Cards in the muck - dead hand?

[juanez]

I get called over to table 5. Two guys at the showdown, or what appeared to be a showdown at first. I see a board with four clubs and two red kings face up in front of a player.

Dealer explains that Player A bet on the river. Player B then says "You got it man". Player A then tosses his cards at the muck. Player B THEN throws in the bet and says "His hand is dead - it's in the muck". At this point mayhem ensues and I'm called over.

Dealer tells me that "These two cards are Player A's cards". They are "in the muck", but clearly retrievable. I pull them out - QJ clubs. Player B has the two kings, of course.

How do you rule this one?

[pudley4]

Player A gets the pot.

Player B gets a warning and a kick in the nuts.

I don't think Player B should get a warning. He should get a kick in the nuts and get tossed out the door, preferably landing on his head.

Player A gets the warning not to throw away his hand until the pot gets pushed to him.

[daryn]

please say you got this right

[cardcounter0]

Player A gets the pot and a little lecture on how to protect his hand.

Player B gets kicked in the nuts, dragged by his nuts to the door, thrown out by his nuts, and then a bum outside kicks him in the nuts where he lands.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bernie]

Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up.

Some lessons cost some players a pot to learn.

b

I'd like o amend my answer to add that any Nit who is at the table, not involved in the hand who opens there mouth to complain about the ruling that Player A gets the pot also gets a kick in the nuts.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up.

Some lessons cost some players a pot to learn.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really wrong on this one bernie. There's no way b's angle shot takes the pot.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up.

Some lessons cost some players a pot to learn.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really wrong on this one bernie. There's no way b's angle shot takes the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. It doesn't read that player B said his statement just so the other guy would toss his cards. Player A may not have even given him time to call. I see non-angle shooters say that line all the time just before they call. No one saw this guys hand until it was back out of the muck. Digging cards back out, even if only barely touching, isn't a good thing to start doing.

Some floors will make an exception if the guy can name his cards. That I can maybe buy into. But not just digging cards out of the muck and flipping them over.

Even so, protect your danm hand until the pot gets pushed. How tough is it to do that?

Here's a hand(I've posted it before)...

2 guys are left on the river, big pot. Player A tables his set of Qs. Player B excitedly stands up and tries to spike his hand in triumph. Well, one of his cards catches an edge and cartwheels off the table. Rule in the room is if your card touches the ground it's dead as is your hand. So the guys dead hand of a set of Ks loses. Pot goes to Player A.

b

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a hand(I've posted it before)...

2 guys are left on the river, big pot. Player A tables his set of Qs. Player B excitedly stands up and tries to spike his hand in triumph. Well, one of his cards catches an edge and cartwheels off the table. Rule in the room is if your card touches the ground it's dead as is your hand. So the guys dead hand of a set of Ks loses. Pot goes to Player A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I believe that the player should lose just for being the kind of jackass that has stand up and spike his hand. Why do people think this is cool?

bernie,

Yes you are absolutely right about the ruling . . . if you make two assumptions.

First you are assuming that the original post did not give us all the information. Certainly if the floorman gets to the table and the dealer tells him "Well player B said You've got it . . . but I want to see it and before he even finished Player A had tossed his hand in the muck" then it would not appear to be an angle by Player B. But that is not what we were told happeend. I assume that we were given all the facts in the original post.

Your second assumption was cards were not clearly identifiable. In This case the Dealer clearly stated that knew which two cards were Players A hand. There is no reason to pretend that this hand is now in doubt. Of course if the dealer indicated some uncertainity your point would have validity. But i object to the view of the muck as some sort of magical card killing pile.

[Klepton]

this is not a case of technicalities. player b is an angle shooter, period. he should not be allowed to ever win a pot like this.

it is people like this that make the new players scared to ever return.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But that is not what we were told happeend. I assume that we were given all the facts in the original post.


[/ QUOTE ]

And given the facts we were given, there's no evidence that this was an angle shoot. Not even that player B was an angle shooter. Read it again.

[ QUOTE ]
Dealer explains that Player A bet on the river. Player B then says "You got it man". Player A then tosses his cards at the muck. Player B THEN throws in the bet and says "His hand is dead - it's in the muck".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say Player B could just be quick thinking and thought well enough in the situation to toss his bet in. Again, there is no indication that he was trying to get the guy to muck his hand that way. Player A is the one that boned himself.

