Tourney Need a Ruling (plus a Devil's Advocate hypothetical) (1 Viewer)

[Machine]

No. That is not what "mucked" means.


This pot is contested. The hand has been tabled, and so it definitionally cannot be untabled.

Well I think the OP should clarify a bit more, it would appear multiple people have different comprehension of the OPs post.

'A player who throws his hand away without showing it forfeits his interest in the pot if the cards hit the muck without being turned over'
Cooke's Rules of Real Poker.

The point in question for the OP, was the hand tabled?

No. That is not what "mucked" means.

Well, lets define 'mucked', what would be an adequate definition then?

 

[Legend5555]

Can you elaborate on why you disagree that its not the best interest of the game?

It's not in the best interest of the game to allow a scenario in which someone can dump their chips in an all in scenario. Also not in the best interest of the game to allow someone without good knowledge of the procedure to accidentally forfeit their hand especially once it's been tabled.

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

Once the hand is in the muck it is over.

Mucked and irretrievable means hand is over. Award pot and on.

Not necessarily in some Cali casinos I’ve heard of situations the dealer pulled the hand back when identified

 

[davislane]

It's not clear if they are unretrievable. OP says they are, but not why. Many people think if the cards hit the muck they are unretrievable, and that isn't true.

I can see what you are seeking clarification over. cards hitting the muck vs cards being jumbled in the muck and not being able to identify which cards the player had. I'm interpreting OP as they were jumbled in the muck.

 

[Hornet]

Can you elaborate on why you disagree that its not the best interest of the game? Feels a little bit like ad hominem, rather than discourse.

Sure. Billy and Bobby are good friends and at the same table in a freezeout tourney. Bobby is a much better tourney player than Billy. First hand they both go all in. Billy has JJ and Bobby has AA. Hands are tabled. Two people at the table each say “I had a J.” Billy then grabs his two jacks from the table and throws them into the muck.

You don’t think that’s a little suspicious?

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

It's not clear if they are unretrievable. OP says they are, but not why. Many people think if the cards hit the muck they are unretrievable, and that isn't true.

Well I’m taking the OP at his word. We can all add differing scenarios to skew the result we favor. Obviously some of you think I’m an idiot and that’s fine. Some of you at least agree with me some and that’s good too.

This is a very weird situation that is going to be exceedingly rare that it happens. I’m going to have some dessert now that I’m no longer full of turkey (at least the fowl kind.)

Hope everyone has a happy thanksgiving.

 

[ArielVer18]

Guys, this is a tournament. Rules are slightly different. Run the board. Player with sixes get a penalty, ranging from verbal reprimand to sitting out for an orbit.

 

[Machine]

You don’t think that’s a little suspicious?

First hand? yeaaaah maybe.

 

[Jonesey07]

'A player who throws his hand away without showing it forfeits his interest in the pot if the cards hit the muck without being turned over'
Cooke's Rules of Real Poker.

Yes the hand was tabled, then mucked after the other player stated he had the other two 6’s.

 

[Frogzilla]

If the table doesn’t know which sixes, as a last resort, I give him two random sixes.

I dunno bout this. If they aren’t retrievable (I.e you don’t know which cards they are) I think hand over

What if player A hadn’t shown both cards. What if he doesn’t show either card. At some point you have to kill the hand right (and potentially penalties)?

 

[Machine]

@Jonesey07 That's not explicit in the OPs post, but if it is the case, and player A IS all IN, then it has a life of its own and player A has no say in the hand, dig out ALL of the 6s from the muck and evaluate the hand

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

Can we all agree that Player C is a moron for picking up his cards and throwing them in the muck regardless of what we think the ruling is.

 

[upNdown]

Well, lets define 'mucked', what would be an adequate definition then?

Only the dealer can muck cards.

 

[Hornet]

I dunno bout this. If they aren’t retrievable (I.e you don’t know which cards they are) I think hand over

What if player A hadn’t shown both cards. What if he doesn’t show either card. At some point you have to kill the hand right (and potentially penalties)?

