Anonymous
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 10:31am

Situation:
Final table, 6 or 7 players (I was an observer).
Blinds are 5k-10k (I can't remember who was or wasn't a blind but it doesn't matter here).

Player A goes all in pre-flop for 5k - two callers: Players B and C (15k side pot for A and 10k main pot for B & C).

B & C check the flop and turn.
Player C checks the river, B bets minimum and C folds.

Questionable Action/Decision:
B pulls his bet back and the Dealer pushes the 10k main pot to player B.
B tosses his cards face down to the dealer (dealer has both hands on the deck, arms in front, and the cards land square in the middle of the triangular space created by the dealer's arms and the inside edge of the table rail).
The dealer says what are you doing he's still playing - motioning to the all-in Player A - and gives the cards back to B. B subsequently wins the hand.

Was this the proper decision? I think it was wrong. I believe that B mucked his hand and A should have raked the 15k. B is responsible for his cards and he is also responsible for paying attention to all the action at the table.

Your thoughts please.



dhoytinaz
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 10:43am

You are 100% right. I have actually had that happen. Thankfully I was player A, and the dealer made the correct move. If the cards hit the muck, they are mucked forever and ever. Player A should have imedeately been awarded the main pot.

DaveHoyt



JessiJamesH
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 10:48am

I agree completely. Had player B tossed his cards FACE UP, he might have had an argument as to whether they were mucked or not. The fact that they were tossed FACE DOWN is a muck, no question.



ohnoyouagain (not verified)
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 11:39am

In all fairness, I should point out that player B's cards never touched any other mucked cards...not that I think that matters, just wanted to be thorough.
Thanks for your input!



Sethro
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 11:57am

I have been in a money tournament where this similar situation occurred. A went all in, B went all in with one call. After the flop, B&C turned over their cards. One had tripped up his Kings. Seeing that, player A tried to muck his hand (having trip 7's) but the dealer stated that since he was all in, he could not muck. It was unbelievable when the case 7 hit on the river. I believe that most tournaments state that players can't muck when they are all in. Thoughts????



Pappy
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 12:19pm

I was under that impression as well. Once there is an all in call, all players must show their hands if there can be no more action. He may have mucked his cards, but they still have to be shown...non?



armand33m
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 1:27pm

I dont want to attempt to proclaim this is the rule period, end of story, but in casinos, the action of pushing your cards FORWARD face down (at least at the ones I've been to here in AZ) constitutes a muck. Your cards dont have to touch the muck, simply pushing them forward can count as a muck.

In a case such as this, with multiple players and an all-in, the player has, in essence, mucked his cards. The main pot should have gone to the one that still had cards in his hand (or in front of him). Player B still captures the side pot.

Ultimately, its up to the tourney director though.

Armand



Pappy
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 2:19pm

Yeah, I know that is the rule usually, but I swear somewhere I saw that very situation happen. I will see if i can find it...but I am 95% positive that even though he mucked, he can't muck until he first shows...

Let me see if I can find it...

Got it...

12. A player who is all-in must show his cards at the showdown

http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/holdem_rules.php

But that brings up the question...the player that mucked isn't all in...so does he have to show...hmmmm....



Sethro
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 4:13pm

Now that I have read the situation again, I see that B tried to muck. When the TD gave the cards back, he should have had A show, then muck the hand, which is originally what he tried to do. The fact that B was not all in, and had originally called A's all in, A is obligated to show first..see previous discussions in another forum.



JessiJamesH
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 4:14pm

Pappy wrote:
12. A player who is all-in must show his cards at the showdown

The key words there are "at the showdown." Since player B mucked his cards, there was NO showdown.



ohnoyouagain (not verified)
Posted: Fri, 05/12/2006 - 5:09pm

JessiJamesH wrote:
Pappy wrote:
12. A player who is all-in must show his cards at the showdown

The key words there are "at the showdown." Since player B mucked his cards, there was NO showdown.

And...as Pappy pointed out, Player B was not all in...

I appreciate everyone's input...would anyone else (besides me) be interested in an official clarification/interpretation from a PP spokesperson?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the @ss and I am all for letting a player correct a mistake if the table is unanimously in favor of letting the player do so. But if it's not unanimous and just one player wants to play by the rules, then oh well...mistakes are mistakes but rules are rules!



armand33m
Posted: Mon, 05/15/2006 - 11:09am

We had a situation this past weekend with an all-in situation such as this.

Player A went all-in, and was called by player B. Player A showed his cards, top pair, with a Q kicker. Player B also had top pair, but elected not to show his kicker. The tourney director ruled that player B did not have to show his hand... but that by not showing the hand, he was forfeiting the pot.

Armand



Shortround
Posted: Mon, 05/15/2006 - 2:38pm

Well, OFFICIALLY he could have been made to show both his cards. There is a rule designed to prevent collusion that says that if a player or dealer requests it that you must show your hand in that situation.

Unfortunately it is never used to prevent suspected collusion but instead to help get a read on the person who mucked his hand to someone. I'm talking about heads up where the loser doesn't show one or both cards.

Personally I don't like the rule and I'm told there's talk of changing it. I think the td in this case did the right thing and said either show cards or muck and lose.



Shortround
Posted: Mon, 05/15/2006 - 3:02pm

JessiJamesH wrote:
If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action, by a bet or raise, is the first to show the hand. If there is a side pot, players involved in the side pot should show their hands before anyone who is all-in for only the main pot. However, "poker etiquette" is, if you have the probable winning hand, you are encouraged to show it, & not "slow-roll" the other player(s).

Official Texas Hold 'em rules are as follows: Any player who has been "dealt in" may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player's hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

In most casinos, you may request to see any hand that was eligible to win the pot at showdown. Only players who were "dealt in" may make the request (no railbirds). If the request comes from the player who is showing the winning hand, the hand that is exposed is considered to be "live" (even if it has been mucked) and could possibly still win the pot.

This rule is not to be used to gain knowledge about an opponents hand. It is meant to be used when you suspect cheating (collusion) between two or more players.

Here is an excellent Poker Pages article on the 'I want to see that Hand' rule.

:smile: Here's a JessiJamesH quote from another forum that relates to the above situation.



Pappy
Posted: Tue, 05/16/2006 - 8:52am

JessiJamesH wrote:
Pappy wrote:
12. A player who is all-in must show his cards at the showdown

The key words there are "at the showdown." Since player B mucked his cards, there was NO showdown.

Right, but as soon as the third player folds, we are technically at the showdown...right? We have two players left at that point, its time for the showdown.

I would like a dealer or an official of some sort to give a ruling, cause this is a lot of grey area.

:)



pokerpub
Posted: Tue, 05/16/2006 - 1:08pm

In KC when there is no more betting, all players must show their hand. Even when it's pre-flop, after the flop, on the turn or river. If it goes all the way to the river players must show their hands according to rules (i.e. if it checks down, the first position must show first, if there is an all-in than whoever was called must show first). If the second person decides to muck and lose the hand, that is allowed. However, on an all-in, if the winner (and only the winner) asks to see the mucked hand it is allowed. I'm not sure if this is consistent across the board with the other regions, but I believe so. You may want to ask your nightly hosts to check with the regional manager or franchise owner.