[ QUOTE ]
Your second assumption was cards were not clearly identifiable. In This case the Dealer clearly stated that knew which two cards were Players A hand. There is no reason to pretend that this hand is now in doubt. Of course if the dealer indicated some uncertainity your point would have validity. But i object to the view of the muck as some sort of magical card killing pile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a guy tosses his cards on top of the muck, his cards obviously identifiable as they are clearly on top and everyone sees them, or they go 1/2 way under the muck, but still identifiable as they are the only 2 that are hanging out of the muck, you can then retrieve them. This is what you are saying. Do you see the door that opens?

The muck is the muck. Cards touch them, they are dead. It makes things much easier to think of it as such and use it that way, don't you think?

b

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
The muck is the muck. Cards touch them, they are dead. It makes things much easier to think of it as such and use it that way, don't you thin

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a rule (well it might be some place, but not any place where they understand the reason for rules).

I have said this many time, but for any first time readers. If a hand touches the muck it is fouled. A fouled hand MAY be declared dead.

If a player wishes to make a claim for the pot with a fouled hand the floor ahs to rule on whether or not the hand shall be declared dead.

In a case where a player bets and reacts to a player verbally conceding the pot the best hadn will win if the hands are identifaible. IN this case tehy are so the best ahnd wins. If player A's hand is not retrievable he wins becasue he acted on player B's verbal concession. Player B is receiving the break here by determining if if his hand is the winner instead of declaring A's hand unretrievable.

[NLSoldier]

People say stupid crap like "you got it man" all teh time, and then make teh crying call. they are just trying to show how good they are because they "knew they were beat" but called anyways. player A is an idiot for letting go of his cards before the pot was shipped.

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
Dealer explains that Player A bet on the river. Player B then says "You got it man". Player A then tosses his cards at the muck. Player B THEN throws in the bet and says "His hand is dead - it's in the muck". At this point mayhem ensues and I'm called over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B stating "you got it man" should be considered verbally binding, in the sense that he was admitting defeat so a raise is not called for.

Player A in this angle shoot "folded" out of turn without facing a raise. Since a player folding is not binding when they are not facing a bet, then in the spirit of the rules you could say the same here.

Player A mistakenly mucked his cards when player B verbally stated his intent to call/fold, but not raise. Player A or B can therefore still ask to see player A's cards if they are easily retrievable from the muck.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you rule this one?

[/ QUOTE ]

An angle shoot that worked. B wins. I made the same mistake A did once and it cost me. Live and learn.

When a guy says "You win, etc.", but holds onto his cards, you have three choices. You can remain silent to see what the dealer does. You can ask him if he's calling. Or you can tell him to muck his hand if he's folding. All of the options include holding onto your cards.

Player B wins the pot and gets murdered in the parking lot a few hours later.

No matter how obvious the angle shoot is, player A mucked his cards without showing them, so I don't see how his hand is anything other than dead.

[bdypdx]

The river:
Player A bets.
Player B says, "You got it man." (verbal declaration)
Player A tosses in his cards.
Player B *then* calls.

If the rule is for a verbal declaration to be binding and that "You got it man" counts as a fold, then I'd rule in Player A's favor. If "You got it man" is *not* considered a binding verbal declaration, B should get the pot as Player A didn't protect his hand.

It'd be interesting to know if B had made any sort of forward motion with his cards. If he had, I'd definitly think that his statement should be considered a fold.

Personally, I don't let go of my cards until the pot is coming my way.

Never in a million years is "you got it man" going to be a verbal/binding declaration of a fold.

Player B didn't crying call, he raised, knowing he was beat, the moment A mucked. Clearly an angle shot.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
Player B didn't crying call, he raised, knowing he was beat, the moment A mucked. Clearly an angle shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

where in the OP does it say player B raised?

[bdypdx]

"...Player B THEN throws in the bet... "

He didn't raise.

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player B didn't crying call, he raised, knowing he was beat, the moment A mucked. Clearly an angle shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

where in the OP does it say player B raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

Player B would have had to raise to make this angle work. Just calling and pretending to concede would have meant player A's hand was fouled by the muck but not dead yet if ruled retrievable.

im a BnM total noob so please humor me....

