players tabled their cards and the dealer misread the board and would have awarded the pot to the wrong player. The player entitled to the pot didn't realize he had won it either, and it was only after other players at the table pointed out the error that the pot was awarded to the correct player. I've also seen it where nobody said anything in such a situation because we all disliked the player who would/should have won the hand.

[Turning Stone Pro]

And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen. I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business.

H.R.

[schroedy]

Well done Josh. But in truth, it should just be SOP. Like NEVER berating players for making some miraculously idiotic suckout.

The whole thread reminds me that whatever you hope to gain by hiding your (presumed) losing hand from your opponent at showdown, you only have to muck the winner once to invalidate absolutely all of these slender gains.

In other words: "Just turn em over boys."

(Of course, all this stalling and jockeying to avoid showing hands is MY pet peeve. But obviously MY bad attitude is fully justified. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[The Bear]

This is unbelievable. It's outrageous that Josh W, a grown man, is being commended for acting like a reasonable, mature human being. The behavior written in this post should be EXPECTED. It's not impressive, it's routine, particularly in light of this line: "she had no idea what she did wrong"

Are posters really implying that this woman deserves to be verbally thrashed for a mistake? Is that the way that you treat people? Is that the expected, default behavior here?

If it is, then I'm glad that Josh posted this, because at least it can serve a Tommy-esque function, setting an example for everyone who couldn't keep themselves under control in that spot.

So I'll say nice post, but I will not congratulate someone for showing basic emotional maturity.

[anatta]

Bear, I dig your posts, but I disagree that this is basic emotional maturity. I don't want to presume to tell you whats up with live poker since you probably have played and maybe you are just wired different. I do see that you are an online player, and I think its a little easier to let beats go when you got 4 tables and 100/hr on each. ( a "little easier", I play online too and its still often a torture chamber for me /images/graemlins/crazy.gif)

Its harder to sit there all day, fold hands for hours, endure the usual beats, and have this happen. This pot is a weeks worth of wages for a good player. The manner in which he lost this pot is unexpected, and I think took some great control to calmly hold it together.

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the expected, default behavior here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't be a little pissed if someone's nosiness cost you $1800? Not even a little?

Not to say that it's correct to lay a verbal beatdown on this woman, by any means, but I certainly understand the sentiment.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to your "case questions", player B's cards are live in all cases except case 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is again: "Case 2: Player B pushes his hand face down toward the muck, then realizes his mistake just as one corner of his cards barely touch the muck. He now turns them face up. It is clear to all that he turned up the correct hand, although his hand touched the muck."

Touching the muck does not automatically kill a hand even though this is widely believed by many customers and unfortunately a few floorman. First I'll use Ciaffone's rules (linked to above):

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

Next I'll use rules from a year 2000 version of the Hollywood Park rulebook that happens to be on my hard drive (this is virtually identical to the Bike and Commerce Book).

"4. Cards thrown into the muck are dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved if, at the management’s discretion, doing so is in the best interest of the game.

40. All cards must be shown faceup on the table in order to win any part of the pot.

41. Cards Speak: Cards read for themselves. Although dealers assist in reading hands to the best of their ability, players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard his or her hand is unethical and will result in forfeiture of the pot. (See Lowball rule #1.)

42. If you throw your cards facedown with a forward motion, you indicate you are passing and risk losing the pot."

Based on these rules, I'd rule Player B's hand live in all four cases stated in my original post, although I believe Case 4 is debatable. Some floormen would disagree. More later.

~ Rick

[Tommy Angelo]

"And I didn't say a thing."

Very very ni han.

[Kevin J]

I've never seen the "1 player to a hand rule" enforced on the spot. It's more of an ethical rule. Kind of like folding in turn. On the first occurance (if someone points it out), there's a warning. If it continues, they could be asked to leave. But again, I've never seen a pot pulled back because of it.

A mucked hand is a different story. In the room I play, any forward motion with down cards is considered a muck. I don't agree with this rule. I believe that all possible attempts should be made to award a pot to the "best" hand and that cards speak. But rules are rules and if they can work to one's disadvantage, then I believe in using them to your advantage as well.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Things like this happen at Foxwoods all the time and it always goes in favor of the "villain."

While I wasn't at this specific situation, I will say how it usually goes down -- and works -- as Foxwoods only counts a hand "dead" after it has hit the muck;

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Let's say the action is complete before the showdown (Player Y has called Player X's bet). Player X announces "straight" and tables his hand. The hand is 8-7-6-4-3. Player Y discards his hand toward the muck and a corner of it touches the muck. Then someone points out that Player X's hand is missing a five. Player Y's hand would easily be retrieved in Los Angeles as long as it is discernible and it is evident there was no deliberate miscall (in this type of case I would judge the miscall not deliberate). Some floor (including myself, if I was still working as a floor) would rule Player Y's hand live even if it was mucked and physically irretrievable. Clearly a calling hand beats an eight high and the pot should be awarded to Player Y. It is a ruling made "in the best interest of the game". What percentage of floor (in Los Angeles or elsewhere) would make this ruling?

