Mucked the best hand, WWYD?

[tonypaladino]

"Before the cards even hit the felt, he said "I want to play those!""

If this is really what the OP observed, I'd say the players intent was clear.

This was a BAD call, first of all this is a friendly game that means you don't look for ways to win without having the best hand, you let the cards do the talking. Pure and simple it's Bullsh!t and if I were that guy I wouldn't play at your place again.

It's a totally different story if were are playing a big tournament here with a $1,500 buy in than you have to not only follow the rules to the letter of the law, but makes sure nothing "appears" to be a violation either, in a home game, you just go on your gut and what you know is right, and you went against that this time for some made up rule anyways.

Next time tell the whinning loser not to call all in with two pair with a flush draw on the board, what does he think a player is going to all in with this tournament life on the line, on a bluff? Mr. Two pair deserved to lose for that very reason for making a dumb call

[Zetack]

Bad decision:

Robert's Rules of Poker:

1. Your hand is declared dead if:

(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).
[Obviously not applicable]

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

In this situation not only did the cards not reach the muck, it is clearly in the best interests of the game to have the hand declared live.

The player didn't apparently intend to fold, didn't say fold, didn't much his card. There's certainly no rule that says that tabling your cards face down is a fold.

As a general rule of thumb, when the players intent is obvious you follow the intent. Here you have both the a clear intent and no rule that contradicts that intent (i.e. not rule that tabling your cards face down is a fold).

--Zetack

Appreciate the comments. I tend to agree, overall. I didn't see the hand, I was playing at a different table. Here's an exerpt from my website, which had links to the "official" rules, the TDA rules, and had about 15 quotes of specific rules that are routinely broken at the games I play in. The site was set up specifically for this one game, all players had used the site to register and I referred to the site as the "official rules" on many occasions in email correspondance in regards to the game:

"""If a player mucks their hand, their hand is dead, no matter what. That means if there's a 5-card straight on the board that one player doesn't see and the other player announces "I have a straight" (which both players do, since it's on the board) and the other player DOESN'T SEE THEY ALSO HAVE A STRAIGHT and mucks their hand, that hand is dead and the pot goes to the other player. No hand will be brought back from the muck at any point in this tournament. It's imperitive that players keep a level of awareness of the board and what cards they hold. For players less experienced at poker, it's recommended they simply turn their cards over at the showdown and let the table declare the hand. Once again, though, ANY PLAYERS HAND MUCKED BY THAT PLAYER IS MUCKED AND NO LONGER PLAYABLE, NO MATTER WHAT."""

To add another wrinkle, we also had taped "betting lines" in front of each player position and established that any hand is dead if it is placed in front of that line.

I told everyone to read the "house rules" many times in the run-up to the game, and had a copy of them on-hand the day of. I put that rule in mostly to protect the newer players, who can't always see hands, and to try and prevent commentary about the board and what hands are possible, etc, while the hand is in-play.

These overly specific rules were mostly due to the one group of really bad players who were for the first time learning what a string bet is, being forced to act in-turn, etc. The 2 guys in the hand were not part of this group of newer players, but since the rules were SO specific, I felt there was no choice.

Incidentally, the player who made the mistake acknowledges that it was his fault and it was a very expensive lesson, and he took the ruling with no argument at all.

But I also feel(along with almost everyone who replied to the post) it was the wrong ruling... I just didn't see that I had a choice in light of how specifically that rule was spelled out for this game, in an effort to prevent clashes with the newer players and the more experienced ones. I felt I had to do this, since I myself was playing, and didn't want to have to use "judgement" to decide any issues when it might be taken as manipulating the circumstances in my own best interest.

One thing's for sure, though. I bet that guy never does that again...

And for me, I think I'll keep my games to STTs where the entire group is on the same level and there's no need for such considerations beforehand that might end up working against "the spirit of the game", as was the case here. Ultimately I believe it was my rules that caused the problem here more than anything else. I tied my own hands by trying to create a plan for every possible scenario.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
To add another wrinkle, we also had taped "betting lines" in front of each player position and established that any hand is dead if it is placed in front of that line.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well house rules control over standard rules of course.

However, if I understand the situation, it looks like the guy with winning hand threw his cards forward of the betting line and so it would have been dead even if he'd tabled them face up.

For what its worth, I don't much like this rule as I'm commonly in the situation where at showdown I announce my hand, my opponent says "that's good" but waits to see it and I then flip my hand up. Frequently I flip them somewhat towards the board or the dealer at that point. Undoubdtely often that would be forward of the betting line and suddenly my hand, which I had been declared and which would be the winning hand, is dead for crossing the line.