I agree with you if the hand hadn’t been tabled. Then player A gets a penalty, warning, etc.

But in my opinion, once a hand is tabled in a tournament, by definition it is a live hand. At a casino, they could go to the cameras. In a private game, if the cards really aren’t retrievable, it’s a tough situation. But if everyone at the table saw two sixes on the table, that’s what I would go with. And if there is a four flush on the board, then it really gets complicated …

 

[Machine]

Only the dealer can muck cards.

Don't play with me in a casino then, because I would accept your challenge =-D

 

[upNdown]

Don't play with me in a casino then, because I would accept your challenge =-D

I’m not sure if you’re joking or not, but I’m pretty sure that despite the common misconception that once cards hit the muck, they are mucked, the actual rule is that cards can only be mucked by the dealer.
I’ll see if I can find a rule.

 

[Machine]

if you’re joking or not

I am joking about intentional malice or trying to muck your cards, but I'm not joking when I say IF I were to toss my hand on yours it would 'muck' your cards, which is to say its not just a dealer that can muck cards.

I get there is a delineation between tournament and cash play. I also don't think its definitive that the hand was tabled.
The term used was 'revealed', not tabled, a bit ambiguous to me. (and the point of contention between the two camps commenting on the action)
'Player A then casually pitches his cards into the muck face down' - It doesn't say he picked them up or any hints that they were on the table and face up.
It also indicates that player A had more chips than player C, this has context on the ruling.

 

[Jonesey07]

The following situation came up in a live tournament a couple weeks ago:

Player A UTG: Has all relevant opponents covered. Opens for a standard 3x.

Player B UTG+1: Calls.

Player C BB: Jams all in for a 15 BB stack.

Player A calls rather quickly.

Player B takes for a few seconds then folds.

Cards are revealed. Player A has pocket sixes; Player C has KK. The entire table saw this.

Before the flop is dealt, Player B casually revealed that 'he had pocket sixes as well'.

For the love of God. YES THE HANDS WERE TABLED!!!!!

 

[Machine]

YES THE HANDS WERE TABLED!!!!!

I'm not the only one that didn't read it that way, it could be we are morons but it could also be the OP wasn't clear.

I think I've agreed if this is the case, how it should play out.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I haven't read all the responses yet but it's clear some additional context is needed.

This was Event #5 of a six-event league schedule. The vast majority of the players are regulars who've been in the league for a year+. The issue of collusion/chip-dumping is 100% a non-factor.

I try to run the game as close to what you'd find in a casino as I reasonably can. Game integrity is paramount.

I often employ dedicated dealers when I'm able to. In the absence of dedicated dealers, a player or two will almost always volunteer to serve as the dedicated player/dealer for the table while shuffling duties are passed around. At our table, Player A was the dedicated dealer that night.

This is why Player A, while UTG, was also the physical dealer in the hand.

To clarify:

Once the action was complete, both Player A and Player C's hole cards were tabled face up consistent with casino/tournament procedure.

Upon learning that Player B also held 2 sixes ('allegedly' if you want to go there... but I know Player B wouldn't lie), Player A then turned his cards over and mixed them in with the other mucked cards, making them irretrievable. His hole cards were exposed for not more than 2 or 3 seconds. The stub remained undisturbed.

So while we know he held two sixes, no one at the table (including Player A) could recall with 100% accuracy which two sixes he held. And since Player B also mucked two sixes, all four of them were mixed in with the dead cards.

We can debate the 'why' part of his action... maybe it was frustration... maybe a momentary lapse in judgement where he failed to realize he wasn't drawing completely dead. I don't think it's productive though to speculate about his motives. Player A is a good friend and man of integrity. There was no ill intention here.

So I guess the real question is: Is this a 'contested pot' or not? If not the correct decision is obvious.

And I supposed the player/dealer aspect of this whole thing makes this less of a 'what is the correct ruling' and more of a 'WWYD' type of scenario.