Obviously I'm interested in comments here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
...they don't have any type of rule regarding forward motion toward it or anything, as I have seen people throw their hand away and regrab it if no action has been taken after them AND if the dealer hasn't hit the muck with it and continue on....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a nationwide/worldwide problem in poker regarding declaring a hand dead and the showdown in two classes of situations.

Class One: All action is complete.

Here I believe every possible effort must be made to award the pot to the best hand, as long as the best hand can be identified (or clearly inferred as in the example above).

Class Two: The action is not complete.

Here I believe any player who faces a bet and, before calling, does anything that clearly indicates a fold has a dead hand. We would argue what clearly indicates a fold but I believe it is in the best interest in poker to clean up the rules here (BTW, I believe Ciaffone's online book does a good job on this).

That said, I suspect many floormen and players have a problem distinguishing the difference between the two cases.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen the "1 player to a hand rule" enforced on the spot. It's more of an ethical rule. Kind of like folding in turn. On the first occurance (if someone points it out), there's a warning. If it continues, they could be asked to leave. But again, I've never seen a pot pulled back because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the "one player to a hand rule" is generally in the ettiquete section, I believe you are right on.

From the "Poker Etiquette" section of the Ciaffone online book:

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

Reading a hand for another player at the showdown before it has been placed faceup on the table.

Telling anyone to turn a hand faceup at the showdown."

From the "Poker Etiquette" section of the Hollywood Park rulebook we have:

The following unethical or improper actions are grounds for warning or excluding a player from HOLLYWOOD PARK Casino:

"36. Making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play, whether or not the offender is involved in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
A mucked hand is a different story. In the room I play, any forward motion with down cards is considered a muck. I don't agree with this rule. I believe that all possible attempts should be made to award a pot to the "best" hand and that cards speak. But rules are rules and if they can work to one's disadvantage, then I believe in using them to your advantage as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I are in agreement here (although I have some problems with the last sentence). Anyway, if interested refer to my comments elsewhere in this thread.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I was the beneficiary of two players to a hand not long ago. Jim Rivett was sitting on my right and not involved in the hand. By the river I was head-up and my opponent bet and I called. He turned over two pair and I held my hand up and started nodding "that's good," when Jim pointed out to me that I had a straight. And it was an obvious situation: I think I had K-Q and the board was Q-T-x-9-T or somesuch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting old is tough /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen situations where two players tabled their cards and the dealer misread the board and would have awarded the pot to the wrong player.....I've also seen it where nobody said anything in such a situation because we all disliked the player who would/should have won the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a player in the the above case I have no problem with that sort of just result. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,

Rick

[SA125]

I can understand and appreciate all efforts in maintaining the "spirit of the game." But two things here.

One is that poker isn't suppossed to be played like a team sport. You're responsible for your cards and your money. If you muck your hand on the basis of a verbal call without looking at his cards, you should lose a pot you should have won. It's not about the spirit of the game. It's about learning a lesson the hard way.

Second - in a poker room there has to be something definitive that decides when a mistake that's been made in a hand is just plain unfortunate and irrevocable. That something should be the muck. The only time your cards should be retrievable from the muck is when you table them face up and the dealer mistakenly mucks them. Because the dealer is in charge of the muck and his mistake shouldn't cost you a pot.

I don't think it's close.

[Ulysses]

I agree w/ Bear.

[JimRivett]

Andy,

You need to finish the story and tell everyone what happened the very next hand.

btw provided the 5 doesn't become a river between now and next week are we on for lunch and cards?

Jim

[rigoletto]

I agree w/ Diablo.

[Turning Stone Pro]

I agree with Diablo.

Real classy - those who would berate and chew out a lady at a poker table over a small amount of grubby chips, when you had the worst hand (and played it poorly, I might add). If your that concerned about the money, get a damn job.

[Lawrence Ng]

Very commendable Josh.

What goes around, comes around. I have had that happen to me on a couple of occasions as well, but last month I was in a hand, turned trips, rivered brought the 3rd suit and I check-called the villain. Sure enough he has the flush.

Just as I am about to muck my hand, I mean 1 second before I do - another player asks to see my hand. I don't like it, but reluctantly and voluntarily turned my hand over.

Then the dealer starts pushing me the pot. I was like "what the f*ck?"

About 3 seconds later, I notice that the river card, though giving my opponent the flush gave me the full house. It was a 12 BB pot too, so not shabby.