Or am I misunderstanding your rule?

--Zetack

BTW when you say rules are rules, but what would you do, it would be helpful to supply the homegame rules and context like you did in this last post. If you have variant rules which are well publicized to your group, it makes our commentary based on the standard rules pretty irrelevant.

[soko]

worst ruling ever, he said he wanted to play them after the other player had turned of his hand, how is it not completly obvious what his intentions were.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To add another wrinkle, we also had taped "betting lines" in front of each player position and established that any hand is dead if it is placed in front of that line.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well house rules control over standard rules of course.

However, if I understand the situation, it looks like the guy with winning hand threw his cards forward of the betting line and so it would have been dead even if he'd tabled them face up.

For what its worth, I don't much like this rule as I'm commonly in the situation where at showdown I announce my hand, my opponent says "that's good" but waits to see it and I then flip my hand up. Frequently I flip them somewhat towards the board or the dealer at that point. Undoubdtely often that would be forward of the betting line and suddenly my hand, which I had been declared and which would be the winning hand, is dead for crossing the line.

Or am I misunderstanding your rule?

--Zetack

BTW when you say rules are rules, but what would you do, it would be helpful to supply the homegame rules and context like you did in this last post. If you have variant rules which are well publicized to your group, it makes our commentary based on the standard rules pretty irrelevant.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the rule is that if the cards are thrown over the line face-down it's a muck. Face-up is a show. In a perfect world, who-ever was dealing would collect these face-down mucked cards as players did disposed of them (as well as scoop bets into the center), and it would be much less likely to be fought by an unobservant player if the cards in question were now buried in a stack of discards and mucked hands...Face-up, especially at a showdown, would not be mistaken for a muck.

Also, yeah, I should have stipulated the wording of the house rule in the original post. But the comments are not irrelevant per-se, in deciding how to amend the rule (or eliminate it completely) going forward.

In any case, the consensus is that he SHOULD have won the pot if he knew that he had the winning hand when he threw his cards.

What if, for the sake of argument, he DIDN'T see his flush until after, but was really fast about realizing his hand and retrieving his cards? At what point, realistically, should a mucked hand be declared once-and-for-all a dead hand? When the next person acts? When the dealer pulls the cards? Not having seen it, it's impossible to know if it was or it wasn't known by that player wether he had a hand or not. Even among the first-hand accounts, there is testimony both ways. What rule can be put in place to make this variable irrelevant, yet still be fair to the spirit of the game? Or is it just not possible to have a definitive set of rules that would eliminate the need to have a non-playing judge in cases where there is a larger, more diverse group of players?

[Hashiell_Dammett]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately I believe it was my rules that caused the problem here more than anything else. I tied my own hands by trying to create a plan for every possible scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. Those rules suck. Throw them in the garbage and use the same generic pre-defined rules that almost everybody else uses. Then give yourself some insurance against whiners by defining yourself as the tournament director and inserting a "tournament director is GOD" clause to the generic rules.
The best rules are vague and flexible. The rule you cited begins and ends with the phrase "no matter what." This phrase should not appear any place in your official rules.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

What if, for the sake of argument, he DIDN'T see his flush until after, but was really fast about realizing his hand and retrieving his cards? At what point, realistically, should a mucked hand be declared once-and-for-all a dead hand? When the next person acts? When the dealer pulls the cards? Not having seen it, it's impossible to know if it was or it wasn't known by that player wether he had a hand or not. Even among the first-hand accounts, there is testimony both ways. What rule can be put in place to make this variable irrelevant, yet still be fair to the spirit of the game? Or is it just not possible to have a definitive set of rules that would eliminate the need to have a non-playing judge in cases where there is a larger, more diverse group of players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well a hand is for sure dead with the start of the next hand. According to the rules that's the riffle of the deal. But since in my games the dealer isn't the shuffler I might make that when the first card is in the air. That's a bright line, you know for sure, no going back the hand is dead rule. But generally most hands should be dead before then.

When they hit the muck is a good rule, but as I cited above, hands can be retrieved from the muck when its in the best interest of the game.

Generally I would allow a guy who tossed his cards, but no into the much who immediately realized he had the best hand to retrieve them. Once the dealer has gathered them I probably wouldn't let him have them back unless something unusuall had happened like he mucked because of a player inacurately declaring his hand.

--Zetack

[A_K]

Wow that is a bad ruling. If you can identify his cards, and he pretty clearly intended to show them, give him the pot.