My question to you is what your plan was if there was controversy because you’re the one that insisted on the board being run when everyone else was content to have the hand be over.

No one else voiced an opinion - nor did I state as much in the OP. I'm not sure why you're making assumptions.

To answer your question: In the moment, since I witnessed Player A's hole cards personally, I ordered the board be dealt in accordance with procedure. Had the board run out favorably for Player A's sixes - i.e. a straight - I'd have awarded the pot to Player A. If the board resulted in a chop, I'd have split the pot.

I don't know if that's correct - just how I would have handled it in the moment.

I'd have just called clock and tanked until the break was over

So you'd have called the clock on yourself even though you're not in the hand? I'll remember that for next time

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

I haven't read all the responses yet but it's clear some additional context is needed.

This was Event #5 of a six-event league schedule. The vast majority of the players are regulars who've been in the league for a year+. The issue of collusion/chip-dumping is 100% a non-factor.

I try to run the game as close to what you'd find in a casino as I reasonably can. Game integrity is paramount.

I often employ dedicated dealers when I'm able to. In the absence of dedicated dealers, a player or two will almost always volunteer to serve as the dedicated player/dealer for the table while shuffling duties are passed around. At our table, Player A was the dedicated dealer that night.

This is why Player A, while UTG, was also the physical dealer in the hand.

To clarify:

Once the action was complete, both Player A and Player C's hole cards were tabled face up consistent with casino/tournament procedure.

Upon learning that Player B also held 2 sixes ('allegedly' if you want to go there... but I know Player B wouldn't lie), Player A then turned his cards over and mixed them in with the other mucked cards, making them irretrievable. His hole cards were exposed for not more than 2 or 3 seconds. The stub remained undisturbed.

So while we know he held two sixes, no one at the table (including Player A) could recall with 100% accuracy which two sixes he held. And since Player B also mucked two sixes, all four of them were mixed in with the dead cards.

We can debate the 'why' part of his action... maybe it was frustration... maybe a momentary lapse in judgement where he failed to realize he wasn't drawing completely dead. I don't think it's productive though to speculate about his motives. Player A is a good friend and man of integrity. There was no ill intention here.

So I guess the real question is: Is this a 'contested pot' or not? If not the correct decision is obvious.

And I supposed the player/dealer aspect of this whole thing makes this less of a 'what is the correct ruling' and more of a 'WWYD' type of scenario.



No one else voiced an opinion - nor did I state as much in the OP. I'm not sure why you're making assumptions.

To answer your question: In the moment, since I witnessed Player A's hole cards personally, I ordered the board be dealt in accordance with procedure. Had the board run out favorably for Player A's sixes - i.e. a straight - I'd have awarded the pot to Player A. If the board resulted in a chop, I'd have split the pot.

I don't know if that's correct - just how I would have handled it in the moment.



So you'd have called the clock on yourself even though you're not in the hand? I'll remember that for next time

Why does the player have that easy access AT ALL to the discard pile to mix them in like that.

 

[LotsOfChips]

True, B folded and mucked first. But when C picks his cards up, and tosses them face down into the muck I think he forfeits the pot.

Player C has the duty to protect his hand.

The biggest mistake was the OP making the dealer run it out after C mucked.

Can we all agree that Player C is a moron for picking up his cards and throwing them in the muck regardless of what we think the ruling is.

C didn't muck, A did

Only the dealer can muck cards.

Player A was the dealer, and he mucked his cards (after tabling them)

This is an interesting post. In a Cash Game, I would think that A could potentially have forfeited any claim to the pot once he tosses his cards, even though he tabled them first. RROP states "If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round... 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...". So in this case A appears to have decided to no longer compete for the pot.

However, RROP also states that "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. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player." So if the cards can be identified, A COULD identify the cards and play out the hand (if the floor/host agrees).

A tournament does seem to have slightly different rules, and TDA mentions this scenario specifically (as @Legend5555 mentioned above) . Rule 16 (2019 rules) states: "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 or her hand without tabling. All hands in both the main and side pot(s) must be tabled and are live." In this case A did follow the rules and tabled his hand, but then seemingly broke the rules by immediately mucking them before the flop (and he controlled the deck, so he compounded his error by not immediately dealing the rest of the cards face up).