Needless to say villain wasn't happy, but he didn't say much either.

Lawrence

[rigoletto]

Get with the program: you where supposed to agree with me, who agreed with Diablo, Who agreed with Bear.

[Saborion]

I agree with Rigoletto.

[schroedy]

Were you guys the writers for Meet the Fockers?

We get it already.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Diablo.

Real classy - those who would berate and chew out a lady at a poker table over a small amount of grubby chips, when you had the worst hand (and played it poorly, I might add). If your that concerned about the money, get a damn job.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are three ways to handle it: 1. Berate the lady - you're right this is bad. 2. Stew in silence. 3. Let it go. Its cool that Josh could let it go.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Diablo.

Real classy - those who would berate and chew out a lady at a poker table over a small amount of grubby chips, when you had the worst hand (and played it poorly, I might add). If your that concerned about the money, get a damn job.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are three ways to handle it: 1. Berate the lady - you're right this is bad. 2. Stew in silence. 3. Let it go. I got the sense that losing this pot didn't really effect Josh's game or mood. If he just let go the berating, then yeah, big deal.

[Ulysses]

If he would've really let it go, this message wouldn't have been posted.

[schroedy]

2+2 really needs a recommend this post feature.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
If he would've really let it go, this message wouldn't have been posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two zen monks are walking and they come to a river. While they can cross with no problem, there is a young woman on the bank who cannot. Although it violates the monks' moral code to make physical contact with a female, one of the monks picks up the woman and carries her over to the other side a lets her go, and the two monks continue along their way.

After an hour or so, one of the monks can't stand it any longer. He says, "I can't believe you carried that woman! How could you?"

The other said, "Oh, I didn't know you were still carrying her. I let her go at the river."

Anatta is grateful to El Diablo for the dharma transmission!

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Bear, I dig your posts, but I disagree that this is basic emotional maturity. I don't want to presume to tell you whats up with live poker since you probably have played and maybe you are just wired different. I do see that you are an online player, and I think its a little easier to let beats go when you got 4 tables and 100/hr on each. ( a "little easier", I play online too and its still often a torture chamber for me /images/graemlins/crazy.gif)

Its harder to sit there all day, fold hands for hours, endure the usual beats, and have this happen. This pot is a weeks worth of wages for a good player. The manner in which he lost this pot is unexpected, and I think took some great control to calmly hold it together.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's cool. We'll just have to disagree on this point.

[Turning Stone Pro]

Nice sportsmanship. Since there is really not alot you can do about this type of situation, I admire those who can let it go and continue to focus on their game.

This is the sign of a professional, even if you only play for enjoyment and side-income.

TSP

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand and appreciate all efforts in maintaining the "spirit of the game." But two things here.

One is that poker isn't suppossed to be played like a team sport. You're responsible for your cards and your money. If you muck your hand on the basis of a verbal call without looking at his cards, you should lose a pot you should have won. It's not about the spirit of the game. It's about learning a lesson the hard way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never going to muck a hand (or let it be mucked) that I should have won. I'm that careful. But for many new to casino poker learning a lesson "the hard way" means it is the last time they play in a casino poker game. Losing those players is bad for all of us.

[ QUOTE ]
Second - in a poker room there has to be something definitive that decides when a mistake that's been made in a hand is just plain unfortunate and irrevocable. That something should be the muck. The only time your cards should be retrievable from the muck is when you table them face up and the dealer mistakenly mucks them. Because the dealer is in charge of the muck and his mistake shouldn't cost you a pot.

I don't think it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Ciaffone's online rules (see link in other post) on Dead Hands. Here is one of them:

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

That said, I realize there is disagreement regarding retrievability. I wish more floormen posted here.

Regards,

Rick

[SA125]

"But for many new to casino poker learning a lesson "the hard way" means it is the last time they play in a casino poker game. Losing those players is bad for all of us."

Respect your opinion Rick but, two things. One is that you think many of the new ones won't come back. I disagree. Now it's a debate of whether or not the new people in a card room intend to play more and will accept it, or whether they're one shot wonders who'll take this excuse to never go to a card room again. I'd bet more are in the hard lesson camp who'll return.

Second - "I wish more floormen posted here" is exactly why you want something definitive, like the muck. When it comes to a hand being good to award a pot to, you can only have one set of rules. To say that one set "is discretionary" is a cop out.

I say again that the only time a hand should be retrieved from the muck is when it was tabled face up and the dealer mistakenly put it there. Then again, I can see how being a former floorman can make you see otherwise.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Respect your opinion Rick but...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi SA125. Here's a tip I found interesting when it was given to me, and I now pass on to you with full goodwill. It's not poker related, but you may find it useful all the same.

