Ruling question

*Counterfeit*

The following took place in the PL cash game in the SE last night and I was wondering if anyone knew the definitive ruling. I'm unsure as to what exactly went down as I was at the table next, but essentially Player 1 bet out on the river, was called and mucked his hand without showing it down. Player 2 asked the dealer if he had to then show his cards and she said NO and he duly mucked as well. Player 1 did not object until AFTER the cards were mucked, pointing out (correctly as far as I am aware), that Player 2 must show 2 cards to take the pot down - and since he didn't, it was a split pot. Following some 'heated' exchanges a ruling was requested. The first senior floor member declared a split pot. Player 2 was unhappy with this and called for a second opinion, at which point John stepped in and awarded the pot to Player 2, citing the 'interests of fairness' as the rationale behind the ruling. Anyone disagree with this the ruling? Personally I felt split pot was the correct outcome(albeit highly unfortunate on Player 2) Also, are rulings at the discretion of the house, irregardless of their merit? Is their no recourse available to the victim?

Finally, on a completely seperate point, a nomination for the funniest thing I've heard said at a poker table this year, also from the SE last night, this time the no-limit cash game. Again I'm not fully sure of the exact context it took place in, but the general gist was Player A was preaching on the outs available to him to win a certain hand, when he was politely formed by Player B that his only out was the Jackpot!!!

bottom feeder

The rule is you have to show if you want to claim the pot, but in that situation im not to sure as the dude was told by the dealer that he didnt have to show. Hmmm sounds like Payer A is a sore loser...

LOL @ the Jackpot remark.

RoundTower

player 2 should have had his hand exposed, once he mucked it in good faith (the dealer told him to) John is absolutely right that in the interests of fairness he should get the pot and a split would be a bad decision.

charlesanto

Player 1 must be a complete A55HOLE ....
A split would have been very wrong, IMHO

BigCityBanker

*Counterfeit* wrote:

Player A was preaching on the outs available to him to win a certain hand, when he was politely formed by Player B that his only out was the Jackpot!!!

jbravado lol

Flushdraw

RoundTower wrote:

player 2 should have had his hand exposed, once he mucked it in good faith (the dealer told him to) John is absolutely right that in the interests of fairness he should get the pot and a split would be a bad decision.

I agree. Player 1 should have been given a box in the head though

5starpool

Flushdraw wrote:

I agree. Player 1 should have been given a box in the head though

A box in the head is too kind. This is gamesmanship of the lowest type. Player 2 had the last live hand there and should not have to show. If I was in this hand as palyer 2 and a split was the decision I would have been extremely unhappy.

aubreym

player 1 mucked.. pot goes to player 2...no arguements...pot goes to last remaining player....

players 1 fault for mucking his cards...

jebusmusic

This seems a no brainer.

Player 1 folded voluntarily by mucking. He was called, and could have flipped over his cards. Therefore the only player left in the pot takes the pot. Whether Player 1 wants to show his cards or not is up to him.

jem

player 1 had dumped his cards, there was no one left in the pot.
In any event player 1 had been called and he should have shown his cards first.

5starpool

I have merged duplicate threads.

CelticPhantom

5starpool wrote:

I have merged duplicate threads.

Sounds painful!

I have a dropped transverse arch!

In before Ban.

Flushdraw

5starpool wrote:

A box in the head is too kind. This is gamesmanship of the lowest type. Player 2 had the last live hand there and should not have to show. If I was in this hand as palyer 2 and a split was the decision I would have been extremely unhappy.

AFAIK the rule about having the last live hand doesnt apply if theres a check/check or a bet and a call on the river. I still think he has to show his hand to claim a pot. Reduces the risk of chip dumping etc

ollyk1

Flushdraw wrote:

AFAIK the rule about having the last live hand doesnt apply if theres a check/check or a bet and a call on the river. I still think he has to show his hand to claim a pot. Reduces the risk of chip dumping etc

Personally I think thats a lod of cobblers in a cash game unless it was 3 handed on the flop and turn with significant action and someone got squeezed out and then it went check-check on the river!

Flushdraw

ollyk1 wrote:

Personally I think thats a lod of cobblers in a cash game unless it was 3 handed on the flop and turn with significant action and someone got squeezed out and then it went check-check on the river!

I agree 100% but i just thought it was a rule. More for tournies though than cash games

ollyk1

Flushdraw wrote:

I agree 100% but i just thought it was a rule. More for tournies though than cash games

I think you are right its an SE rule and to make life simple they apply it across the board. On thing I would say is that if some fúcker angle shot me like this to basically freeroll chance his arm to get his money back I wouldn't ever come back tbh. Having said that if a guy mucks rather than show I do show my hand - especially if I have a bag of spanners.

Flushdraw

ollyk1 wrote:

I think you are right its an SE rule and to make life simple they apply it across the board. On thing I would say is that if some fúcker angle shot me like this to basically freeroll chance his arm to get his money back I wouldn't ever come back tbh. Having said that if a guy mucks rather than show I do show my hand because 90% of the time, I have a bag of spanners.

