I let it go.

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img])

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ 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