When someone says, "I hear you, but" or "I'm sorry, but" or any other variation on this phrase, they are often saying, "I'm not listening to you, let me reiterate what I said earlier, since you don't yet seem to agree with me". Even when not intended this way, this is the message often delivered.

You can avoid this by simply ending the sentence:

"I respect your opinions Rick. Here are a couple things I think you may have missed..."

So much better. It's difficult to do, but the effect is even more powerful when spoken. That's enough preaching from me though. I hope this helps you the way I believe it has me.


Sincerely,
Eric

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
This is unbelievable. It's outrageous

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure "outrageous" is the word you were going for, but that nitpicking aside, I do agree with the thinking behind your point, that being what Josh did SHOULDN'T be remarkable, as it is what people SHOULD do. However, since most people don't do it, it IS remarkable, as I would imagine that if you put 100 players in that same situation, a vast majority would do something, admittedly, immature and inappropriate.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"But for many new to casino poker learning a lesson "the hard way" means it is the last time they play in a casino poker game. Losing those players is bad for all of us."

Respect your opinion Rick but, two things. One is that you think many of the new ones won't come back. I disagree. Now it's a debate of whether or not the new people in a card room intend to play more and will accept it, or whether they're one shot wonders who'll take this excuse to never go to a card room again. I'd bet more are in the hard lesson camp who'll return.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree most will come back. That said, I tend to be in the "best hand gets the pot whenever reasonable and possible" school. IMO card club/casino rules and policies should protect ordinary customers (who in a sense are the better player's "customers") from innocent mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
Second - "I wish more floormen posted here" is exactly why you want something definitive, like the muck. When it comes to a hand being good to award a pot to, you can only have one set of rules. To say that one set "is discretionary" is a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I wish more people who work or have worked in cardrooms posted here about stuff like rules and procedures. I need company /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Who would disagree that the play of the hand rules (including showdown rules) actually enforced in casinos and clubs need to be clarified. The debate is how it should be clarified.

[ QUOTE ]
say again that the only time a hand should be retrieved from the muck is when it was tabled face up and the dealer mistakenly put it there. Then again, I can see how being a former floorman can make you see otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been a player first. Retrieving the best hand when innocently mucked is good for players IMHO.

Regards,

Rick

[schroedy]

I really think we should train and encourage players to show their cards -- AND QUICKLY -- at showdown.

I cannot tell you how incredibly stupid I think all the dramatics, theatrics and shenanigans to avoid showing your hand are. I would support a rule that imposed a 2 Big Bet penalty on any idiot slowing the game down with some kind of slow roll routine. I suppose by extension, I should support any rule that tends to disqualify a hand not wanted to be shown.

What I would really support is a B&M version of the Party Poker rule -- all hands still live at showdown are/must be shown (in a way, at least, on Party) -- PROMPTLY.

[ChineseLightning]

so its funny that you mention this story cause i played in tahoe this weekend and the question came up. I asked to see a mucked hand on a called river which i was not involved in. the dealer told me i couldnt see it because i was not involved in the hand. I told her that seemed strange. She agreed. she said, "Its not normally done in casinos, but how would you feel if someone not in the hand cost you a pot cause he asked to see a mucked hand?"

[Randy_Refeld]

I came to this thread late. I originally overlooked it, but someone sent me a PM asking me to take a look. In my experience the most heated debates in a cardroom occur when the rules state something along the lines of "a hand may be dead." Players and inexperienced floorman often take that to mean "a hand is dead." "A hand may be dead" has the same meaning as "a hand may be live," "a hand may be live or dead," or what the author of the rules intended "a discrepancy has occurred, call the floorman." The written rule in most of these cases is simply the floorman will decide based on teh facts of this case considering what is fair to all parties and what is in the best interest of the game.
In all the cases Rick mentioned above the player's hand is live. The most fundamental rule in poker is the best hand wins. Forward motion as a concept exists when there is pending action. I understand a lot of players think a hand should be dead for touching the muck; in most rooms there is no support for that in the rules.
In the original hand that was played the floor should have been called. After determining what happened the floor should explain to the table that it is important not to commnet on anotehr player's hand, next he should explain the policy of ABC casino is the best hand wins so have the dealer award the pot and then get away from the table becasue there will be players that will want to argue about the decision.
In general the best interest of the game and the best hand winning coincide. It is unfortunate that some people open their mouths when they shouldn't. Anyone who has called the bets and has the best hand is entitled to the pot. Anyone with a second best hand that asks the floor to declare the best hand so they can win is a not. Any time a hand is on the table face up when the floor arrives (with obvious exceptions) meets the criteria for being retrievable.

Randy Refeld

[mmcd]

I asked to see a mucked hand on a called river which i was not involved in.