FYP

DeVore

Its gamesmanship by Player 1 but I dont think you can avoid the "rule"
that you must show a hand to claim a pot. The dealer is a muppet and should get the slapping. Player 1 is entitled to ask for the rules to be applied (he shouldnt be allowed to muck his cards either, Luke has some very good rules surrounding this type of thing).
But I would have said he has to show a hand to claim a pot, its a pretty standard "rule".

Of course, there are no such things as "rules" as they can't be appealed to a higher power. But, that would be one of the more consistent and well accepted "rule".

DeV.

Mellor

Player 2 "should" of been required to show his hand to claim the pot. He was instructed that it wasn't required.
Player 1 knew he was required and he waited until the cards were mucked to speak. This is 100% angle shooting. The right decision was made, in the interest of fairness and the game. Looking for a split pot, esp if you weren't involved is very bad form imo

*Counterfeit*

Mellor wrote:

.
Player 1 knew he was required and he waited until the cards were mucked to speak. This is 100% angle shooting. The right decision was made, in the interest of fairness and the game. Looking for a split pot, esp if you weren't involved is very bad form imo

In fairness to Player 1 here it should be said that he did accept the ruling when it was made. His protests seemed to be more surrounding the farcical manner in which the whole fiasco arose and was subsequently handled i.e.
the dealers misinstruction and the contracdictory rulings from the two members of senior staff. Here I felt he had two very valid gripes . Also, making rulings based on 'the interests of the fairness of the game' lends itself to a large degree of subjectivity, so what you will invariably end up with is an ad hoc solution based on the staff members own personal opinion.

It appeared that the player might have been shooting an angle, but this does not change the basic rule that you must show two cards to take the pot. The fault lay completely with the dealer and that's tough luck on Player 2, but the rules are there for a reason. It should have been a split in my opinion, be that fair or unfair, although on a side note and no offence to either of the two chaps involved, but I'd like to think I'd have enough honour at a poker table for this issue not to arise in a hand I took part in.

connie147

*Counterfeit* wrote:

In fairness to Player 1 here it should be said that he did accept the ruling when it was made. His protests seemed to be more surrounding the farcical manner in which the whole fiasco arose and was subsequently handled i.e.
the dealers misinstruction and the contracdictory rulings from the two members of senior staff. Here I felt he had two very valid gripes . Also, making rulings based on 'the interests of the fairness of the game' lends itself to a large degree of subjectivity, so what you will invariably end up with is an ad hoc solution based on the staff members own personal opinion.

It appeared that the player might have been shooting an angle, but this does not change the basic rule that you must show two cards to take the pot. The fault lay completely with the dealer and that's tough luck on Player 2, but the rules are there for a reason. It should have been a split in my opinion, be that fair or unfair, although on a side note and no offence to either of the two chaps involved, but I'd like to think I'd have enough honour at a poker table for this issue not to arise in a hand I took part in.

The most important rule of all is the rule of common sense(or as used here,the interests of fairness of the game). Of course player 2 should get the pot, I cant think of any reason why player 1 should get to split it.

And just LOL at your statement "In fairness to player1,he did accept the ruling when it was made". There was no need for the ruling if he wasnt being an ar$ehole in the 1st place. I hope he gets slowrolled consistantly whenever he plays.

RoundTower

5sp is right, I forgot to mention the bit where someone should kick P1 in the nuts.

carfax

John is a really good TD/Card Room Manager and this just goes to show.

He doesn't generally get as much credit as he deserves.

mrflash

The rule is that you show your cards to win the pot, and that is a fair rule.
Fairness does not come into it when there is a clear rule about showing your hand.
The decision to award the pot to a player who did not show his hand is wrong. It is a split pot whether its fair or not.

mormank

5starpool wrote:

A box in the head is too kind. This is gamesmanship of the lowest type. Player 2 had the last live hand there and should not have to show. If I was in this hand as palyer 2 and a split was the decision I would have been extremely unhappy.

I agree, player 2 only has to show his hand if player1 showed a hand no matter how pissss it was. Player 2 does not need to show his hand and wins pot as last person standing!! Why should player 2 have to show his hand if player 1 doesnt have to. If the action occurred on the turn would player 2 have to show his hand to win the pot??? Of course not...

Mellor

*Counterfeit* wrote:

In fairness to Player 1 here it should be said that he did accept the ruling when it was made.
It appeared that the player might have been shooting an angle, but this does not change the basic rule that you must show two cards to take the pot. The fault lay completely with the dealer and that's tough luck on Player 2, but the rules are there for a reason. It should have been a split in my opinion, be that fair or unfair, although on a side note and no offence to either of the two chaps involved, but I'd like to think I'd have enough honour at a poker table for this issue not to arise in a hand I took part in.

He accepted the ruling when the manager made it. Well hats off to him for doing what every decent player is supposed to do and basic manners. Although calling for the ruling in the first place does put him in a different light.

If you were player 1, it would of been out of your control what player did with his cards. If the dealer told him it was ok and he mucked, would you of called a ruling?