1) when you say a player stands up and "spikes" his hand, form the description i assume you mean smashes it down on the table to look cool?

2) can someone give me the fine details of what happens at showdown in the states? it sounds like you are physically holding on to your cards until the pot has been pushed to you? is that correct?

at my casino, which has only been playing poker a month or so. the way it normally works is: bets are called at showdown, the called player flips over his cards onto the table, all the randoms flip over thier cards in random order onto the table, the dealer kind of moves each person's hand near the board to determin the best hand. then the pot gets pushed, then all the hands that were shown-down are moved to the muck by the dealer.

i guess im asking is, when you say "protect" your hand, do you mean physically holding onto your cards until the dealer pushes you the pot? because at my casino, the dealer just takes your cards when you show them.

[DZgroundhog]

[ QUOTE ]

at my casino, which has only been playing poker a month or so. the way it normally works is: bets are called at showdown, the called player flips over his cards onto the table, all the randoms flip over thier cards in random order onto the table, the dealer kind of moves each person's hand near the board to determin the best hand. then the pot gets pushed, then all the hands that were shown-down are moved to the muck by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's how it works when there's a showdown. When we say "protecting your hand," it's actually when there's no showdown and everybody folds to your bet. Hang onto your cards until the dealer ships you the pot.

I think this is especially important if you're sitting in the 1 or 10 seats (or 9 or 11 depending on how many they allow at a table) since it's sometimes tough to tell if somebody just on the other side of the dealer is still in the hand. If I hadn't remembered to hang onto my cards until I had the pot in front of me, I might have lost a pot the other night when I was in seat 1 and thought everybody had folded but seat 10 still had his cards.

I dislike when dealers don't announce how many are in the hand as they deal each street since it's sometimes tough to see from seats 1 or 10 (or from anywhere if somebody has their hands over their cards).

DZ

[ QUOTE ]
The muck is the muck. Cards touch them, they are dead. It makes things much easier to think of it as such and use it that way, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. I don't think the muck is magical. If the dealer sweeps up live cards from a player in seat 10 (that werere not intended to be folded) and throws them on top of the muck, and the dealer is certain which two cards they were I see no reason why a floorperson should not give them back to the player.

In this case it was never Player A's intention to relinquish his hand. I don't see why you are willing to give Player B the benefit of the doubt on his intent, but don't think the intent of player A matters.

Suppose two players come to showdown. Player 1 shows his hand player 2 announces a better hand and tosses his cards towards the center of the table in a manner that appears they will land faceup, but the cards bounce and one card lands face down touching the mucking .. . . The dealer is100% certain which card it is? Do you have problem with the dealer flipping it face up and awarding the pot to Player 2?

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't. I don't think the muck is magical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy last night was arguing that is was. :P
Basically, the Villain and some random were heads up in the pot and the random was all-in on the turn with K9r+7Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gifs. Villain turns over JT/images/graemlins/diamond.gif after the all-in on the turn, and the river is the K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. The random looks at the hand and we can all tell that he thinks he loses, but the Villains curiousity gets the better of him and he asks the Random what he had (he still has his cards). Random gets ready to toss them in, but upon hearing this, tosses K7 face up onto the table (for the rivered 4 outer), with one or both cards catching part of the muck. Villain then tries to angle shoot by calling the floor and trying to get the hand declared dead -- to the floor's credit, he didn't laugh in his face, but the Villain didn't get the pot either.

-d

[juanez]

"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. Every effort will be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of any misinformation given by another player."

I ruled that Player A gets the pot, thinking that it was "in the best interest of the game" to ruin any angle shooting by Player B. Plus, the guy had a flush on the flop, bet the whole way, and then mucks after he bets the river? It seemed pretty obvious that he acted based on the statement by Player B.

I spoke to the dealer on her next break and she said that Player B was certainly angle shooting. He was shaking his head and looked at his cards for a little while, then said the "You got it man" line. He was obviously going to fold, in her opinion. After Player A threw his cards, Player B immediately grabbed chips, called the bet, and declared Player A's hand dead. He was a "The muck is magical" guy. I am confident I made the right decision in this case.

Player A got the brief "Always protect your cards until the pot is pushed to you" lecture.