Don't do this.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think we should train and encourage players to show their cards -- AND QUICKLY -- at showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

You show them quickly or however you like.

I'll do it my way. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1487851&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

[Rick Nebiolo]

Tell me how this could be inplemented and enforced in a practical manner.

~ Rick

[Josh W]

I fear that I accentuated the wrong point in my post. I fully agree with you that there is ALWAYS a better alternative than verbally berating a lady, and finding such a way is not remarkable.

The important part that unfortunately went unemphasized was knowing myself well enough to know that if I were to try to politely say something, an argument would likely ensue, and I'd get...emotional (in what should be an emotionless game).

Somebody 'cheated' (too harsh of a word) and cost me a 29BB pot. I could either say something, or say nothing. (see, this time I don't use the word "berate"). This was a unique situation, I feel, where saying nothing was the right thing to do. THAT was my point.

You are 100% right, though. Somebody doing something they should do (such as "not berating" a lady) is NOT remarkable, commendable, or even noteworth.

Josh

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I came to this thread late. I originally overlooked it, but someone sent me a PM asking me to take a look.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guilty of PMing Randy /images/graemlins/smile.gif. We worked together at the Bike and Randy has been in the industry for years, including stints managing rooms. I trust his opinion on these matters.

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience the most heated debates in a cardroom occur when the rules state something along the lines of "a hand may be dead." Players and inexperienced floorman often take that to mean "a hand is dead." "A hand may be dead" has the same meaning as "a hand may be live," "a hand may be live or dead," or what the author of the rules intended "a discrepancy has occurred, call the floorman." The written rule in most of these cases is simply the floorman will decide based on the facts of this case considering what is fair to all parties and what is in the best interest of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see the poker rule books stripped down so that most policies (e.g., must moves, etiquette, seating) are removed and put elsewhere (perhaps on easy to update wall charts, flyers or a separate pamphlet of house policies). The rules need to concentrate on the play of the hand from the posting of blinds or antes to the awarding of the pot. Also note that policies tend to change frequently and differ between clubs; the "play of the hand" rules tend to be more standardized (at least within regions) and change far more slowly.

Some things just aren't clear cut so areas where judgement calls should be used cannot be completely removed; that said, allowing the floor to use a high degree of judgement in a call should be kept to a minimum.

[ QUOTE ]
In all the cases Rick mentioned above the player's hand is live. The most fundamental rule in poker is the best hand wins. Forward motion as a concept exists when there is pending action. I understand a lot of players think a hand should be dead for touching the muck; in most rooms there is no support for that in the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the casino personnel I've spoken with wouldn't rule the hand live in all cases mentioned in my post above (this was where I described the cases verbally, perhaps they would agree with the more precisely worded print examples). Many believe that once the hand is pushed toward the muck (even if it doesn't touch the muck or get intermingled), a third party's comment can no longer be used to retrieve the hand. They essentially argue that allowing this provides for a player to act twice on his hand. OTOH, if the third party mentions that Player A overlooked the straight while Player A was holding his hand up (but not yet tabled), they all (so far) agree that Player A's hand is live.

I disagree as explained elsewhere. As long as action is complete, I believe every effort must be made to award the pot to the best hand, as long as it is clearly identifiable. That's how I interpret "Cards Speak".

[ QUOTE ]
In the original hand that was played the floor should have been called. After determining what happened the floor should explain to the table that it is important not to comment on another player's hand, next he should explain the policy of ABC casino is the best hand wins so have the dealer award the pot and then get away from the table because there will be players that will want to argue about the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about getting away from the table /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks Randy,

Rick

[andyfox]

"You need to finish the story and tell everyone what happened the very next hand."

Don't remember.

btw provided the 5 doesn't become a river between now and next week are we on for lunch and cards?

Lunch, definitely, cards, maybe.

[SA125]

Your suggestions are appreciated. The best example of what you're saying is when someone is arguing over a money issue and says "it's not about the money", as if the prinicple is the main issue. 99 out of 100 times it's the money.

However, I prefaced my response to Rick by saying I respect his opinion for two reasons. One is his experience on the matter as a floorman. Second is as a poster. I think he's one of the better ones.

I can guarantee you it didn't mean "I'm not listening to you". I appreciate your thoughts though.

[schroedy]

Dealers should be instructed that a called hand must be shown promptly (immediately) and subsequent hands should be shown (or mucked) promptly (immediately) clockwise around the table.

Where there is no bet on the final round the hand should be shown beginning with the player who had first action in the final round.

Poker authors need to GET THE F OFF the stand of advising players NEVER to show their hand unless they have to (anyone that has to see the hand to know what is in it, doesn't know what to do with the information they gain by seeing it).

