Dealer: "He has a straight!"

[DeuceKicker]

3/6 at the Bike:

I raise pre-flop with AQ from the SB yadda yadda yadda.

The board ends up looking something like Q J T 3 8 rainbow. There are three of us left at the river, and CO bets (I checked when the 8 came up). Button and I both call. CO--a pretty decent player--has tried to steal a couple pots, so I'm not sure he's got the straight. I don't remember exactly, but the pot was pretty healthy.

CO turns up KJ. Immediately the dealer yells out, "Straight!" which is pretty much what the table was expecting to see. The button (allegedly) turns up his cards, still in his hand, then flips them face-down into the discard pile. I do a double, triple, then quadruple take and turn over my winning AQ and say, "he doesn't have the straight."

The button starts yelling that he had the straight, but that he mucked it because he thought CO had the higher straight. The floorman is called over. He asks if anyone at the table saw the button show a 9 in his hand. I said I hadn't seen anything, but a lady at the table says she saw the nine.

The floorman says to give me the tiny side pot (button was all-in) and give the main pot to the button. My jaw dropped and the floorman gave me a half-apologetic look, then smacked the dealer in the back of the head (literally, which was kind of funny.)

A) How much fuss should I have made? Isn't the floorman's decision final? Did I really have any recourse?

B) Considering that the button is a poor player who bluffs and chases too much, was it correct to figure that I'd rather lose the battle but win the war by keeping this guy happy?

Earlier that night, a player in seat ten had shown a different dealer his AK (or she just happened to see them). The board paired twice and seat two showed a pocket pair BELOW the other two pairs on the board. Seat ten mucked his AK and the dealer turned them face up and declared him the winner. Another player pointed out that she could not pull his cards from the muck, and the floor agreed. Seat two with pocket fours won the pot.

[slavic]

then smacked the dealer in the back of the head (literally, which was kind of funny.)

No matter the rest of the results, this is wrong.

[DeuceKicker]

I would normally agree, but it was a playful/comical glancing smack. The dealer smiled at it, and I assumed the two of them had a good enough relationship that there was no abuse/offense implied or inferred.

[Jeffage]

If I personally did not see a better hand and the dealer did not see a better hand, I would make a HELL of a fuss before giving any money. Players should protect their own hand and if you muck before PERSONALLY OBSERVING that the tabled hand is better than yours, you do so at your own risk. Your hand is live, his hand is in the muck. Unless you have a relationship with this player, and know he is of high integrity, he gets none of my money without a fight (or video evidence of better hand, the whole table agreeing he had it, etc).

Jeff

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
The button starts yelling that he had the straight, but that he mucked it because he thought CO had the higher straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

HIS FAULT, not yours. If he showed his hand and the dealer tossed it thinking that CO's straight was higher then he'd have a case... but if you are dumb enough to throw away the winning hand then you don't deserve any sympathy... especially if you can't prove you had it.

If the guy could identify which two cards he had (suits and all) and they were at the top of the muck or still sticking out, that's one thing... but you should have definitely taken that pot.

[fluff]

That was a HORRIBLE call by the floor, and I would've complained.

Once cards are in the muck that's it. Even if it is 100% certain that it was the winning hand. This is even worse, since the guy only claims that he had the winning hand.

[ThinkQuick]

A similar discussion occured at this Home Poker post a short while back.

When I read it first I liked the idea that cards aren't actually neccesarily dead just because they hit the muck. As long as they are verifiable then they play at the river.
Had your man shown his cards, then tossed them, he would've won (hey, you were expecting to lose anyways)
But the quick 'flash' is rather sketchy.

By this reasoning the AK should've taken down the earlier flop as well.

[RydenStoompala]

It's cut and dry. The cards were mucked, the pot was yours. Period. So, there's another factor at work. The guy claiming he had the high hand has a different relationship with the house than you do. He's either scarier, related to someone who works there or he has pictures of the floor manager with a goat.

[Mike Gallo]

I think the floor made the wrong decision.

I consider a mucked hand dead. I might have left after that incident.

[Toro]

I've had this happen to me before and this is how they handled it at FW and I think it was correct even though I lost the pot. Their rule is that if a hand was turned face up before it hit the muck, it isn't necessarily dead. But it has to be verified what the actual hand was. The first and most obvious verification is if the dealer saw and can remember the hand.

In your case as was in mine the dealer didn't see it. So now it goes to the players. The floor asked if anyone saw the hand and about 4 players saw it. This was enough evidence for the floor in my actual case. But imo, in your situation, where only 1 person saw the hand, I don't think this is enough. She could have been friends with the other player or could have been mistaken. I think, at a minimum, 2 other players would be needed to make the verification.

So in your case, I think the pot should have gone to you.