All-in heads up. How would you rule? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mojo1312
- Start date
CrazyEddie
Full House
Again, my apologies for presenting a bad interpretation of standard poker rules. I'll take this opportunity, though, to note something interesting regarding this particular controversy. It essentially reflects two different viewpoints of what "the showdown" constitutes: on the one hand, the completion of a game which has already concluded, in which all that remains is to determine who in fact has the best hand; on the other hand, an opportunity for further gamesmanship, in which the concealing or revelation of information about how you have played your hand is at stake in addition to the actual pot.
In the first view, all that's of consequence is awarding the pot, and the question of who-shows-first and who-mucked-their-hands is essentially a matter of logistics and convenience. Players who suspect they have the winning hand are encouraged to show it right away; players who believe they have a losing hand are free to discard it without bothering to show it; the primary goal of everyone is to wrap it up, award the pot, and move on. In the second view, it's important to keep your hand a secret unless required to reveal it; the order of who must show their hand first is vital; there are consequences to others when you show or discard your hand and thus in turn there are consequences for it on you.
In the first view, a hand at the showdown is a hand at the showdown, and the best hand at the showdown wins the pot. In the second view, the showdown is itself a series of actions similar to but different from a betting round, and the best hand which is tabled and not discarded wins the pot.
In the first view, discarding a hand is a convenience; discarding the best hand is an error, one which may be correctable, and which should be corrected if possible. In the second view, discarding a hand is a binding decision; discarding the best hand disqualifies it from winning.
Apparently, this divergence of viewpoints was discussed within the TDA as recently as 2009! At the 2009 TDA summit it was generally agreed upon that a player mucking their cards at the showdown has their hand killed - thus becoming ineligible for the pot even with the best hand - which in turn allows players to muck their hand to protect them from being revealed in the effort to determine the winner! However, at least one participant came from the opposite viewpoint, feeling that the basis of the showdown is "Cards Speak", and that regardless of what the players say or do that the pot is to be awarded to the player whose cards constitute the best hand, i.e. Cards Speak.
That was, however, a minority position, and the viewpoint that the showdown consists of a series of decisions in turn to either discard or table each player's hand is the viewpoint that prevails today.
Everyone can make their own house rules, of course, but when considering the situation and questions that @Mojo1312 posed in his OP, one would be well advised to consider the currently prevailing views of how poker ought to be played.
In the first view, all that's of consequence is awarding the pot, and the question of who-shows-first and who-mucked-their-hands is essentially a matter of logistics and convenience. Players who suspect they have the winning hand are encouraged to show it right away; players who believe they have a losing hand are free to discard it without bothering to show it; the primary goal of everyone is to wrap it up, award the pot, and move on. In the second view, it's important to keep your hand a secret unless required to reveal it; the order of who must show their hand first is vital; there are consequences to others when you show or discard your hand and thus in turn there are consequences for it on you.
In the first view, a hand at the showdown is a hand at the showdown, and the best hand at the showdown wins the pot. In the second view, the showdown is itself a series of actions similar to but different from a betting round, and the best hand which is tabled and not discarded wins the pot.
In the first view, discarding a hand is a convenience; discarding the best hand is an error, one which may be correctable, and which should be corrected if possible. In the second view, discarding a hand is a binding decision; discarding the best hand disqualifies it from winning.
Apparently, this divergence of viewpoints was discussed within the TDA as recently as 2009! At the 2009 TDA summit it was generally agreed upon that a player mucking their cards at the showdown has their hand killed - thus becoming ineligible for the pot even with the best hand - which in turn allows players to muck their hand to protect them from being revealed in the effort to determine the winner! However, at least one participant came from the opposite viewpoint, feeling that the basis of the showdown is "Cards Speak", and that regardless of what the players say or do that the pot is to be awarded to the player whose cards constitute the best hand, i.e. Cards Speak.
That was, however, a minority position, and the viewpoint that the showdown consists of a series of decisions in turn to either discard or table each player's hand is the viewpoint that prevails today.
Everyone can make their own house rules, of course, but when considering the situation and questions that @Mojo1312 posed in his OP, one would be well advised to consider the currently prevailing views of how poker ought to be played.
Is it weird that I read this with Rod Serling's voice in my head?
So many more words added, yet still no poll?
Frogzilla
4 of a Kind
This is a PCF misconception that seems to never die. “Muck” is often used as a term for players folding, not only by most of the community (literally everyone except for PCF), but in poker rule sets as well. Lastly, online poker has an option for you to discard your hand without showing, and this is often called “mucking”
TDA rule 15: "All hands will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete. No player who is either all-in or has called all betting action may muck his hand without tabling."