Player B demanded to see the rules about mucked cards not necessarily being instantly dead. While away from the table, I also gave him the brief "It's pretty crappy to try to win on a technicality like that when you know damn well you were beat" lecture.

No nut kicking took place.

[Photoc]

Juanez, you made the right call. I'm not going to read all the replies to this because you were correct. The hand "MAY" be retrievable if CLEARLY identifiable if it's in the best interest of the game. Player B shot an angle and got F'kd for it.

Anyways, we booted a player permanently when I was on graveyard for doing the exact same thing in a 2/5 NL game many times to players that were a bit newer. He would either call or almost call and say "you got it" or "you win" and get the other player to toss their cards into the muck. Then he takes the pot since he now tables his cards face up. I finally said something to the floor (first time I saw it) and the floor watched for a bit. The next day, same thing, out the door he went, never to be heard from again. He would have been gone way before that but the floor/shift manager never knew what was going on.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case it was never Player A's intention to relinquish his hand. I don't see why you are willing to give Player B the benefit of the doubt on his intent, but don't think the intent of player A matters.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with intent. It has to do with player A not protecting his hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose two players come to showdown. Player 1 shows his hand player 2 announces a better hand and tosses his cards towards the center of the table in a manner that appears they will land faceup, but the cards bounce and one card lands face down touching the mucking .. . . The dealer is100% certain which card it is? Do you have problem with the dealer flipping it face up and awarding the pot to Player 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the room I play, the dealer can't turn up the down faced card. For instance, if a player tables his hand, showing only 1 card, the dealer can't turn over the other one. The player has to.

b

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
In the room I play, the dealer can't turn up the down faced card. For instance, if a player tables his hand, showing only 1 card, the dealer can't turn over the other one. The player has to.


[/ QUOTE ]

So true. In my first week of dealing ever, my manager was standing there watching. A player tabled her cards at the showdown, but they hit my hand while I was gathering a players folded cards. They landed face down, so I grabbed them and flipped them face up - they were the winner.

My manager took me aside between downs and told me "You flip over a players cards again and I'll rip your nuts off."

Even WORSE than getting kicked in the nuts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So how would you have ruled it if his intention was to make the crying-call? It may have been obvious that he was going to fold but there is no way you or the dealer could have been 100% sure about what he was going to do. Player A should have held onto his cards until player B mucked or said "fold." "You got it man," is not action and is not completely clear. Sure, he probably meant "You got it man, I fold." But he could have also meant, "You got it man. You got the flush, but I have to call so that I can sleep tonight." The only words that should be really binding are fold, bet, raise, etc. "You got it man" should mean nothing until he tosses his hand in.
If a dealer accidentally scoops up an unprotected hand and puts it in the muck it will be dead no matter what. His intention was to play of course but that doesnt mean he is going to get his cards back even if the cards are identifiable, unless it's a home game or a really lax casino. Always protect your cards until the pot gets shipped to you. Why go about it any other way? It is a lesson that people have to learn.
I think that you are setting a dangerous precedent with that ruling.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Never in a million years is "you got it man" going to be a verbal/binding declaration of a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just interrupting to say that Xellos's "They Live" avatar is the coolest one I've seen in months. I'm not worthy, etc.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.Every effort will be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of any misinformation given by another player."

[/ QUOTE ]

Late to this thread and I agree with your ruling. I've bolded text above that appears to be an improvement over what is found in a recent rulebook from LA. Can you tell me where this rule/rulebook is from?

~ Rick

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Suppose two players come to showdown. Player 1 shows his hand player 2 announces a better hand and tosses his cards towards the center of the table in a manner that appears they will land faceup, but the cards bounce and one card lands face down touching the mucking .. . . The dealer is100% certain which card it is? Do you have problem with the dealer flipping it face up and awarding the pot to Player 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the room I play, the dealer can't turn up the down faced card. For instance, if a player tables his hand, showing only 1 card, the dealer can't turn over the other one. The player has to.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

What you have described is true, but it is a different scenario. As a dealer I would never turn over a card in the situation you described, but I do not even hesitate to turn back over a card that was tossed face up and inadvertantly flipped over.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
If a dealer accidentally scoops up an unprotected hand and puts it in the muck it will be dead no matter what. His intention was to play of course but that doesnt mean he is going to get his cards back even if the cards are identifiable,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. If they were face up he gets them back. If there are merely touching the muck as opposed to being in the muck he gets them back. To truly be "in the muck" means the dealer properly mucked them and there is no way to retrieve his cards.