I am not sure what the penalty should be for stalling around, but DEALER APATHY AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE PACE OF THE GAME is in my mind a huge part of this problem. Absolutely everyone other than bad players benefits from a rapidly paced game. And the bad players actually benefit too, since they are there to have fun, not make money, and more hands = more fun. More hands equals more drop for the house, more tokes for the dealer, more earn for the pro, more fun for the fish . . . let's have more hands!

As a floor (or higher manager) you can tell the dealers to keep the damn game moving.

Just my 2 cents of a rant.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
As a floor (or higher manager) you can tell the dealers to keep the damn game moving.


[/ QUOTE ]

This really depends on the market. There are a lot of places where anthing spoken by the dealer is met with "STFU and deal." It is shameful that some casinos allow this, but there are bigger problems to deal with than speeding up the show down. If nobody wants to show the dealer should tell the first player he is first to show; normally once one player shows the rest will show.

Randy Refeld

[IgorSmiles]

I agree that the best hand should win, but if you look at the two incidents I was involved in, one was at Foxwoods, the other a NYC cardroom, I was a gentleman about it, but felt screwed both times. One time the guy was physically tossing his cards towards the muck when his buddy grabbed his arm! What is the ruling here? The other incident, the dealer clearly screwed up, but the chips were already intermingled with my chips, and I chopped them up with the other player because the straight on the board beat my top two. Just interested in your comments on these two situations where the cards did talk, at my expense both times!

[AviD]

All I can say is wow, I have alot of respect for that kind of control. Quite amazing.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
One time the guy was physically tossing his cards toward the muck when his buddy grabbed his arm! What is the ruling here?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is disagreement among floormen I've spoken with recently. All would award the pot when a neighbor (obviously it is worse when it is a friend sitting behind) points out the correct hand while a player is holding it up (but hasn't yet pushed it toward the muck). If called to the table to resolve a dispute they would reprimand the neighbor and in a case of someone helping from behind probably have him sit elsewhere.

Many would draw the line once the player pushes his hand toward the muck and now receives outside help. I tend to favor awarding the pot to the best hand in all cases where the action is complete and the hands are clearly discernible. Note that the current rulebook doesn't clearly distinguish what is more important (i.e. what rule trumps) - "card's speak" or "best hand wins" versus "one player to a hand".

[ QUOTE ]
The other incident, the dealer clearly screwed up, but the chips were already intermingled with my chips, and I chopped them up with the other player because the straight on the board beat my top two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some rulebooks insist that before playing the board, you must declare that you are but then can toss your hand into the muck. Because this can differ in regions and I fear inconsistent rulings, I always show my cards as a player. If the pot should be split per your local rules, then the size of the pot can be reconstructed and properly awarded even if chips are intermingled.

Regards,

Rick

[BottlesOf]

Well played.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Touching the muck does not automatically kill a hand

[/ QUOTE ]
One situation that you didn't include in your excellent enumeration of cases is the invocation of the much beloved I-want-to-see-the-hand rule. Wherever I have played, the rule is that if someone not involved in the showdown asks to see a conceded hand, the hand is ineligible for the pot, even if it would have won. To accomplish this, the dealer taps the cards against the muck to "kill the hand" before turning it over. If touching the muck doesn't kill a hand, then do you rule a hand that is shown down in this fashion to be eligible for the pot? Is it the case that the hand is ineligible, but touching the muck it is purely ceremonial? If so, it seems confusing because it sends the message that the muck does indeed have magical powers that turn clearly recoverable cards into trash.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Touching the muck does not automatically kill a hand

[/ QUOTE ]
One situation that you didn't include in your excellent enumeration of cases is the invocation of the much beloved I-want-to-see-the-hand rule. Wherever I have played, the rule is that if someone not involved in the showdown asks to see a conceded hand, the hand is ineligible for the pot, even if it would have won. To accomplish this, the dealer taps the cards against the muck to "kill the hand" before turning it over. If touching the muck doesn't kill a hand, then do you rule a hand that is shown down in this fashion to be eligible for the pot? Is it the case that the hand is ineligible, but touching the muck it is purely ceremonial? If so, it seems confusing because it sends the message that the muck does indeed have magical powers that turn clearly recoverable cards into trash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given most clubs have a variant of the IWTSTH rule, one sensible addendum to the rule is to discourage the winner of the pot from rubbing it in any further than necessary. Therefore, if the winner asks to see a losing hand he has to endure the small risk that a better hand will be uncovered. In this case the hand is merely turned over and is considered live.

Since having a hand turned over per the request of an uninvolved player is supposedly less annoying, the hand is dead even if a winner is uncovered. Touching the muck is a procedural formality and a good floorman would rule a newly discovered best hand dead even if an inexperienced or careless dealer forgot to "tap the muck".

