2-4 decision

[Rasputin]

Split the pot. Teach the bettor to pay more attention and the caller to not be a nit.

[Mackie]

The correct ruling is player 2 is awarded the pot, however as the floor I would allow the identifiable cards of player 1 to be retrieved if player 2 was indeed hiding his cards, intentionally or not, AND calling in an ambiguous manner as you described. I would go to the camera if necessary.

If player 2's cards or action should have been clearly visible, the floor would be doing player 1 a favor by denying him the pot.

A couple months ago I was playing 6-12 and a young player at the other end of the table was in the habbit of tabling his cards by tossing them up in the air such that they would land face up in the middle of the table. He was warned by one dealer not to do this, but persisted. Sure enough, it cost him. I had AK utg and raised, he called. Flop Kxx I bet, he calls. Turn J. I bet, he raises, I call. Turn blank. Check-bet-call. He flips his cards up in the air the a jack lands in the middle face up. The other card, which I clearly saw was a king, lands on top of the muck face DOWN. Floor is called, rules against him. He asks me to chop the pot with him. I decline. The way I look at it, I was doing that kid a favor. That was the last time I saw him table his cards by tossing them up in the air.

Player 1's error was less extreme than my example, but he should learn to pay attention to how many players are in the pot, whether he's drinking or not.

[canis582]

As an aside, this is why some casinos shy away from spreading poker. If the room isnt successful, you end up with a table of 2-4 and two tables of stud filled with old nits. So you get 3-4 employees working in a large space that isnt producing much revenue, causing constant management headaches.

[steamboatin]

clearly a dealer error and in my mind that mitigates the mistake made by player #1. I say, retrieve the cards and the best hand wins.

If the dealer had done a better job, you would have a much easier decision or no problem at all. Without a dealer error, I say mucked hands are dead.

Drunk tourists are good for poker so it wasn't like He was going to keep those chips for very long.

[TripleH68]

As a player I am greatly annoyed when another player "conceals" his hand, voluntarily or not.

In this situation: if the dealer can retrieve the bettor's cards AND the bettor can call his hand before it is shown - I would not mind giving the pot to the bettor. Seems fair to me.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the dealer put the cards directly on top of the muck, they were easily retrieveable. note that putting cards on top, or even on the bottom of the muck, is a dealer error, they should be mucked so as to make them completely unidentifiable. However, mucking them at all in this exact situation might have been a worse error.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cards were retrievable then I like this line since it's fair and in the best interest of the game.

Not sure any deserves a kick in the nuts this time though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

~ Rick

[andyfox]

Most places where I've seen printed rulebooks, usually have a rule like the floorman may make a decision contrary to the letter of the rules if it's in the best interest of the game. I think that would hold here. So:

1. Should the first guy be penalized for his actions, even tho he obviously wasn't clear about the fact he'd been called?

-He's an inexperienced player. He should be given the benefit of the doubt.

2. Is this a case of "your hand is dead, too bad" ??

-No. If the hand is retrievable, they should be retrieved and, before they're exposed, first guy should be asked "What did you have?" If he says Jack-Ten or whatever and the two cards are Jack-Ten, they should be allowed to play.

3. Should the fact that player one is an obviously inexperienced tourist be taken into consideration?

-Yes. See 1.

4. Who gets the pot?

-Whoever has the best hand. If player 1 is telling the trutn, it would be him. See 2.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The floor asked player 1 what his exact two cards were. The player responded, the floor checked the top two cards, and they were exactly what the player said they were(6s4s). The floor then gave the pot to #1. I thought it was a good ruling. There is no way an inexperienced player like #1 folded a full house on purpose. He learned an important lesson tho, never give up your cards till they push you the money.

al

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

At 2/4 touristy games, and with identifiable cards, these should be pulled from the muck.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel it was clearly a dealer error...

The dealer should have said "Show please"...

the dealer (hopefully) learns how to handle it better the next time.

clearly a dealer error

If the dealer had done a better job,

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop blaming the dealer! He didn't throw away a full house!

He should've said, "Show please"??? What if there were players still to act after Player Two? I'll bet that there were (this is $2-4), and I'll bet that Player 1 threw his cards in when the last of them folded.

He shouldn't be so quick to muck the hands? 100% WRONG. He should muck those hands immediately. What would prefer, that he interview everyone who throws in their cards? "Sir, are you SURE you want to fold?"???

OK, so he put them on top of the muck. This is not a major error, IMO.

If I was assigning blame for this incident, I'd say that Player 1 was 95% responsible; Player 2 was 4%; and the dealer was 1%.