Community usage
https://www.poker-king.com/dictionary/muck/
https://www.888poker.com/magazine/strategy/rules-mucking-poker
https://www.pokerzone.com/dictionary/muck
Please let this “only dealers muck” nonsense die
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Ain't gonna happen.
Particularly when you use an online dealer-less game as proof that it isn't only dealers who muck.
Samuel
Straight
IMO, it comes down to the type of game you're running/playing. Casino or "serious" home game (especially with strangers), go letter of the law. Friendly relaxed home game with all regulars, go with house/group rules or interpretations of the law heavily weighted towards fostering friendship/camaradarie vs strictly $$$.
If that scenario had happened in my buddies and my home games, the flush would have won the pot.
I've mentioned before that our home games are such that occasionally, we'll tell or show when we have the nuts just to save each other some $$. E.g. just yesterday, I flopped quads and just let my buddy dig his own hole (I didn't bet or raise, just called his bets - he didn't go all in). An hour or two later, I happened to have quads again in a different game and that time I passed him my hidden card so he could see it and fold (we were the only two left in the pot). And again, me and my buddies have known and played poker with each other since high school (and we're all over the hill now) - none of us is out to absolutely decimate anyone else (and I probably have the most incentive because I'm the least successful one of the bunch lol).
If I saw someone misread their cards like in the OP, if I were in a home game, I would probably say something - in a casino, probably not. If I misread my own cards and tossed them like Villian in the OP, I would abide by whatever the house rules were.
YMMV!!!
If that scenario had happened in my buddies and my home games, the flush would have won the pot.
I've mentioned before that our home games are such that occasionally, we'll tell or show when we have the nuts just to save each other some $$. E.g. just yesterday, I flopped quads and just let my buddy dig his own hole (I didn't bet or raise, just called his bets - he didn't go all in). An hour or two later, I happened to have quads again in a different game and that time I passed him my hidden card so he could see it and fold (we were the only two left in the pot). And again, me and my buddies have known and played poker with each other since high school (and we're all over the hill now) - none of us is out to absolutely decimate anyone else (and I probably have the most incentive because I'm the least successful one of the bunch lol).
If I saw someone misread their cards like in the OP, if I were in a home game, I would probably say something - in a casino, probably not. If I misread my own cards and tossed them like Villian in the OP, I would abide by whatever the house rules were.
YMMV!!!
We always played “You Mucked You’re F$&ked”
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
You'd need to be more specific in our home game.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I'll say "Yes."
Frogzilla
4 of a Kind
That was but one small part of my rebuttal. Discard that tidbit if you wish. The remaining post still includes four primary sources, linked/referenced for you, each confirming that yes, players can muckAin't gonna happen.
Particularly when you use an online dealer-less game as proof that it isn't only dealers who muck.
Samuel
Straight
How does that saying go again? Muck me once, shame on you... ?
You can’t get mucked again
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
At one time, "since" and "because" had distinct uses. Now they can be used interchangeably. It doesn't discount the fact that they have distinct meanings and one is "more right" depending on the usage.
The assumption that players can muck discounts the job of the dealer. I'm not ready to commit to that just yet.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I want to take another stab at this question.
RRoP says "A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot." It appears that this player did exactly that, i.e. he opted to throw his hand away (as evidenced by him literally throwing his hand away, "gently tossing his hand face down in to the center of the table" as the OP put it) and thus is not competing to win the pot. The hand wasn't thrown into the muck (being thrown towards the muck but falling short of it), but it seems unquestionable that the player opted to throw the hand away.
RRoP doesn't have a provision for a player to subsequently "un-throw-away" his hand, although it does say this: "Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game." So for the OP's scenario, RRoP suggests that the hand could be live and thus win the pot at management's discretion - although, again, there's no suggestion as to why management might want to do so in this scenario, since the player opted to throw away his hand rather than competing to win the pot.
TDA rules are more explicit: "Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; players may change their minds and table cards that remain 100% identifiable and retrievable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck or otherwise rendered irretrievable and unidentifiable." The TDA membership discussed the question of at what point someone's hand becomes dead at the showdown: when they say "you win"? when they toss their cards? when the cards touch the muck? This rule - they're dead when they're no longer identifiable and still alive at any time before that - is what was agreed upon. So if the player in the OP's scenario realizes his hand is a winner (which he now does) and if his cards are still identifiable and retrievable (which they are) then he can table them and thereby win the pot.
So. One ruleset says the player can win the pot "at management's discretion, if doing so is in the best interest of the game" but gives no reason that they should, and another ruleset says the player can win the pot unequivocally.
Which ruleset does the host want to follow?
I like this.
But it’s tough to argue tournament rules when they’re in direct contrast with Robert’s Rules, in a cash game, where the host presumably hasn’t posted a specific rule or rule set to follow.
