Hand mucked after a call

pokerkingsni · 14-09-2009 10:10am #1

This happened in a 100 Freezeout over the weekend.

Betting between two players comes down to the river. Player A in 1st position goes all in after the river, player B who has A covered thinks for a bit and declares "call" and throws over A8o. Player A immediately throws his two cards into the muck face down, the cards both touch the muck. The dealer then slides the cards away from the muck. Player A then turns his cards face up and says something along the lines of "i thought you folded". Players A's hand is shown to be the winning hand.

Floor is called.

Is player A's hand dead as he mucked or in this situation would it be declared the winning hand as it was easily retrieved from the muck and a genuine mistake?

TommyGunne · 14-09-2009 10:44am

Common sense would dictate that player A wins the pot. He has the best hand, and his cards are distinguishable from the muck. Anything else would be pretty harsh, and not in the spirit of the game.

Lurker1977 · 14-09-2009 11:32am

Pretty sure the rule is that as player A is all-in his cards must be shown regardless if he mucks or not.

Four of a kind · 30-09-2009 8:27pm

This is an interesting ruling. Can JP or any other organiser lend their comments/ruling to the above situation?

Flushdraw · 01-10-2009 10:17am

Collusion gone wrong IMO.......possibly

But..

The dealer shouldn't have retrieved the cards once both of them have entered the muck. This is the big issue here. If Player A mucks his hand, i'd award the pot to Player B. Player A should have been paying attention, and there's also a chance that Player A misread his hand and thought he was beat, again his own fault for not showing.

Lurker1977 · 01-10-2009 11:03am

Flushdraw wrote: »

Collusion gone wrong IMO.......possibly

But..

The dealer shouldn't have retrieved the cards once both of them have entered the muck. This is the big issue here. If Player A mucks his hand, i'd award the pot to Player B. Player A should have been paying attention, and there's also a chance that Player A misread his hand and thought he was beat, again his own fault for not showing.

Hey Flushdraw,

I was under the impression that in a tournament, if a player is all-in, once no more betting is to occur that both hands must be turned over as a method of preventing collusion.

Flushdraw · 01-10-2009 1:38pm

Lurker1977 wrote: »

Hey Flushdraw,

I was under the impression that in a tournament, if a player is all-in, once no more betting is to occur that both hands must be turned over as a method of preventing collusion.

Yeah but imagine you're my best mate....

I have 30k chips, you have 40k.

I'm either in a hurry to go somehwere, want to dump chips because i have no chance of winning, we have a 50/50 split going etc. I ship the river with 22 as a bluff. You call and turn over A8 for Ace high. My bluff beats you, so i just muck and pretend your hand is good.

I suppose i did contradict myself a little though, but i still don't think a hand should be retrieved from the muck and be declared a winner.

Lurker1977 · 01-10-2009 2:43pm

Yea, I know what you mean but dealer should have made both players table their hands to stop a scenario like you just described from happening.

newbie2 · 01-10-2009 4:40pm

in ep 19 of this years wsop. Andy black made a call for all his chips on a player who beat him. He saw he was beaten and through his cards face down towards the dealer/muck as if to muck them. the dealer then turned over his cards and laid them out for all to see

bp_me · 02-10-2009 11:22am

Lurker1977 wrote: »

Hey Flushdraw,

I was under the impression that in a tournament, if a player is all-in, once no more betting is to occur that both hands must be turned over as a method of preventing collusion.

This was betting based on the river card.

In which case cards would not be turned up until the betting was complete.

However, the dealer should not have retrieved mucked cards or left them identifiable imo.

aceofspades.ie · 05-10-2009 5:42pm

Lurker1977 wrote: »

Pretty sure the rule is that as player A is all-in his cards must be shown regardless if he mucks or not.

Simlar case recently... It was a double chance... Got trapped by guy while bluffing, I seen his winng hand I mucked mine!! while calling for my second stack. What I didnt realise was the dealer had retrieved my hand from the muck and dipsplayed them to the table, play continued and some of the players were telling the dealer he shouldn't have done it. Dealer explained both hands must be seen. I asked the dealer if my hand was the winning hand would I have been awarded the pot.. He reiterate that both hands must be seen in an all in situation, I took this as a yes... I belive this rule will prevent players from dumping chips and each ruling should be made in the interest of fairness for all players... A winning hand should win, even if the player can't see it....

pokerkingsni · 05-10-2009 6:04pm

In my case the dealer actually realised the player who mucked his cards did so as he thought the other player was folding and not calling. The dealer just moved the cards back, leaving them face down, and waited for the floor. There is something in the TDA rules about mucked hands being taken from the muck if they are clearly indentifiable. It was quite obvious that the winning hand was folded by mistake.

The ruling was that the player with the winning hand did not win the pot as he had thrown his cards face down into the muck and should have been paying attention. It is also worth noting that the player who was awarded the pot acknowledged that he had the losing hand.

aceofspades.ie · 05-10-2009 6:17pm

pokerkingsni wrote: »

In my case the dealer actually realised the player who mucked his cards did so as he thought the other player was folding and not calling. The dealer just moved the cards back, leaving them face down, and waited for the floor. There is something in the TDA rules about mucked hands being taken from the muck if they are clearly indentifiable. It was quite obvious that the winning hand was folded by mistake.