[ QUOTE ]
"You got it man," is not action and is not completely clear. Sure, he probably meant "You got it man, I fold." But he could have also meant, "You got it man. You got the flush, but I have to call so that I can sleep tonight." The only words that should be really binding are fold, bet, raise, etc. "You got it man" should mean nothing until he tosses his hand in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying this is not a binding action, unless it unduces action on the table.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up.

Some lessons cost some players a pot to learn.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely off the mark here, bernie.

Because Player A's cards are retrievable, they should be retrieved and if he has the best hand, he wins.

If Player A's cards were NOT retrievable, he should win automatically.

[Black Aces 518]

"Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up."

With verbal action in turn being binding, I think "you got it, man" is a fold. Anyway, the cards may be brought back if easily identifiable and given the angle shot by Player B, giving him the pot is atrocious.

[Ulysses]

As usual, I agree 100% with Randy.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Never in a million years is "you got it man" going to be a verbal/binding declaration of a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for all the places where it is.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I think you made the right call, Juanez. It's crystal clear that Player A (QJc, in case I'm getting A and B mixed up) had absolutely no intention of folding his hand and thought the hand was over. That said, he needs to be given a stern talking-to about not mucking his hand before the pot is pushed to him.

Further, as a frequent player in this card room, I can think of nobody that plays there that would actually fold the QJ in this situation. I do, however, know that a lot of players would have made some comment and then called, making sure everyone saw what a terrible beat they took losing with KK. My guess is he limped with them PF, too. Or did he make it $5 straight?

One more thing - was your final ruling that the KK folded, or that he called and then lost? I hope he lost that last $5. I'd say kick him out if he tries to shoot another angle.

[TiK]

[ QUOTE ]
No nut kicking took place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's too bad...

Is saying "fold," not a binding action unless it induces action?

[bernie]

I can agree with the 'retrievable' scenario. Though it still irks me that players get coddled about protecting their hands. Just a pet peeve of mine... But ok, I can let one slide.

However, I'm not so sure I agree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
If Player A's cards were NOT retrievable, he should win automatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
"Player A's cards are dead. Player B wins the hand.

A case could be made if he tossed his hand face up."

With verbal action in turn being binding, I think "you got it, man" is a fold. Anyway, the cards may be brought back if easily identifiable and given the angle shot by Player B, giving him the pot is atrocious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a binding verbal action.

Why is it an auto-angle shot? There's really not enough info in the OP to say that for sure. In fact, there's minimal info given on the players and the plays.

What if someone bet into you, you said, 'You got me...' with the intent on making a crying call, yet right after you say it, the guy mucks? Are you then angle shooting by asking if you get the pot because he mucked his hand? no.

On top of that, there are many players who will instantly think his hand would be dead (like I did. Still do, but I can understand the ruling.). So making the claim for the pot isn't necesarily an angle shot.

On that note, I still think people oughtta protect their damn hands. I also tend to find this hand protection stuff more prevalent with online players playing live.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Never in a million years is "you got it man" going to be a verbal/binding declaration of a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for all the places where it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like where? Usually it's accompanied by the guy dropping his cards forward towards the muck.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
as a result of any misinformation given by another player

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't this actually paint a broad stroke the way it's worded?

For sh*ts and giggles: Lets say player A bets the river, Player C raises missing player Bs turn as he was about to call. They back up the action, Player B now mucks, but now player C just calls. Let's say player B's cards are still retrievable/identifiable.

Yes, Player C would be a huge dick to do this. But I can imagine it as some won't raise HU.

b

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
For sh*ts and giggles: Lets say player A bets the river, Player C raises missing player Bs turn as he was about to call. They back up the action, Player B now mucks, but now player C just calls. Let's say player B's cards are still retrievable/identifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case it would be ruled that C must raise. When he put in the riase he either thought B had folded or was shooting angle. We don't encourage angle shooters and if he thought B had fodled there is no reason to allow him to change his action after B actually folds. If he makes a habit of acting out of turn he can be shown to the exit.