I don’t have a problem with the host retrieving the cards and awarding the pot to the flush, if he decides that’s the way he wants to go. Fwiw, I think I’ve seen more convincing arguments to the contrary, so I obviously have no problem with that ruling either; it’s probably the better ruling to call the flush dead.
I guess the lesson is for hosts to have rules posted (or at least a “these are the rules we’ll follow.”)
I’ve definitely made mistakes like this or dumber, at least once or twice. It’s just that I’ve never flashed, THEN folded. And the more I think about it, the less I want to have sympathy for this guy. I can be sympathetic to newbs who make a mistake. I can even be convinced to have sympathy for experienced players who make a mistake. But this flashing and mucking crap is bullshit. Either show your cards or don’t; I really don’t care. But doing both kinda makes you an ass, and I don’t think being an ass should bail you out of a mistake.
I’ve decided to give the pot to the hero, but I don’t think it’s a one player to a hand issue.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I agree, at least with respect to awarding the pot.
There's arguably two different etiquette violations (under both RRoP and TDA) - one for the player exposing the cards that he was about to discard, and one for the dealer (or another player) reading a hand that wasn't tabled. Both of those could be considered "OPTAH violations". But the appropriate remedy for either of those violations is probably not to kill the player's hand.
I think whether the hero or villain is awarded the pot hinges on whether the villain's hand is alive or dead after tossing it towards the center of the table, and not on whether it was proper to flash cards or to be told his hand was a winner.
Since this is cash and not tournament, hands are not required to be tabled immediately following the close of betting action. Once the cards are tossed forward face down, the player forfeited the hand. Similar situations have happened at home games I've played in, and everyone has agreed, you toss them face down, you forfeit the hand.
This is why I generally table my hand when all in after betting action concludes even in cash, so that cards speak. I've also tossed my cards face up and won when I missed a backdoor straight.
This is why I generally table my hand when all in after betting action concludes even in cash, so that cards speak. I've also tossed my cards face up and won when I missed a backdoor straight.
Winner of the most tl;dr posts in one thread? @CrazyEddie
I jest, but I did like the part about RRoP doesn't have a chapter on 'un-throw-away' your hand, when you could have used un-muck. I like the different perspectives, the duality of man if you will. I think one call out from this is, the delineation of tournament vs cash, AND home game vs strictly by the book.
What never happens, a host never runs through the rules of poker while hosting the game. A host never talks about the finer points of etiquette. It takes an issue like this to come up and deal with it for players to grow. I think this is a great topic to discuss at the table and talk about the different aspects.
We need a top 10 list of rules / etiquette to discuss at your first hosted game. Of course, players cycle in an out, and you'll always miss a few with the discussions but I think it's a great way to get the table involved in discussions. I also like the ideal of asking an open (and leading!) question, we'll call it the Socratic method
I deal, I play, I muck, any other argument about vernaculars makes you a prescriptivist, and elitist in the minority! Language bends, flexes, and changes to our will, regardless of your emotional appeal of bootylicious, its still a word! and you will love it and use it and it will define you! I am so bootylicious!
RRoP while having a long history, doesn't cover all aspects and is kinda tired imho, there are better text out there.
Anyone that would show multiple people their hand, has to not care about the aspect of not giving out information about their hand. Which is to say he should always just table his hand, so that these (us) nerds don't have to spend 3 pages debating over it. Seriously we've given this more attention and effort than the dude with 67o gave to the hand all night!
I love this place! garson COFFEE!!
I jest, but I did like the part about RRoP doesn't have a chapter on 'un-throw-away' your hand, when you could have used un-muck. I like the different perspectives, the duality of man if you will. I think one call out from this is, the delineation of tournament vs cash, AND home game vs strictly by the book.
What never happens, a host never runs through the rules of poker while hosting the game. A host never talks about the finer points of etiquette. It takes an issue like this to come up and deal with it for players to grow. I think this is a great topic to discuss at the table and talk about the different aspects.
We need a top 10 list of rules / etiquette to discuss at your first hosted game. Of course, players cycle in an out, and you'll always miss a few with the discussions but I think it's a great way to get the table involved in discussions. I also like the ideal of asking an open (and leading!) question, we'll call it the Socratic method
I deal, I play, I muck, any other argument about vernaculars makes you a prescriptivist, and elitist in the minority! Language bends, flexes, and changes to our will, regardless of your emotional appeal of bootylicious, its still a word! and you will love it and use it and it will define you! I am so bootylicious!
RRoP while having a long history, doesn't cover all aspects and is kinda tired imho, there are better text out there.
