Cash Game What is the ruling on this action (1 Viewer)

[bsdunbar1]

Heads up NLHE
Boards runs out A 2 3 4 5
Players check check, its pretty obvious both players are playing the board
After both checking player A says "I'm playing the board" and throws his cards in the muck

Is his hand dead since he mucked his cards?
Do you have to show your cards in this instance?

 

[arch3r]

You have a 1 card in your deck

 

[bsdunbar1]

You have a 1 card in your deck

HAHA, fixed post.
You meant what I knew

 

[TheBigTater]

Card must be tabled to win the pot, even if you're not playing any of them. This is to make sure player has a legal hand/number of cards.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Have to have a hand at showdown.

 

[CantSpellPoker]

Easiest pot Player B has ever won....

 

[APatHand]

I am torn between splitting the pot and administering a stern admonishment to the player that mucked and

being a rules badass that says a player must have two cards to claim the pot, or a portion thereof.

 

[Jonesey07]

Friendly home game or serious casino game?

 

[detroitdad]

I think if this was at my home game and "IF" his cards were easily identified then I would allow them to play. If they got mixed up in the muck, or they couldn't be CLEARLY identified he would forfeit any chance at the pot.

 

[Steppenwolf]

Heads up NLHE
Boards runs out A 2 3 4 5
Players check check, its pretty obvious both players are playing the board
After both checking player A says "I'm playing the board" and throws his cards in the muck

Is his hand dead since he mucked his cards?
Do you have to show your cards in this instance?

According to the Poker TDA Rules, I believe mucked cards are always dead, and in the event of a showdown, a player must always show both cards to win the pot. So, he loses on both accounts.

 

[APatHand]

His actions need to be interpreted as ignorance or rude behavior.
Ignorance can be excused, once.
Rude behavior, well

 

[bentax1978]

Easiest pot Player B has ever won....

Was playing 2/5 last night and had a (different) mucking situation which turned out to be kind of funny.

Board is AA334.

Player 1 turns over 22, laughs, but doesn't say anything else (he knows he's playing the board)

Player 2, listening to his headphones while getting a table massage, and just generally not paying attention, mucks his hands.

Aside from the 1 in 1000 chance Player 2 has the last two deuces in the deck, he literally wins the entire pot by showing any two cards.

 

[bsdunbar1]

Friendly home game or serious casino game?

Friendly home game. Not a big pot because it was checked to the river, but we do like to play by the rules.
I wasn't sure if the hold cards were relevant since they weren't being used.

 

[CraigT78]

Friendly home game. Not a big pot because it was checked to the river, but we do like to play by the rules.
I wasn't sure if the hold cards were relevant since they weren't being used.

Friendly home game and I split the pot with a Stern warning that cards must be tabled to win/tie. This is covered in my "good for the game" catch-all rule.

 

[Jonesey07]

Friendly home game. Not a big pot because it was checked to the river, but we do like to play by the rules.
I wasn't sure if the hold cards were relevant since they weren't being used.

Friendly home game and I split the pot with a Stern warning that cards must be tabled to win/tie. This is covered in my "good for the game" catch-all rule.

I agree with @CraigT78.

 

[Trihonda]

Friendly home game and I split the pot with a Stern warning that cards must be tabled to win/tie. This is covered in my "good for the game" catch-all rule.

Yup this.

 

[detroitdad]

Friendly home game and I split the pot with a Stern warning that cards must be tabled to win/tie. This is covered in my "good for the game" catch-all rule.

If I'm the other player in the hand. I would probably do this. However, if I'm the host, and it is two different players in the hand then I will rule his hand dead unless they are clearly identifiable.

If the other guy wants to split the pot with him that would be fine.

 

[bsdunbar1]

If I'm the other player in the hand. I would probably do this. However, if I'm the host, and it is two different players in the hand then I will rule his hand dead unless they are clearly identifiable.

If the other guy wants to split the pot with him that would be fine.

In a friendly home game we have done this before.

I had this happen last week in a SOHE game. I scooped the pot and after the hand was clearly over the other player said "Wait I had XXX"
Everyone at the table said "Yep you sure did" I gave him half the pot.

Everyone gave me shit because that was not the rules, the hand was over.
I told them the ruling was that his hand was dead, and I elected to give him half the chips.
Its a game with friends and of course I am trying to take all his money, but I hate to tempt the karma gods.

