Question about a mucked hand.

[TomCollins]

Just because you know he doesn't have a hand doesn't mean that he didn't know he didn't have a hand.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
After I flip over my cards he says, "Shi.t" and throws his two cards face down into the muck pile. His cards hit other cards that where already mucked.


[/ QUOTE ]

the rest of you can argue about other stuff all you want. Case Closed, unless this was a new player who didnt know how to play poker.

[TommyTutone]

[ QUOTE ]
Your a smart ass stew. Can you correct me in this sentence?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not in that sentence, but in the one before it. The word is 'you're'.

[msb]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey MSB, how did I play the hand wrong?? I knew he didn't have a hand. I've played with this guy for years and read him like a book. I didn't want you to critique my playing style or I would have told you what kind of player he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Point taken... but I still don't like the complete pre-flop in EP (unless you hit perfectly, you're probably beat). I don't like the $3 bet with bottom-pair in EP and no draws... and when you get two calls, you've got to know you're behind. When you turned 2-pair, why not push?

You say you know this guy like the back of your hand... what did you think he had? You say he didn't have a hand, but he had you beat the whole way (except for the turn).

Finally, if you thought that 10 "screwed" you on the river, then why push? If you put him on an 8, 10 or a 5, then you know he's gonna call...

[msb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After I flip over my cards he says, "Shi.t" and throws his two cards face down into the muck pile. His cards hit other cards that where already mucked.


[/ QUOTE ]

the rest of you can argue about other stuff all you want. Case Closed, unless this was a new player who didnt know how to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure it's "case closed".

I remember a hand in the 2000 WSOP (as told by Jim McManus in Positively 5th Street) where a guy mucked his cards after the showdown because he thought he lost and left the table. Someone on the rail (Phil Helmuth, I believe) noticed that it should have been a split-pot and told him. He went running back and they dug his cards from the muck and reconstucted the hand... and it turned out that it should have been a split pot and they gave him half the pot.

The point? None, really... but I still stand by my position that, in a friendly game, as long as the guy wasn't trying to steal (literally) the pot, then you give the money to the best hand. (And leave all the nit-picking rules to the card rooms).

[SossMan]

If there was no question that the cards pulled from the muck were indeed his cards, I would have awarded him the pot and made him buy you beer next week. I mean, jesus, what are you talking about $15??

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a smart ass stew. Can you correct me in this sentence?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not in that sentence, but in the one before it. The word is 'you're'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damnit, you were supposed to let me do that.

Anyway, his cards hit the muck, his hands dead...he has no right to the pot...what else do you want me to say.

I think you knew this all along right?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After I flip over my cards he says, "Shi.t" and throws his two cards face down into the muck pile. His cards hit other cards that where already mucked.


[/ QUOTE ]

the rest of you can argue about other stuff all you want. Case Closed, unless this was a new player who didnt know how to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure it's "case closed".

I remember a hand in the 2000 WSOP (as told by Jim McManus in Positively 5th Street) where a guy mucked his cards after the showdown because he thought he lost and left the table. Someone on the rail (Phil Helmuth, I believe) noticed that it should have been a split-pot and told him. He went running back and they dug his cards from the muck and reconstucted the hand... and it turned out that it should have been a split pot and they gave him half the pot.

The point? None, really... but I still stand by my position that, in a friendly game, as long as the guy wasn't trying to steal (literally) the pot, then you give the money to the best hand. (And leave all the nit-picking rules to the card rooms).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true and it did happen, the person on the rail was indeed Phil Hellmuth. The difference is the player who went running back to the table had SHOWN his cards prior to mucking them. He showed a winning hand and the dealer erroneously awarded the whole pot to the other player, when it should have been chopped.

Again, in the 2000 WSOP hand, the hand was shown before it went in the muck. In the hand in the scenario in this thread, was thrown in the muck prior to it being shown, therefore it is dead, end of story.

[msb]

Yep... I went back to the book and reread that passage and you're right. The guy went all-in on the flop and they both showed their hands. When the river showed, he thought he lost and left the table... and the cards were mucked.

This is certainly a different story, but the principle is the same. If you think the guy *really* had the A-5 (and wasn't picking up two other cards form the muck) then you award him the pot.

You're talking about a few bucks in a friendly game... even in the WSOP (with a lot more money on the line) you didn't see anybody bitching or moaning about his cards "technically" hitting the muck, etc... They have respect for the game enough to accept the true outcome... despite the technicalities.

My position is that even though technically you might have a case, this is a situation where you give him the pot and act like a graceful loser. (Besides, if this guy is as bad as you say... you'll win it back from him soon enough).

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep... I went back to the book and reread that passage and you're right. The guy went all-in on the flop and they both showed their hands. When the river showed, he thought he lost and left the table... and the cards were mucked.

This is certainly a different story, but the principle is the same. If you think the guy *really* had the A-5 (and wasn't picking up two other cards form the muck) then you award him the pot.

You're talking about a few bucks in a friendly game... even in the WSOP (with a lot more money on the line) you didn't see anybody bitching or moaning about his cards "technically" hitting the muck, etc... They have respect for the game enough to accept the true outcome... despite the technicalities.

My position is that even though technically you might have a case, this is a situation where you give him the pot and act like a graceful loser. (Besides, if this guy is as bad as you say... you'll win it back from him soon enough).

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on your point of view...if you feel it's just a nice friendly game maybe 1/2 or something like that, I have no problem with that. But, let me tell you if this occurs in the tournament I host every month and it's down to three players and this happens, this pot will not get awarded to the guy who mucked his hand, no way.

BTW, the principle is COMPLETELY different for several reasons. In the WSOP situation, the cards were shown and it was a DEALER error, not a player mucking his cards b/c he thought he lost. The situations are completely different, the player in the WSOP didn't have anyting to bitch about b/c he didn't do anything wrong, it was completely a dealer error.