[Black Aces 518]

If that was me, I wouldn't try to win the pot, because I don't try to technicality my way to winning a showdown. If both players have paid all bets that there can be, flip em up and let's see. Clearly B wasn't going to raise, right? So then let's see whose hand wins.

Anytime the choice is the best hand winning or second best hand winning, I need a clear reason to let second best win.

[J.A.Sucker]

Commerce.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I'll try and remember that if I ever make it down there.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
No nut kicking took place.


[/ QUOTE ]

You had me 100% of the way, until here. Terrible ruling. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

One thing you have to figure out when you're the floor is when it's appropriate to pull someone's (retrievable) hand from the muck. There is a commonly held notion that "the muck makes a hand irretrievably gone forever, never to be resurrected again, no matter what the circumstances, even by god himself." Not true.

One key to situations like this is "clear intent." Many irregularities can be solved by making sure it's known what each person intended to do, and in this case it doesn't seem very complicated...

Clearly the guy with the flush didn't intend to fold.

It's also pretty obvious the guy with kings was trying his best to win the pot without the best hand, an angle shot.

I might break out the snorkel and fins to get cards out of that muck, but in others I might very well say "too bad, you didn't protect your hand." It's always going to depend on what the dealer tells me (first off) and possibly what the players have to say as well.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
He would have been gone way before that but the floor/shift manager never knew what was going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why it's so important for dealers to keep their floorperson informed of potential problem players, situations brewing, etc etc.

There are NO cardrooms where there is one floor per table. Thus, it's IMPOSSIBLE for one floor to watch every table all the time. But what's probably a much more accurate statement is that often times the floor is stretched mighty thin - sometimes there's only one floor for a multi-table room, and the floor's the one with the keys to the cash, thus they wind up cashiering a fair amount of the time (this sucks BTW). What you wind up with here is a situation where the floor is relying on their dealers to keep on top of things, and keep them informed of potential problems. Things can still run well, but the dealers have to do their part here and not just be mindless drones.

al

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

No nut kicking took place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in this case you clearly made an incorrect call.

If a dealer takes seat 1 or 9's unprotected aces then they should be retrievable because clearly he or she had every intention on playing them. Player A's situation could have been avoided had he held onto his cards until player B clearly folded. I just do not see why the floor has to make subjective decisions when people can and should learn to protect their hand until the dealer trades the pot for your cards.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
I just do not see why the floor has to make subjective decisions when people can and should learn to protect their hand until the dealer trades the pot for your cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't see why? you truly don't? it's for the good of the game. it's pretty clear to me. think about it.

Why don't you stop being a smartass and try thinking about how it could hurt the game. It can open up the game to even more angle shooting and confusion. Does the floor exist to make sure the rules are being enforced or to decide what a player's intentions are?

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you stop being a smartass and try thinking about how it could hurt the game. It can open up the game to even more angle shooting and confusion. Does the floor exist to make sure the rules are being enforced or to decide what a player's intentions are?

[/ QUOTE ]

please go back and reread my post. i suggested that you think about it. from your reply, it's clear you have not done so.

have a nice day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you stop being a smartass and try thinking about how it could hurt the game. It can open up the game to even more angle shooting and confusion. Does the floor exist to make sure the rules are being enforced or to decide what a player's intentions are?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the rules that the floor enforces is that he will rule in the interest of fairness to protect the best interest of the game. He is specifically directed to consider the player's intent when making rulings.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I just do not see why the floor has to make subjective decisions when people can and should learn to protect their hand until the dealer trades the pot for your cards.

[/ QUOTE ] Many new players don't understand the concept of protecting their hands. Although sometimes a fouled hand should be called dead, it's not always going to be the proper thing to make the player learn his lesson the hard way every time. You can't let an obvious angle shot succeed, even if someone's hand wasn't properly protected. That wouldn't keep the integrity of the game intact.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
My manager took me aside between downs and told me "You flip over a players cards again and I'll rip your nuts off."


[/ QUOTE ]

I like this guy's style! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

al

Well, keeping the integrity of the game intact would require good floormen at every casino. I am just afraid that I may slip up and say something along the lines of "You win," as I am making a call and the other player mucks his hand immediately claiming the I declared a fold. I believe at Commerce, there are a lot of statements which constitute a fold.

How would you have handled it if both players in the OP were trying to angleshoot. Player A has a red Aces and player B has red kings.