Anyone that would show multiple people their hand, has to not care about the aspect of not giving out information about their hand. Which is to say he should always just table his hand, so that these (us) nerds don't have to spend 3 pages debating over it. Seriously we've given this more attention and effort than the dude with 67o gave to the hand all night!
I love this place! garson COFFEE!!
grebe
Full House
Every time I read somebody say "TDA says....." I shut off my brain and say Not Applicable.
Am I wrong? Does the TDA have rules for cash games? IF NOT, they DO NOT APPLY to a cash game unless house rules dictates they do (such as @Seeking Alpha Social Club, where his house rules state once you are all in, flip them over).
We have a conflicting rules argument here.
-Player mucks, but cards are identifiable so can be unmucked...as stated by RROP
-He showed his cards to a couple players...including dealer, who in this game is a dealing player (don't forget that)....so cards speak.
Personally, I think it is in the best interest to keep the game civil to award the pot to the flush. I would also like to say that I find his "style" childish and thus it pains me to see him not be punished for his idiotic play. Even in a card room, if I am bluffing or the nuts, once I am all in I flip up my cards proudly.
Am I wrong? Does the TDA have rules for cash games? IF NOT, they DO NOT APPLY to a cash game unless house rules dictates they do (such as @Seeking Alpha Social Club, where his house rules state once you are all in, flip them over).
We have a conflicting rules argument here.
-Player mucks, but cards are identifiable so can be unmucked...as stated by RROP
-He showed his cards to a couple players...including dealer, who in this game is a dealing player (don't forget that)....so cards speak.
Personally, I think it is in the best interest to keep the game civil to award the pot to the flush. I would also like to say that I find his "style" childish and thus it pains me to see him not be punished for his idiotic play. Even in a card room, if I am bluffing or the nuts, once I am all in I flip up my cards proudly.
And that’s why I won’t vote in the poll. If you think flashing your cards to another player is a violation of the one player to a hand rule, then one of us doesn’t understand that rule. (I think it’s you.)
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
And one set of rules covers cash and tournaments while the other covers just tournaments and is arguably inapplicable.
buzzmonkey
Flush
For a cash game:
1) Can the player table a hand he has discarded but has not been placed irretrievably into the muck?
I think the answer is objectively and incontrovertibly yes. The player in this scenario did this and should win the pot.
2) If a player A flashed his cards for other players to see, can any one of those player OR a non-playing dealer inform player A that they have discarded a winning hand?
This is where the real questions are in my opinion.
A) Are all players instructed to table his cards or fold them directly without flashing them or just showing a portion of the other players?
I say yes and point to this scenario as the reason why.
B) Are all players instructed not to ever publicly share information they get when a player shows but does not table their cards?
I'm not sure this answer is clear and is probably the real main sticking point of the overall argument. I do think Mojo's group probably should determine this though for themselves before the start of their next game. Answer this and all other considerations should be solved as well.
1) Can the player table a hand he has discarded but has not been placed irretrievably into the muck?
I think the answer is objectively and incontrovertibly yes. The player in this scenario did this and should win the pot.
2) If a player A flashed his cards for other players to see, can any one of those player OR a non-playing dealer inform player A that they have discarded a winning hand?
This is where the real questions are in my opinion.
A) Are all players instructed to table his cards or fold them directly without flashing them or just showing a portion of the other players?
I say yes and point to this scenario as the reason why.
B) Are all players instructed not to ever publicly share information they get when a player shows but does not table their cards?
I'm not sure this answer is clear and is probably the real main sticking point of the overall argument. I do think Mojo's group probably should determine this though for themselves before the start of their next game. Answer this and all other considerations should be solved as well.
And, I don’t know what the penalty is for a violation of the one player to a hand rule, but I doubt it’s the pot. When a rule is violated, don’t we usually award the pot to the winning hand, THEN deal with the rule violation?
So, if your argument is that he can’t retrieve his cards because of the OPTAH rule, then you’re implying that his cards could be retrievable otherwise (like if he just changed his mind.). So I think if the cards are otherwise retrievable, then he can retrieve them and win the pot, no matter what inspired him to retrieve them. And then you dole out your OPTAH violation penalties.
So, if your argument is that he can’t retrieve his cards because of the OPTAH rule, then you’re implying that his cards could be retrievable otherwise (like if he just changed his mind.). So I think if the cards are otherwise retrievable, then he can retrieve them and win the pot, no matter what inspired him to retrieve them. And then you dole out your OPTAH violation penalties.
This is the correct answer. If cards are retrievable, seen it a hundred times.
Frogzilla
4 of a Kind
Might help to add the end of the hand to the OP…what happens to villains cards after he’s told he has a flush. Who touches them, do they become part of the muck or are they flipped face up, etc
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
