"I Play the Board," I lose the pot, I miss a bet.

[Tacjedi]

Bob Ciaffone says, "If you guys would forget about holdem and just play Omaha, this problem would never come up"

There is an inconsistency here.
I think a player should hold onto his hand when he tries to play the board,
and not toss it away.
If you guys would forget about holdem and just play Omaha, this problem
would never come up...

Seriously, I think someone who says Playing the Board" and tosses his hand
away should receive his part of the pot and a warning to not throw his hand
away.
In other words, a player who says "Play the Board" is supposed to hold onto
his hand, no question, but is it right to word the rule so he will be
screwed if he throws it in the muck?

What is your suggestion?

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: A rules question


Bob Ciaffone,


There is a current discussion on the 2+2 board relative to two rules from
"Robert's Rules of Poker" that seem to be in conflict.
I was hoping if you could clarify a point.
They two rules in question are:

SECTION 3 - GENERAL POKER RULES
THE SHOWDOWN
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on
the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.
SECTION 5 - HOLD'EM
RULES
8. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your
cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot.


One viewpoint is that under the second rule, a player may, without showing
his hand, declare that he is playing the board and then muck his hand.
This seems to be in conflict with the first rule.

Is this the proper interpretation of #8?

[M.B.E.]

Thanks, Tacjedi, for getting Ciaffone's response to this.

In my view, the Hawaiian Gardens rule should be abolished. The rule should be this: if either of your cards hits the muck while your opponent still has a live hand, then your hand is dead and you are not entitled to any share of the pot. I see no rationale for the HG exception to this rule that a player's cards can still be live if he declares he plays the board.

Perfectm asked why the opponent released his K6 without exposing it; didn't he know that he had aces and kings, which beat aces and jacks? Most likely the player assumed (reasonably although incorrectly) that Sparks's hand was dead when it hit the muck unexposed. The player either didn't hear Sparks say "I play the board" or didn't appreciate that under HG rules the effect of saying that was to make Sparks's hand immortal.

Ciaffone's rule 8 of section 5 is ambiguous and, in my view, unnecessary. Just delete it. If a player wants a share of the pot, let him show both cards.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the Hawaiian Gardens rule should be abolished. The rule should be this: if either of your cards hits the muck while your opponent still has a live hand, then your hand is dead and you are not entitled to any share of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you M.B.E., if you want to get a part of the pot in a showndown, you need to show your cards, even if you are playing the board. And that means just getting rid of Rule 8. It's apparent purpose is to prevent a guy from mucking his hand (I guess inadvertantly) with a board which is the best hand, and getting a share of it. Is that so wrong? How is that any different that accidentally mucking a winning hand?

The more important reason to require a hand to be shown to win a share at showdown is because it is clearly (in my experience anyway) the prevailing understanding among poker players. That is, a hand must be shown in order for that player to win a part of the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
I see no rationale for the HG exception to this rule that a player's cards can still be live if he declares he plays the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rationale at HG is that it is stated as legal in Rule 8 of RROP. A line needs to be drawn through Rule 8 before the next edition of the poker rules comes out. Bob?

Sparks

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
A line needs to be drawn through Rule 8 before the next edition of the poker rules comes out

[/ QUOTE ]

Some version of that rule has been in every set of poker rules I have ever seen. It is there to protect someeon that isn't familiar with poker that doesn't know he has to show his hand toplay the board. A good rule of thumb to follow when ruling on whether or not to declare a fouled hand dead (since your hand may be dead for touching the muck or otherwise being fouled) is to determine the intent of the player; if it is clear they knew what they had or were attempting to make a claim for the pot their hand is clearly live. On the other hand if they throw their cards into the muck and they play next to them says "you had a straight" that hadn is clearly dead. Most fouled hand situations fall somewhere in the middle and require good judgement on the part of the floor.

Randy Refeld

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Some version of that rule has been in every set of poker rules I have ever seen. It is there to protect someeon that isn't familiar with poker that doesn't know he has to show his hand toplay the board.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that logic is that such a player wouldn't know he has to say "I play the board".

I've seen scenarios like this many times: final board is AKQJT, no betting on the river three-handed, two players turn their cards face up, the third player (who does not have much experience in public cardrooms) releases his cards without saying anything, dealer mucks the third player's hand and splits the pot between the first two players.

