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

[Steppenwolf]

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.

TDA suggested rules... Rule 19: Playing the Board at Showdown. To play the board, a player must table all hole cards to get part of the pot (See Rule 13-A).

 

[Steppenwolf]

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.

Apart from these rules, it could be viewed as equitable for a person's oral declaration of playing the board (as their stated intent) to be respected and "deemed" equivalent to a tabled hand, but any mucking of cards simultaneously sends the "I fold" message of intent. So, the two are in conflict. In contract law, provisions are generally afforded their stated meaning, in order to achieve the goal of interpreting the agreement in accordance with the drafter's intent (generally without looking to outside evidence). But when contract terms contradict one another, an interpretation must be given, if possible, if that interpretation does not render any other provision meaningless. Here, the two possible interpretations of intent cancel each other out. So you simply have to decide which statement controls the other or whether you will consider additional evidence of intent to decide the issue. That might be asking the player (on their honor) what they intended. But I tend to agree with @BGinGA that the muck should control, rather than the verbal statement, because, among other things, it seems likely the mucking player intended to fold (and was merely admitting defeat with his "I play the board" statement). Out of curiosity, did the player in your game happen to take the stance that he did not intend to yield the pot when he did this? If you ask and he says yes, then I think you've got to chop it. If he says no, then he gets none. If you don't ask, then you can decide what is most equitable.

 

[bsdunbar1]

Player B was fully expecting a chop and knew Player A's intent, the "muck" was irrelevant to the play.
BUT
Another player asked "Heck if you muck isn't your hand dead"? And that is what sparked the conversation/questions.

 

[abby99]

I've seen a couple of references to TDA rules ITT, but AFAIK those apply to tournaments only. Wasn't this a cash game?

Technically, if the floor (host) rules the mucked hand dead and the other player offers to split the pot, isn't that considered to be going south?

I must be in a nitty mood today.

 

[WedgeRock]

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.

Was waiting for someone to quote this very rule.

Thank you.

I've seen a couple of references to TDA rules ITT, but AFAIK those apply to tournaments only. Wasn't this a cash game?

And this.

(And yes, giving another player half the pot after being awarded to you is going south, but in a friendly home game with the money staying on the table, I'd allow it.)

But I tend to agree with @BGinGA that the muck should control, rather than the verbal statement

So when actions and verbal statements contradict, verbal does not control?

 

[Prenders17]

I think there’s a rule that says if retrievable, the cards can be turned over. If not, they’re dead. But in a friendly home game, id let it play and clarify the rule for the future.

 

[Steppenwolf]

I've seen a couple of references to TDA rules ITT, but AFAIK those apply to tournaments only. Wasn't this a cash game?

Technically, if the floor (host) rules the mucked hand dead and the other player offers to split the pot, isn't that considered to be going south?

I must be in a nitty mood today.

Great point. I overlooked the cash vs. tournament aspect. Our home games are usually tournaments.

 

[WedgeRock]

Some of our players play tournaments like cash games, so...

 

[JustinInMN]

Showdown and mucking are mutually exclusive. If you want to do one you can't do the other.

It's amazing how many players don't understand this.

But players are so fearful of sharing information for whatever reason.

 

[Steppenwolf]

The cost of a showdown is revealing to the other players the trash (or treasures) in your hand. A player certainly should not be allowed to hold back that information in a showdown and still receive any benefit.

 

[Trihonda]

(And yes, giving another player half the pot after being awarded to you is going south, but in a friendly home game with the money staying on the table, I'd allow it.)

I know there was a thread about this, but I disagree.. I consider going South, removing chips from play, as a means of protecting potential profits achieved or mitigating loss... I dont see that agreeing to “chop a pot” as uncouth or against the rules, especially in a friendly home game.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I know there was a thread about this, but I disagree.. I consider going South, removing chips from play, as a means of protecting potential profits achieved or mitigating loss... I dont see that agreeing to “chop a pot” as uncouth or against the rules, especially in a friendly home game.

Agreed. If no chips or money left the game how can it be going south?

 

[WedgeRock]

I dont see that agreeing to “chop a pot” as uncouth or against the rules, especially in a friendly home game.

It's not agreeing to chop the pot. It's winning the pot and giving half of it away.

If I have $100, you have $50 and Abby has $25, and you and Abby get all in with some dead money in the pot (total pot is $75) and you win and should have $100 (the extra $25 in your stack + the $75 pot).

If you and I get in a pot the very next hand and I stack you, I now have $200.

If you win the pot with Abby but give her $25 back, you only have $75 in front if you and if I stack you the next hand, I only win $75 and get $175 in front of me. You took $25 off the table and gave it to Abby for $25, its pretty clear.

If you want to give Abby $25, take it out of your pocket. Then you still have $100 at risk for the next hand.

It's taking money off the table. I wouldn't (and haven't) argued in a home game. Try doing that in a casino, though, and see what happens.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Uhhgggg....
Is the guy new, or doesn't play that often? If so, and depending on your home game I'd retrieve the hand, and inform him of the error. With the other's-involved blessing, I split the pot accordingly to button position for an uneven chop.
If he's played a while, no way do I refund him anything. And inform him a mucked hand is a losing hand. And under 99.9% of the situations the table felt is a black hole. NO INFORMATION IS RETRIEVABLE FROM IT.