I think in this case if the cards can be identified then they should be re-tabled and the run-out should be dealt. And in this case it should be somewhat easy to identify, as everyone at the table presumably saw them.

If suits can't be identified clearly and a flush came on the run-out involving one of the retrieved 6's, then things become messy.

If the cards cannot be identified, then I think the hand would have to be called dead and the pot awarded to C.

A should be given a verbal warning, as should B, as his interfering verbally in a hand that he was not live in affected the play (IMO).

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

C didn't muck, A did


Player A was the dealer, and he mucked his cards (after tabling them)

This is an interesting post. In a Cash Game, I would think that A could potentially have forfeited any claim to the pot once he tosses his cards, even though he tabled them first. RROP states "If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round... 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...". So in this case A appears to have decided to no longer compete for the pot.

However, RROP also states that "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. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player." So if the cards can be identified, A COULD identify the cards and play out the hand (if the floor/host agrees).

A tournament does seem to have slightly different rules, and TDA mentions this scenario specifically (as @Legend5555 mentioned above) . Rule 16 (2019 rules) states: "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 or her hand without tabling. All hands in both the main and side pot(s) must be tabled and are live." In this case A did follow the rules and tabled his hand, but then seemingly broke the rules by immediately mucking them before the flop (and he controlled the deck, so he compounded his error by not immediately dealing the rest of the cards face up).

I think in this case if the cards can be identified then they should be re-tabled and the run-out should be dealt. And in this case it should be somewhat easy to identify, as everyone at the table presumably saw them.

If suits can't be identified clearly and a flush came on the run-out involving one of the retrieved 6's, then things become messy.

If the cards cannot be identified, then I think the hand would have to be called dead and the pot awarded to C.

A should be given a verbal warning, as should B, as his interfering verbally in a hand that he was not live in affected the play (IMO).

I reversed the players in my post.

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

Why does the player have that easy access AT ALL to the discard pile to mix them in like that.

Because that player was also the dealer of the hand.

 

[LotsOfChips]

I reversed the players in my post.

LOL - Yup, you did!

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

Because that player was also the dealer of the hand.

Ahh ok missed he was the dedicated dealer maybe…..

 

[Moxie Mike]

No where did it say he actually tabled them.

Cards are revealed. Player A has pocket sixes; Player C has KK. The entire table saw this.

OK. I acknowledge that I didn't outright say that 'both hands were tabled' in the literal sense in the OP. But I think the quoted sentence is reasonable explicit given the context of the post. Basically everyone else figured it out right away so I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong.

 

[Machine]

So there is a distinction of cards being tabled, vs shown. I've seen player reveal their hand but not tabling it. Cards play, but only once they hit the table, not until then, even if they are exposed and you see them.

In the box as a dealer, you can't call a hand that isn't tabled.

With the tournament and the action, one could assume but its better to be explicit. Bluegrass wasn't the only one, you also added irretrievable, which could be interpreted in a few different ways as well.

 

[Legend5555]

So I would rule it as follows...

Note, I have no clue how a floor person at a tournament would or should do this, but this makes sense to me.

Since everyone saw the 66s, yet nobody can recall the suits, I'd give the player 2 random 66s. At this point as far as everyone is concerned, this player could have had any of the 66s. So random 66s won't make a difference to anyone. And if you want to argue, "but what if he makes a flush?" then you're missing the point of randomness. You could just as easily have given him random 66s that wouldn't make a flush.

One of the very last rules in the TDA says that the floor can use randomness...

 

[buzzmonkey]

How I would have ruled it.

• Cards are tabled, and therefore live.
• Live player with the 66s will have his cards retrieved and the board will be run out.
• If the cards cannot be accurately retrieved, the hand is over, the live player will be warned for folding out of turn, or given a penalty if previously warned.