The ruling was that the player with the winning hand did not win the pot as he had thrown his cards face down into the muck and should have been paying attention. It is also worth noting that the player who was awarded the pot acknowledged that he had the losing hand.

I suppose in a case like that it could lead to players angle shooting.

JP Poker · 05-10-2009 11:46pm

Four of a kind wrote: »

This is an interesting ruling. Can JP or any other organiser lend their comments/ruling to the above situation?

Just back from Killaraney, about 3 hours sleep per day:eek: brain not working at the moment. I'll have a look at this tomorrow

westlife · 06-10-2009 12:56am

JP Poker wrote: »

Just back from Killaraney, about 3 hours per day:eek: brian not working at the moment. I'll have a look at this tomorrow

who is brian?? i knew you wr a closet!

JP Poker · 06-10-2009 1:44am

westlife wrote: »

who is brian?? i knew you wr a closet!

lol just noticed that

gorrrr72 · 06-10-2009 2:28am

Lurker1977 · 06-10-2009 6:25pm

gorrrr72 wrote: »

The difference here is that neither player was all-in. Also, Roland attempted to muck so dealer should never have turned his cards over. Poor angle shoot from German as well imo.

dream. · 07-10-2009 10:03am

Given the info here , it seems like a genuine error and again on the basis of " the best hand wins " i would give the pot to player A . however the bigger point here for me is the show down where the river has come and betting has taken place all players active in the hand should table their cards , this would solve lots of problems re collusion , you show no you show , etc with only one down side that of showing a bluff and as Sean Kavanagh would say " if you get caught bluffing you loose " wheather we see `m or not !

dream. · 07-10-2009 10:15am

Interesting clip , what a terrible move by the Q 6 he s held off showing the cards in order to get an advantage when he knows that the k high is winning , an example of where a strong dealer is needed , and where tabling the two hands would avoid the problem , k high was bluffing but that s not bad sportsmanship the other guy wow !

pokerkingsni · 20-10-2009 5:42pm

Another situation came up last night when i was dealing.

2 players all in, P1 has kings and P2 has AJ. P1 has 2 covered. Flop comes Axx. Turn is another A. At this point the player with KK lifts his cards from the table and throws them in the muck. I complete the hand anyways and guess what comes out? King. So the player who has mucked his hand has a full house and the winning hand.

I was TD at the time and ruled that P1 took the pot as it was obvious his previously tabled hand was the winning hand. After the hand i gave him a warning that if he did this again he would be severely penalised.

Thoughts? Is there any case to award P2 the pot? Should i have awarded the pot to P2 on the turn and not dealt the river?

General Zod · 21-10-2009 9:04am

if both players are all in both hands must be displayed. As long as they were distinguishable from the muck they are retrievable.

pokerkingsni · 21-10-2009 12:35pm

General Zod wrote: »

if both players are all in both hands must be displayed. As long as they were distinguishable from the muck they are retrievable.

Both hands were displayed, yeah. The cards were easily identified, they hadn't been mixed into the muck.

Jam-Fly · 19-11-2009 1:44am

player with the best hand wins the pot.

The Clamper · 18-12-2009 12:21am

Here is a problem

player A sees his mate getting low on chips while he has loads

he raises and signals his buddy

his buddy goes all in and player A folds

thereby chip dumping onto his mate, keeping them both well stacked for the event

collusion at its worst

what to do, presuming you suspect these cheaters
call the floor, tell the floor what happened, quietly since you cant openly accuse as you only suspect whats happened

the floor should talk to these 2 guys, warning them that a complaint of this nature was made and that he is taking it seriously, any further occurance between these 2 players and the hands will have to be shown

the players should realise that they could be banned and kicked out without a monetary return of their entry fee and asked not to play here again

its always tricky when a player thinks he hears fold but the player said call
cards go into the muck and all hell breaks out
retrieving cards from muck never looks good

players should be paying attention, also dealers should be announcing the actions

newbie dealers dont always speak up, players lose out

personally i always wait until the chips are heading my way before letting go of my cards, its a good habit to get into and avoids this sort of error

my cards are still live, as far as i am concerned if i am silly enough to muck my cards while thinking i won the hand, then i should be penalised and lose the pot

harsh but what we are always complaining about here is consistancy
consistant decisions, whether good or bad are at least consistantly good or consistantly bad
at least you know where you stand when things are constant and consistant

pkr_ennis · 18-12-2009 12:30pm

pokerkingsni wrote: »

Another situation came up last night when i was dealing.

2 players all in, P1 has kings and P2 has AJ. P1 has 2 covered. Flop comes Axx. Turn is another A. At this point the player with KK lifts his cards from the table and throws them in the muck. I complete the hand anyways and guess what comes out? King. So the player who has mucked his hand has a full house and the winning hand.

I was TD at the time and ruled that P1 took the pot as it was obvious his previously tabled hand was the winning hand. After the hand i gave him a warning that if he did this again he would be severely penalised.

Thoughts? Is there any case to award P2 the pot? Should i have awarded the pot to P2 on the turn and not dealt the river?

There is zero case to give the pot to P2. P1 Tabled his hand, everyone saw it, so at this stage even if his cards miraculously self combust he still gets the pot.

Hand mucked after a call

Comments