 

[1A25R]

Hand is dead.
It may suck at a "friendly game" but it will be a good lesson.

1) you need cards to claim the pot or part of it
2) player folds, only dealer muck cards.
3) if it's a tournament player must show both cards.

Lessons for host.
State which rules are being used at his game and refers to those rules when ruling is needed.

 

[Gobbs]

...and this is why the dealer must protect the muck at all times. Players should never be able to muck their own hands. Players fold or discard their hands. Dealers muck hands.

With that knowledge, the RRoP rule about declaring you are playing the board (which is my first rule set, but I was not aware of that rule (or forgot about it)), and what appears to be a declaration of playing the board first before discarding he hand, I’d allow the split pot.

This is why proper dealing procedures are so important.

 

[1A25R]

Last tournament that I hosted, I printed a small sheet with a small 4 lines FAQ, with the most common mistakes/situations and I added the ruling of those to avoid calling the "floor" every 30 minutes. Ex: exposed card, misdeal, all-in when player has not enough chips for a legal raise and dealer duties (help to read the board, collect the pot, muck the cards, separate burnt cards from mucked ones )

When 3rd table spitted, some of the occasional players that consider that "we took this too seriously", came to my table and started joking about the FAQ "didn't you read rule x blah blah blah. You should do this because rule say blah blah blah"

1 hour later, one of the the guys, fucked up, grab the folded cards and put them on top of his own cards.
The guy at his right opened the pot and he went:.. huuuu.. Where are my cards...??

My answer: - As I know that you did read the FAQ, because you where laughing at it, now you know that your hand is dead so action it's to seat 6 ...
He did not even tried to argue...

 

[Gobbs]

Many players laugh at “rule nazis” until the rules bite them in the rear (or save their rear).

 

[Jimulacrum]

I see that RRoP rule, and I think it's the worst rule I've seen in there to date. If I have a one-card nut flush, I can't just show the . I have to show the and the even though the queen doesn't play. It doesn't matter if I announce in advance that I'm playing only one card. Show both or GTFO. If that rule is important enough to enforce, why allow any exception, even if there's a pat hand on board?

It's not only about verifying everyone has a live hand. It's also about information. Why should someone be able to make a claim on the pot at showdown without even revealing his hand?

That said, I can see this being an honest mistake sometimes. As host, I'll allow him one free pass if he would in fact get half the pot regardless of his cards. If it happens again, he's making the choice to forfeit half the pot. I'm not there to swoop in and rescue him from his own stupidity all night.

In a casino, dead hand all day, provided there isn't a dumb rule like the RRoP thing to save him. Other guy scoops.

Spoiler: Here there be rants.

As to these other examples of people throwing their hands in the muck and then claiming they had a win or split afterward: I'm never giving my opponent any portion of the pot for an unseen, irretrievable hand.

Presenting your hand to claim the pot is part of the game. If you're so averse to tabling your hand that you pitch it in the muck before you're even sure what you have, that's your problem. You're in control of your cards, no one else. Your unwillingness to table your hand doesn't and shouldn't obligate your opponents to take your word later or share any pots with you.

While we're here, why should anyone trust a player about the contents of his mucked hand after he couldn't even read his hand properly when it was right in front of him? Ten seconds ago, dude supposedly couldn't tell that he had A3 on a 278xx board, but suddenly he's sure he had the nut low after he makes it impossible to verify. GTFOOH. Other guy scoops, next hand please.

 

[softchewy]

...and this is why the dealer must protect the muck at all times. Players should never be able to muck their own hands. Players fold or discard their hands. Dealers muck hands.

With that knowledge, the RRoP rule about declaring you are playing the board (which is my first rule set, but I was not aware of that rule (or forgot about it)), and what appears to be a declaration of playing the board first before discarding he hand, I’d allow the split pot.

This is why proper dealing procedures are so important.

As the house, are you ruling a split pot or are you ruling the mucked hand dead, but allowing the players to split if they think it is fair?
If the hand hit the muck first (and for arguments sake, not easily retrievable), then 2 seconds later the player says I'm playing the board, should the hand be ruled dead instead of a split or does the verbal still take precedence even if the cards were mucked first?

 

[abby99]

How successful are most home game players in controlling the muck from one of the end seats on a full-size oval table? I can't do it.

 

[softchewy]

How successful are most home game players in controlling the muck from one of the end seats on a full-size oval table? I can't do it.

Definitely difficult in a self dealt game.
Players are responsible to protect their hand until the hand is over if they want to claim stake to any portion of the pot.
Dealer should muck, but if a player mucks, it's dead.
If you are claiming any part of the pot, you should be required to show your hole cards (even if you are playing the board).... unless I have a rule that states a player can announce they are playing the board prior to releasing/mucking their hand and are then allowed to muck before the pot is awarded. In that case I would still consider them live (even with no hole cards) as per that rule.

 

[Han Trinh]

In a friendly game among friends, give a stern warning and split the pot.
In a higher stakes game, have to show both cards. A muck is a muck and his hand is dead.