Floor ruling, need input

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect. If you really believe it, go to a casino and everytime you have the winner, throw your cards on the floor. You will not get a quarter and you will not throw your cards on the floor because you know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

In over twenty years of play, I've never thrown a card and never had a hand accidentally killed by an opponent or a dealer. I'm very careful. But many of the new players aren't.

To a new player I would always recommend doing what I do. But I don't have time to counsel every new player. Some do these things and you want to protect them (at least initially) for the reasons Randy states.

My method protects new players, protects the integrity of the game, while keeping the games full of action.

~ Rick

[Tapin]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to have two live cards to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I play the board". *muck*

Be careful with absolute statements.

[bpb]

The only card that mattered, the Q, stayed on the felt the entire time. There is no possibility of cheating or advantage gained by having his 2nd card hit the floor. As such, in the spirit of the rules, the best hand should be awarded the pot.

Anyone who wants to follow the letter of the rules without any consideration for what's "right" or best for the game is a NIT.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The floor blew it, IMO. Regardless of the technical rules of whether both cards still have to be live, etc. it is clear from your story that the player had the Q and was entitled to the pot. The most important rule should be common sense. If the Q was the card that ended up off the table I think there might be some gray area, but once again, the rules are supposed to be to create a fair game. Fairness and the best interests of the game are not served by killing this hand.

That said, it's yet another example of someone getting screwed because they thought they'd be fancy and didn't hold onto their cards until they were awarded the pot. It's like walking in front of a speeding car even though you're in a crosswalk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think common sense would include protecting your hand and not throwing your cards accross the room. The guy with the 8 is a fish, i would be happy to see the pot head his way, and rules are the rules for a reason. (ok i might be a nit)

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason being that people could do some card manipulation, dropping a card from their person onto the floor, face-up, while pocketting the card that they are removing from the game.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The floor blew it, IMO. Regardless of the technical rules of whether both cards still have to be live, etc. it is clear from your story that the player had the Q and was entitled to the pot. The most important rule should be common sense. If the Q was the card that ended up off the table I think there might be some gray area, but once again, the rules are supposed to be to create a fair game. Fairness and the best interests of the game are not served by killing this hand.

That said, it's yet another example of someone getting screwed because they thought they'd be fancy and didn't hold onto their cards until they were awarded the pot. It's like walking in front of a speeding car even though you're in a crosswalk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think common sense would include protecting your hand and not throwing your cards accross the room. The guy with the 8 is a fish, i would be happy to see the pot head his way, and rules are the rules for a reason. (ok i might be a nit)

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason being that people could do some card manipulation, dropping a card from their person onto the floor, face-up, while pocketting the card that they are removing from the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, and if this happened in the middle of the hand I would have no qualms with his hand being killed since there would be no way to ensure he wasn't cheating without revealing the cards of the other players. But in this case, the card that mattered was clearly visible and never left the table and he gains nothing by switching out the other card. Even if he did switch out a card with all the cards already out for completeness the dealer could count the Queens in the deck to be sure that no duplicate card had been introduced into the deck. Nothing will be compromised at this point by revealing all the cards.

The whole point is all the rules about having two live cards, etc. are there to ensure a fair game. The fair result here is that the guy who had the best hand should win the pot - I have seen no argument that this guy did not in fact have the best hand prior to dropping one of his cards. Using the rules to take this pot away from him produces an unfair result goes against their intention, hence the "best interest of the game" rule to override the standard rules in cases like this one.

Another poster has vehemently claimed in his card room this hand is automatically dead with no exceptions - well I'm sorry and I intend no personal offense, but that's a strong sign of a poorly run card room. The "floor" exists because the rules can't just be blindly followed all the time.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Another poster has vehemently claimed in his card room this hand is automatically dead with no exceptions - well I'm sorry and I intend no personal offense, but that's a strong sign of a poorly run card room. The "floor" exists because the rules can't just be blindly followed all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the most important point made in this thread. There are a lot of places wehre they lack the knowledge to make good decisions so htey try to follow the rules blindly. To really understand this you have to look at how poker rules are written. Poker was played prior to the rules being written and then someone writes down how it is played to show someone that is unfamiliar with the game. When a floorman has to rule contrary to the literal rules to maintain fairness the management shoudl revisit the rule to see if maybe they coudl write it better to maintain fairness.

[accountant71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to have two live cards to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I play the board". *muck*

Be careful with absolute statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you muck your hand without turning them up, playing the board or not, you will not get a quarter. If you dont believe me, try it.

[Chipr777]

agreed

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to have two live cards to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I play the board". *muck*

Be careful with absolute statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you muck your hand without turning them up, playing the board or not, you will not get a quarter. If you dont believe me, try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Canterbury Park's HoldEm rules

Here's the relevant part:

[ QUOTE ]
Playing the Board: A player may play the board by throwing his hand away only if: (1) the hand has been checked around, or (2) there has been a bet and a call, and the best hand is on the board. The player must CLEARLY declare that he is playing the board before throwing his hand away; otherwise the player relinquishes all claims to the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop now.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming wrong. If you dont believe me, come to Harrahs and toss your cards on the floor. It happened during one of the circuit tournaments. The player whose card fell on the floor didnt even argue about surrendering the pot. To expect a pot with only one live card shows inexperience on someone's part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played at Harrah's in March of this year, was in the 9 seat with the button, and the dealer dealt to me first, then the small blind, etc. I whispered up to him that he had dealt me in first and he said "just don't say anything, okay?"

I started cracking up.

Sparks