 

[Steppenwolf]

Catch all rule does give you that discretion to split the pot, which I agree with (along with the stern warning) for a home game ... unless the mucking player had previously been warned of the rule or was willing to yield the pot without too much of a fight.

 

[detroitdad]

In a friendly home game we have done this before.

I had this happen last week in a SOHE game. I scooped the pot and after the hand was clearly over the other player said "Wait I had XXX"
Everyone at the table said "Yep you sure did" I gave him half the pot.

Everyone gave me shit because that was not the rules, the hand was over.
I told them the ruling was that his hand was dead, and I elected to give him half the chips.
Its a game with friends and of course I am trying to take all his money, but I hate to tempt the karma gods.

I did this with a friend a few years ago. I think it was @Marc Hedrick ? PLO8 game at Stokes house. He mucked his cards, then realized he had a low. It was a 200ish pot. I believed him, gave him half the pot.

 

[CraigT78]

If I'm the other player in the hand. I would probably do this. However, if I'm the host, and it is two different players in the hand then I will rule his hand dead unless they are clearly identifiable.

If the other guy wants to split the pot with him that would be fine.

As the host I have to make decisions that are good for my game. Knowing my players, not all would be aware that mucking their cards while stating "I'm playing the board" would cause them to lose the hand. I don't want, as the host, put splitting the pot on another player. That's my call.

If I were in your game, and you called it the other way, I'm cool with it, not my game. But this would be the wrong call in my game.

 

[detroitdad]

As the host I have to make decisions that are good for my game. Knowing my players, not all would be aware that mucking their cards while stating "I'm playing the board" would cause them to lose the hand. I don't want, as the host, put splitting the pot on another player. That's my call.

If I were in your game, and you called it the other way, I'm cool with it, not my game. But this would be the wrong call in my game.

I wouldn't put it on the other player to split the pot. I would make a ruling and roll with it. Hope drunk Andy would learn his lesson. I would never bring it up that the other player could split it if they wanted to. That is putting pressure on someone and that isn't good for the game.

 

[Jonesey07]

As the host I have to make decisions that are good for my game. Knowing my players, not all would be aware that mucking their cards while stating "I'm playing the board" would cause them to lose the hand. I don't want, as the host, put splitting the pot on another player. That's my call.

If I were in your game, and you called it the other way, I'm cool with it, not my game. But this would be the wrong call in my game.

That's the good thing about knowing your players.

 

[CraigT78]

I wouldn't put it on the other player to split the pot. I would make a ruling and roll with it. Hope drunk Andy would learn his lesson. I would never bring it up that the other player could split it if they wanted to. That is putting pressure on someone and that isn't good for the game.

I agree with this, the host shouldn't pressure another player to make a decision if already ruled.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

I wouldn't put it on the other player to split the pot. I would make a ruling and roll with it. Hope drunk Andy would learn his lesson. I would never bring it up that the other player could split it if they wanted to. That is putting pressure on someone and that isn't good for the game.

Agreed, the ruling shouldn't suggest that the player has an opportunity to rule how he wants---that's on him and the winner of the pot should never feel any pressure to give up what's rightfully his.

P.S.--It was me you gave half the pot to, and it was appreciated---of course never expected. I would do the same for the regulars in our home game group, but never at the casino of course.

 

[BGinGA]

A hand in the muck is dead, and a player must show the correct number of cards at showdown to win any portion of the pot.

Good rules, for good reasons. Always followed at my games. And understood by the players, too.

 

[timinater]

Am I interpreting this wrong?

from the Hold'em section RRoP

6. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot.

As I read it that allows for someone to declare the board, muck and still claim half the pot.

 

[Lemonzest]

Friendly home game and I split the pot with a Stern warning that cards must be tabled to win/tie. This is covered in my "good for the game" catch-all rule.

I am with you on this one.

 

[APatHand]

Am I interpreting this wrong?

from the Hold'em section RRoP

6. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot.

As I read it that allows for someone to declare the board, muck and still claim half the pot.

The dealer/pot administrator must have a pretty clear idea of who was in and who wasn't in such a pot.
I can envision a full table chorus of "I play the board".

 

[bsdunbar1]

Am I interpreting this wrong?

from the Hold'em section RRoP

6. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot.

As I read it that allows for someone to declare the board, muck and still claim half the pot.

Yep, it's in there & I would agree with your interpretation.
I would prefer, and think it is easier to manage, to go with - show 2 cards to win any pot.