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

[perfectm]

What I really don't understand is why would a player muck his hand (that beats the board) when his opponent announces that they are playing the board. Was the player that bad or new to the game that he didn't realize aces and kings beats aces and jacks?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The dealer violated one of the cardinal rules of poker: a dealer cannot turn over a live hand that has been tossed inward face down! ONLY a player can turn over their own live hand.

The floorman was right to question himself and look it up in the rulebook. Bravo.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

the absolute best source for rules is bob ciaffone's rules, at this link...

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/rrpprinter.php

print those babies out and it's like 56 pages. Good stuff, I use them as the basis for all decisions, tho of course with some temperance. But I haven't found a better set anywhere else.

This is another web-based version of the same rules that I and another dealer are working on...

http://www.dicedealer.com/pokerdealer_com.htm

al

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Note: The confusion here stems from what appears to be a conflict in Robert's Rules of Poker. Under General Poker Rules - The Showdown, paragraph 1 states that to win any part of the pot, both cards must be shown face up on the table. This is not correct, because when you declare you are playing the board, you don't have to show, which is described under the Hold 'em rules section, paragraph 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Robert's Rules at the above link:
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.

If these do not conflict, then there is only one interpretation for the second. You must show your hand, declare you are playing the board, and then you may muck it.

The way you want to interpret it is angle shooting, pure and simple. You want your opponenet to see you muck your hand, assume he has won, and muck his own.

Sorry, you got exactly what you deserved out of the pot.

[MrGrob]

I believe that this is dealer error. The dealer could have asked, "Are you playing the board?" If yes, the dealer should have killed that hand that was tossed face-down on the table before showing it. Then it would have been dead and he could ONLY have had 1/2 the pot. If no, he should ask, "Are you sure?" If he says yes here, the dealer should have treated it as a fold and given you the pot. I believe the dealer messed this up huge.

I do not believe it is correct for a dealer to show ANY HAND that is no longer in control of the player BEFORE killing it, if the player did not specifically state call or fold (and here too the dealer would touch the hand to the muck) before tossing his hand face-down on the table.

This is how I would have done it if I were dealing that table...anyone think this is correct / wrong? Part of me, however, wants to muck that hand, and give you the pot (his action seems to indicate fold to me), but the better side of me would make that man clarify his actions 1st.

EDIT: To clarify my words.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
From Robert's Rules at the above link:
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.

If these do not conflict, then there is only one interpretation for the second. You must show your hand, declare you are playing the board, and then you may muck it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure looks like they conflict to me. And I suspect that's why so many people are either not aware of the 'play the board' rule, or just don't believe it, and this includes most dealers and players and many floormen. Rule 1 under Showdown is very clear and precise. So what is rule 8 trying to say? I THINK the rule is trying to require a player to declare his 'play the board' intention prior to mucking his hand, but needs to be revised to recognize that this is an exception to rule 1. Or perhaps Rule 1 should reference rule 8 as an exception.

Regardless, it is confusing at best. It sure looks like a conflict in RROP which needs to be corrected. I mean, if you say you play the board, and then muck your hand, are you live or not? According to RROP, you are live, no wait, you aren't, wait, you are..."

I think you're live, but I can't say for sure, based on the way the rules are written. Maybe Rick N. will give us his wisdom.

Sparks

[Tacjedi]

I just sent Bob Ciaffone an e-mail about these two rules. Perhaps he will enlighten us or even update the rules.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I was entitled to the entire pot, not just half. I declared that I was playing the board, and he did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt there is a poker room in the world that would give you the entire pot.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe it is correct for a dealer to show ANY HAND that is no longer in control of the player BEFORE killing it, if the player did not specifically state call or fold (and here too the dealer would touch the hand to the muck) before tossing his hand face-down on the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

The dealer generally taps the muck with the cards beofre turning them up, but this is for show. If the dealer turns up a hand (even without touching it to the muck) it is dead, unless the apparent winner of the pot asks to see it. There are obvious excpetions to this rule; I have seen a player with no hands that need help turning up there hands. I was once on the floor and told the dealer to go ahead and turn up a players hand for him; he was eating BBQ chicken and asked the dealer to turn up his hand so he wouldn't get sauce on the cards. The bottom line is if you attempt to shoot an angle the rules should be interpreted in a way that is least favorable to you. If someone shoots an angle agaisnt you the rules should be interpreted in a way that is most favorable to you. If an angle shooter is appears to have won a pot by shooting an angle the floor should exercise his right to rule contrary to the rules if it is in the best interest of the game.

RR

[AKQJ10]

I understood Angus to be saying that, in order to be consistent with 3.1, RROP 5.8 actually means that playing the board still involves showing both cards face up, making the announcement, then mucking them. However, in that case I don't understand why playing the board would be any different from any other hand where the cards speak, so perhaps you're correct that RROP intended 5.8 as an exception to 3.1.

At any rate, I look forward to Bob Ciaffone's response.

There's certainly no obligation to announce you're playing the board, right? The opponent could have turned his cards face up in view of the table and if he really were playing the board (and the winning hand was the board) then he'd get his share of the pot without saying a word, right?