If we think there should be a rule to protect the inexperienced third player in this scenario, then it defeats the purpose to require him to utter a certain formula. The whole point is that he's inexperienced, so he can't be expected to know the formula.

If you want a rule to protect players in that situation, the rule should be as follows: "At the showdown, if nobody shows a hand that beats the board, then the pot shall be split evenly among all players who had a live hand at the moment the showdown began." Simple. But I'm not advocating such a rule; as I said earlier, I think players should have to show two cards to be entitled to a share of the pot at showdown. That concept is well known to anyone who has played in a public brick-and-mortar cardroom more than once or twice, and I believe that any exceptions to that concept will ultimately cause more harm than good.

[Lottery Larry]

"It is there to protect someeon that isn't familiar with poker that doesn't know he has to show his hand toplay the board."

Why not change the rule to require that players hold ONTO their hand, but not have to show them, if they are playing the board?

That removes all doubt as to who is involved in the pot and who isn't. If you fold your hand, whether face up or face down, and it is killed in the muck, you are no longer involved in the pot, whether your hand is subsequently turned up (and could be a winner) or not. You fold, you give up your split.

If you hold onto your cards but no one shows anything to beat the board, you turn in your unflipped cards AFTER you claim your portion of the pot and the hand is finished.

How is this different than when everyone folds, you collect the pot and ONLY then turn your hand in? What do you gain by allowing people to verbally declare "I play the board" and then fold their hands before collecting the pot?

The only thing you lose is if someone is slipping cards into the game and you might catch them this way.
Is there a potential angle shot in here, where you hold your winning hand but declare "board"... and then turn over your winner to take the pot away from people?

I would only want a variation on the above if someone was angleshooting by verbally declaring a hand that they DIDN'T have, in order to get others to fold and increase their share of the split. I might want another ruling when it's an obviously rookie player, but I'm not sure how to fairly handle that.

Any thoughts?

[Lottery Larry]

I thought a dealer could turn the hand over if someone requested?

[Randy_Refeld]

I am not going to reread the particulars of a month old thread, but there are some important rules to rember in poker. The best hand wins, if you want to win at the showdown without the best hand you are either a nit or an angle shooter (either way you should go back where you came from and leave the players alone). The floor is going to rule in the best interest of the game, if that means invoking their right to rule contrary to the written rules they will do so. A common mistake made by people new to poker is to think that there are written rules that tell the players and everyone else how to play. The way written rules came about is by writing down what happens in the game. The game was played first; if the rules don't reflect what an experienced floorman rules, it is the rule that needs to be changed.

Randy Refeld

[TomBrooks]

The result that ensued is the fairest one that could have happened - the best hand won the pot.

However, if the rules had been followed strickly, other outcomes could have prevailed.

Ultimately, the rule that all other rules can be overridden for the fairness and integrity of the game could have been invoked to set things straight, but there is no guarentee that would have happened.

The other player could have had his hand ruled dead for throwing his cards in face down and you could have won the entire pot. Or it could have been ruled he was playing the board and the pot should be split. Or it could have been ruled that you threw your cards in after you were asked to show them, so your hand is fouled and dead. In that case, if the board was the best hand, you would have suffered.

It just goes to show you that throwing your hand away almost always leads to bad things. In this case, your opponent's error in throwing his cards in almost hurt him so much as to make your muck beneficial. A doubly mucked up situation.

[Lottery Larry]

I'm sorry if I'm misreading your tone here, but there seems to be some hostility in your reply. Did I miss something that I did here?

As to your reply, while I thank you for your thoughts, I have some questions/comments:

"I am not going to reread the particulars of a month old thread,"
Why not? It wouldn't impact your answer or your understanding of my questions?

" but there are some important rules to rember in poker. The best hand wins,"
If that were true, poker would be pretty boring.

" if you want to win at the showdown without the best hand you are either a nit or an angle shooter (either way you should go back where you came from and leave the players alone)."

This is a universal "you" and not me in particular?

" The floor is going to rule in the best interest of the game, if that means invoking their right to rule contrary to the written rules they will do so." and
"if the rules don't reflect what an experienced floorman rules, it is the rule that needs to be changed"

Do you see where this could be a problem?

"A common mistake made by people new to poker is to think that there are written rules that tell the players and everyone else how to play. "
I wasn't sure if you were referring to me here also, or people in general.

I did have a specific reason for posting, but I'll wait to see any further responses first.