I let it go.

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

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