So touching the muck doesn't really matter even in this case /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

As an aside, I'm in agreement with Tommy Angelo and others that have written on the subject that the IWTSTH rule serves no useful purpose (including its ostensible purpose of preventing collusion); rather it antagonizes players and in a sense encourages them to play better.

~ Rick

[Chaostracize]

Group hug.

[cpk]

A good dealer will say "live hand" when winner requests to see a losing hand. Tapping the muck in other cases is simply an acknowledgement from the dealer to the players that the hand is dead.

[Von_Arx]

This is my first post, and I feel overwhelmed jumping into the middle of so many different threads. However, Rick asked me to take a look at this discussion, and since a floorman's perspective does seem to be lacking, I will venture a few opinions. First, I work with Rick at the Bicycle Casino. I have been a floorman or manager for 30 years, usually working the largest limit section. I was involved in updating the rule book that the major LA casinos attempted to make more uniform. Unfortunately, it became an unfinished effort.

As a floorman, each decision involves balancing a number of affected rules. As Rick mentioned, some of these rules overlap, occasionally in contradictory fashion. So prioritizing becomes a major issue. One needs to see the whole structure of the rules as they intertwine to gain a feel for their applications. Let me start by saying that at the heart of a casino's concerns are three issues - "intent", "procedure" and "integrity". Every decision is influenced by these concerns.

Procedure is the most concrete issue. These are the rules and policies that are usually spelled out in black and white. Integrity is the most often underlying issue. Casinos need to maintain this integrity for the good of the industry, and often times to protect liability and legal concerns. Finally comes intent, which often is of most concern to a player, but is an intangible that is purposefully skirted except in extreme circumstance. Being an intangible, intent is most susceptible to bias.

I am only going to comment on one of these recent situations, for a start. The issue of one player to a hand. Rick mentioned that this is in the etiquette section of most rule books. Not at the Bike. It is listed under "House Policies" and firmly states " Only one person may play a hand". As has been pointed out before though, it seems to be as toothless as "don't show cards". However, understanding the main priority of the issue of integrity, it is not a policy that is taken lightly, and in certain circumstances should and does carry punitive repercussions.

Point in case is Rick's example of outside player assistance. As a floorman would view these situations, there are a couple of involved rules. First is the discard rule. Until the cards have left the player's hand in a face-down forward motion, they are still in his possession. And while one player to a hand is required, it can not be said that any comment made to him might not have occured to him without assistance. The hand is still in his possession and not foulable by another's comment.

If the hand is discarded though, it is now susceptible to being killed. This is covered in different wordings, in our rule book the applicable phrasing is "If you throw your cards face down with a forward motion, you indicate that you are passing and risk losing the pot." As mentioned before, this can be somewhat vague. Since we do have retrievable hand rulings, it is necessarily so.

So the floorman must balance the issues. The player's intent is to discard his hand. Since the casino has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the game, it leans toward having the best hand win whenever possible. If the player reconsiders his discard and wants to retrieve his hand, what should prevent him? First, the hand should be intact. Thus you have varying parameters, in our club, the hand must so barely touch the muck that all at the table are in agreement that it is still intact.

Second, the retrieval should be allowable by our procedures. If another player[not the pot winner] asks to see the hand, by our procedures the hand is automatically dead before it is shown. By the same token, if a player goes against casino policy and assists another player in the reading of his hand, which should not have been shown to another and which was not exposed face up on the table at showdown, it could and should also be considered dead.

His intent to discard his hand is the minor issue. We allow him to reconsider this intent. The procedures are ambiguous, in some instances we allow retrieval, in some the hand is automatically dead. The integrity of the game becomes paramount, as the desire to allow the best hand to win is overruled by the necessity to prevent any impression or opportunity for collusion. One player to a hand is a policy with teeth, and in this instance, it would kill a player's hand.

I don't say this theoretically. I made this decision in a 40-80 Hold Em game where at heads-up showdown, one hand was shown on the table and the other was thrown face down towards the muck. The dealer, contrary to procedure, did not immediately pull the discarded hand into the muck, so it was still intact when a neighboring player told the conceding player what he had thrown away. The fact that the neighboring player was a house player who should have known much better, and that the discarding player was a notoriously live player for the game did not make the decision any easier for me. Still, the integrity of the game was the issue of greatest priority when I weighed the facts, and I killed the hand.

Now, I apologize if this has been long-winded, and it has been too much like work. But this is one floorman's perspective.

[billuhbong]

i would keeled the bitch

[Rick Nebiolo]

Terrific post and analysis!

That said, most floor don't have the experience or good judgment you have and are less likely to see the fine points used in making decisions - your difficult ruling in the 40/80 hand described above is a case in point. Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible. This simplification is especially important in areas where the rules contradict and priorities are not clear.

