Any eight will win!

[ QUOTE ]


And so you put forth the example of a hand being mistakenly awarded, but that doesn't fit, because in that case a player who sees the mistake SHOULD speak up immediately.

The hand is over because their is no more discretionary action at this point.

The rule you cite is irrelevant to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm....so which of the discussions I was having with someone else is this irrelevant to?????

You piped in in the middle of the thread and proclaimed that I could not find a relevant example of how this rule would be used.

I corrected you once and pointed out that the citation of this rule was in reference to Kaesers proclamation that a hand is over when betting is completed. I was explaining how the hand does not end with the completetion of betting as there is more action to be taken and the showdown and award of the pot are part of the hand and that the hand truly is not over until the next deal begins.

I then produced an example of how this rule is used and clarified whe a hand truly ends.

So Kaesar stated when he thought a hand ends, I stated where most rule books state that a hand ends and cited the rule, you chimed in and claimed I couldn't provide an example of how this rule would be used, I explained that you had misunderstood my reasoning for citing that rule and then produced an example of how said rule is used.....and now you claim my citation of that rule is "irrelevant to the discussion." Gosh I sure am confused...please elaborate as to how this was irrelevant to the discussion?

I'm sorry i didn't realize you were off on a tangent. My mistake.

Of course that is excusable because your providing an example in response to my post made no sense if what you really meant to say is that your discussion with Kaiser was about when a floor person could no longer make a ruling on a pot, and not about when it was appropriate to comment on the hand.

In context it appeared to me that you were putting forward the argument that a player should not comment on a hand until the start of the next hand. it appears now taht you do not hold that position.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try giving an example where there is a hand that has been shown at showdown and there is an additional live hand that has not been tabled. That is the key, here there is a player with a live hand at showdown who has yet to act. Mucking is an action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said I concede the point to you guys, I've just never seen anyone called out on it. It seems however that everyone now agrees that 1PTAH does not apply after action is complete with action meaning last hand is mucked or tabled not after the pot is awarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note in my ealier reply I repeatedly said "and the next deal has begun." Many rulebooks regard this as the point of no return. If a mistake was made in the award of a pot, incorrect ammount placed out for a call, misrepresented hand, or any other anomally has occurred in the play of a hand, action can be taken until the next deal has begun. Once the next deal is underway the previous hand is over. That is truly the mark of the end of one hand and the begining of the next. So to the letter of the law nothing should be said about the previous hand until this point.

[/ QUOTE ]



Can you give an example of where after all hands have been tabled or mucked it would be a prioblem for a player to comment on the hand before the next hand is dealt? I think you will really have to struglle to find such an example (not including making comments that are inappropriate when made at any time)

[/ QUOTE ]

The board plays. Some players turn up their hands some players chose to muck. The players that muck are not entitled to any of the pot becsaue they have not made a claim to the pot (note this is differenet than someoen stating "I play the board" and then throwing away their cards).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be a problem to comment at this point now that all the players have either mucked or tabled their hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there would now be an argument that delays the game and it is a really bad idea to embarrass players that just threw away a winning hand because they weren't able to recognize what they had.

I agree with you except that you are talking about comments that fall into the exception that i mentioned-- (not including making comments that are inappropriate when made at any time).

In this scenario would it really be a problem if a player announced that they had thrown away the hand that would have won had they stayed in? example board comes up 23456 at the showdown a player tables AK and another player mucks there hand, what difference does it really make if another player now announces that he fold 67 pre flop? It would be inapprproiate to try to embarras the guy who through away the split but that is true regardless of of when you do it.

[Randy_Refeld]

Actually here is a much better example. I would say player's shoudl keep quiet about this forever or at least until they leave the table. Final board reads AAA78 player A bets player B thinks and then folds. A player that folded an ace preflop should keep that info to himself; it isn't really right to tell the table this guy didn't have 4 aces.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually here is a much better example. I would say player's shoudl keep quiet about this forever or at least until they leave the table. Final board reads AAA78 player A bets player B thinks and then folds. A player that folded an ace preflop should keep that info to himself; it isn't really right to tell the table this guy didn't have 4 aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were the floor and called over after this occurred ... would you warn the player? What happens the next hand when the board is AK785 and after the hand someone pipes up that they folded 69 do they get warned? Ejected? or does it only apply to the case card being announced.

One thing about situations like this that when a player says they folded what would have been the winner pre-flop I don't always believe them. I have heard other players claim to have folded a card that I held in my hand.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually here is a much better example. I would say player's shoudl keep quiet about this forever or at least until they leave the table. Final board reads AAA78 player A bets player B thinks and then folds. A player that folded an ace preflop should keep that info to himself; it isn't really right to tell the table this guy didn't have 4 aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were the floor and called over after this occurred ... would you warn the player? What happens the next hand when the board is AK785 and after the hand someone pipes up that they folded 69 do they get warned? Ejected? or does it only apply to the case card being announced.

One thing about situations like this that when a player says they folded what would have been the winner pre-flop I don't always believe them. I have heard other players claim to have folded a card that I held in my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

What one should not do at a poker table and what one can be ejected from the card room for doing are not the same. There are many things both in and otu of a casino that someone should not do because it is a breach of etiquette.

[wslee00]

Wow - i just read this entire thread and I don't think anyone has explained in a succinct way the diff between the OP and Kaesar's 3 examples. The main theme of when it's ok or not for a player not in the hand to speak is DOES IT AFFECT A PLAYERS ACTIONS.

OP's example. The dude saying "any 8 makes a straight" caused the old guy to relook at his hand and table it when it pretty much looked like he was going to muck. It affected the players actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 1: NL Tournament 2 players all-in pre-flop, flop comes 332 and old guy to my right says, "damn I folded 2-3"

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if the cards weren't tabled, him saying he folded 2-3 will NOT have an effect on the action. If another guy has the 3, then he knows he has the 3 - it's very obvious. It won't affect his action to fold or show. Now, if there was action to come after the flop, then the old man needs to keep his mouth shut.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 2: 3-6 limit 3 players active on the river 4 hearts players show 2-pair, a set, and a straight. A lady says, "wow I can't believe no one had the flush".

[/ QUOTE ]
All hands are tabled - whatever the lady says does NOT affect a player's action.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 3: 4-8 limit 2 players active river is seven. Winner shows top two pair and player says, "nice raise on the turn I folded pocket 7's".

[/ QUOTE ]
the player with pocket 7's saying he had pocket 7's will have no affect on whether the other person in the hand will muck or show, if he hasn't already mucked or shown. Now if the guy had said that while there was still bets and raises going on, that gives players extra information and may affect a player's action.

To simplify, just don't announce what are the nuts on the board, whether there are straight or flush possibilities while there's still action, or if there were any cards that could have possibly made a backdoor flush or straight, don't point those things out.

[eh923]

There were too many posts to read, so don't be offended if I repeat something said a hundred times already.

That does sound like a donkfest. In a vacuum, it looks really donkish to instantly call an old man who is basically saying "I can beat Aces" with just an overpair and no redraw.