|
|
#1
06-12-2005, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
Help me out here guys. I was in a game last night at a casino and saw the following hand - I was wondering what you thought of the floor ruling.
Heavy action between two players preflop and on the flop. On the turn, Seat 4 (first to act) pushes in. Seat 8 calls. Seat 4 turns over AA. Seat 8 says something like "Dammit" and throws his cards face down toward the dealers. They ended up on or near the rake disk. The dealer deals the river, which puts 4 clubs on the board, and then sweeps up the hand that seat 8 threw in. The hand goes into the muck. Seat 8 says, "Wait, I had a club, I didn't fold." The dealer pulls the hand out, sees that it was AK with the A of clubs. The floor is called, and the pot is awarded to seat 8. Is this the right decision? Also, as a side note, Seat 4 reloaded and, on the very next hand, had his aces cracked again by AK when a 2nd K came on the river. He slowplaed them all the way to the end, then called an all-in bet after the river K. Ouch. 
|
|
#3
06-12-2005, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
That's what I thought. Not only did he throw his cards face down toward the center, but the dealer shoved them face down into the muck. I thought once the cards touched the muck, they were dead - even if it wasn't the player's fault. I actually felt pretty bad for this guy.
|
|
#5
06-12-2005, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
The only problem here is when his cards touched the muck. Since he was all-in he actually can't fold his hand and it is live to the river no matter what he says. But when his hand hits the muck before being tabled/shown I think he may have lost his shot at the pot because now it's difficult to say whether that A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] was really in his hand or not.
From the way you described it I think the floor got it right IF it is easily identifiable that this was in fact his hand. Face it - the guy had the best hand. Awarding the pot to someone else on a rules technicality after all the important decisions had been fairly made is a close cousin to angle shooting.
|
|
#6
06-13-2005, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
[ QUOTE ]
Seat 8 says something like "Dammit" and throws his cards face down toward the dealers. They ended up on or near the rake disk. The dealer deals the river, which puts 4 clubs on the board, and then sweeps up the hand that seat 8 threw in [/ QUOTE ] The collosal mistake here is that as soon as someone throws in a hand, you muck it so that it cannot possibly be retrieved, because it's absolutely unidentifiable. That would have eliminated any trouble, because the river would never have been seen, pot would have already been pushed. al
|
|
#7
06-13-2005, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
[ QUOTE ]
Face it - the guy had the best hand. Awarding the pot to someone else on a rules technicality after all the important decisions had been fairly made is a close cousin to angle shooting. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that I would never want to win a pot on a technicality, but why are people so stupid? If you're in a hand and you still have outs why are you mucking your cards? These things just make the dealers lives harder and cause big problems at the table. My opinion is that he mucked his cards and they were dead. If nothing else, he deserved to lose the pot for being so stupid.
|
|
#8
06-13-2005, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
I would like to disagree that rules are a close cousin to angle shooting. I have always been taught that the rule is if your hand hits the muck, then it's dead, no matter what you had.
If not, then what's to stop someone from pulling their 85 offsuit out of the muck when the boat shows up on the river? The rules are there to prevent angle shooting, not cause it. This is a bad ruling, and if I'd been there, I would have thrown a very polite fit, especially if I was the loser of the hand...to the point where I might not return to that particular cardroom if that was the final decision. There are too many places to play to put up with a place that would make these sorts of decisions. I realize that no one is perfect, but this seems like a basic thing.
|
|
#9
06-13-2005, 11:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
[ QUOTE ]
If not, then what's to stop someone from pulling their 85 offsuit out of the muck when the boat shows up on the river? [/ QUOTE ] Uhm... this seems a little different. In your 85o case, the player presumably didn't actually call a bet that was put into the pot by another player, so he has no claim to the pot on the river. It gets a little different here -- the player with AK should have cost himself the pot by mucking his cards. The correct ruling is to give AA the pot; the dealer should have buried the cards in the muck when AK mucked them. Anecdotally, someone pushed PF at a NL game at Turning Stone a few months ago, and a friend of mine called with AA. Upon seeing my friend's AA, villain mucked his A9d right away. The dealer did the correct thing and lost the cards, and A9 tried to get them back to no avail. -dB
|
|
#10
06-13-2005, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules Question and an Unfortunate Result
[ QUOTE ]
I have always been taught that the rule is if your hand hits the muck, then it's dead [/ QUOTE ] This is generally not a rule. A source of a lot of problems is that everyone SAYS protect your hand if it touches the muck it is dead, but that is not a rule. I know there are a few smaller places that have that as a rule, but in general the simple act of your hand touching the muck does not make it dead.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