For example, is something written under "House or Casino Policy" more important than rules regarding the play of the hand, from the first card dealt off the deck to the awarding of the pot at the showdown? An electronic copy of the Hollywood Park rulebook (which should be virtually identical to the Bicycle Casino rulebook per the 1997 revisions) is now up on my other screen, and now I notice that "Only one person may play a hand." is indeed listed under "House Policies". But that rule/policy is primarily intended (according to my understanding) to discourage a person sitting behind or next to another player from helping that player with decision making during the actual play of the hand. This type of "helping" is clearly wrong even to the neophyte player, thus the policy is relatively easy to enforce in theory and in practice. OTOH, pointing out that the best hand is in the process of being pushed face down toward the muck is something I wouldn't do as an experienced player, but the less experienced often will.

Obviously when the action is complete on the river we need rules that encourage hands be turned face up and that the showdown and awarding of the pot commence in an expeditious manner. I would argue that awarding the pot to the best discernible hand in these cases is of paramount importance. During the showdown we don't like to see third party involvement unless the hand is tabled face up, but even more so we hate to see anything but the best hand, fairly played, win. If we agree, rules and policies can be written or rewritten to accomplish this.

Regards,

Rick

PS With your writing skills I can now see that there is little reason for the Bike to continue to task me with the writing of procedures /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer, contrary to procedure, did not immediately pull the discarded hand into the muck, so it was still intact when a neighboring player told the conceding player what he had thrown away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the hand sat out there for a bit before being retrieved makes this decision a little easier. I think is a case where someone mentions what a players has as they throw it forward and they imediately pick it up is more difficult to rule one because the player might has realized the error at the same time and picked his hand back up. Great post.

Randy Refeld

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the problem with acquiring good floor talent is the managers often dont' know what they are looking for. I am sure the previous poster would do a good job of determining if someone can make good decisions; he understands the rules and procedures. Often the person making hiring decisions is unfamiliar with the game. I know a lot of poker managers that don't truly understand why rules are a certain way; how could they possibly evaluate floor talent?

Randy Refeld

[Von_Arx]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that the hand sat out there for a bit before being retrieved makes this decision a little easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy, you cut to the crux of the decision when you mention time elapsed. To decide that the outside assistance resulted in the attempt to retrieve the hand meant there was discernable influence. However, you fail to realize that the easier decision is to allow the hand to be retrieved. As this long thread has pointed out, it is very rare, and thus much harder, to kill the hand.

[Von_Arx]

[ QUOTE ]
Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible. This simplification is especially important in areas where the rules contradict and priorities are not clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is such an enjoyable contest. It is both simple and complex. At it's heart is a struggle of one against all others, of intelligience and theatrics. You must not only analyze, you must try to deceive. You must protect yourself, you cannot trust or rely on others.

Casinos try to keep this struggle gentlemanly, much as boxing did for bare-knuckle fighting. At the level of games I oversee, the rules of poker are basic knowledge. Many of my decisions are made before I walk to the table as the players realize for themselves the rule that will apply. If I am still needed, it goes without saying that "the rules contradict and the priorities are not clear".

You can not simplify these rules down to the level of the floor talent to ensure their application. The rules are there to organize a complex sport, and are necessarily complex and contradictory as they balance the equal rights of multiple participants in a fluid contest. Being able to establish time frames, responsibilities and priorities is intrinsic to reaching a fair and consistent ruling. The rules are intentionally specific enough to apply, yet occasionally overlapping and ambiguous so as not to be unfairly binding.

This may seem too difficult for most floorstaff to handle in truly unusual and unprecedented game situations, and that is true. That is why most casinos value managers and floorstaff who have a grasp of the intricacy of balancing conflicting rules and priorities. They are there for appeal. It is a skill as rare as the skill of truly top level poker players. To decide a pot in a game with these players, they must trust a floorperson's knowledge and integrity, and the decision must have a foundation that is sound.

We all can see how instant replay has helped clarify some close calls, and casinos have camera coverage that is helpful in some instances. Still, just as in other sports, there will not be a substitute for experience and judgement, as in all sports it is integrity that the players rely upon when trusting that a decision will be made fairly.

It is easy to say how the hand should be played. But all the rules will not guarentee that mistakes will not be made. The rules are there to balance the mistakes. And that balance is often precarious.

[Rick Nebiolo]

"Von Arx",

There is something very "Tommyesque" in the above very thoughful essay & response, and if you post here more often I'll let you know what "Tommyesque" is (hint: it is a good thing). I especially liked the following sentence from the above passage:

"Casinos try to keep this struggle gentlemanly, much as boxing did for bare-knuckle fighting."

See you on Thursday. At some point I'm going to drag you into the IWTSTH debate /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

Rick