blonde poker forum

Hi
this happened to a couple of my customers at another casino (Thankfully)


two players bet and call to the river where they both check, Player1 says you win and throws his cards face down over a line on the table (Not used as a bet line or a fold line) BUT it has not touched the muck, the dealer starts to ship the chips over to player 2 who shows King high, Player 1 then says i can beat that and reaches over and flips his cards to shows ace high.

The tournament director ruled in favor of player 1.

Player 2 was furious and said the Verbal declaration of "you win" and the throwing of his cards over the line constituted a fold and the chips should be his

I know the dealer should have mucked player 1s cards before shipping out the chips but think this is the correct decision

Would like to hear your views

When player 1 declares "you win" he concedes the pot imo.

No he doesn't.... cards speak. Tho it's a bit messy if he has thrown his cards face down. Should lose the pot and consider it a lesson learnt.

Nah, hate that rule buddy. Cos people speak. You bet. I say fold, but don't muck. You show a bluff. I now turn over a shit, but ultimately better hand. I now call. Cards speak?

surely once all the action is finished.... cards speak!!

[ ] that is in any way similar to the situation in op

in op there is a showdown and neither hand has been mucked

oh, and I would give a stupidity penalty to player 1. what part of the check check action on the river made them think they were losing here?

Right ruling. But bad dealing. Dealer should muck cards before shipping the pot.

Why do people muck their cards like this?

I'm with gatso and Rookie on this.  Player 1 needs a slap, and so does the dealer. 

Incorrect ruling imo.

At showdown players are under no obligation to table their hand if they don't want to do so. His action of throwing his cards face down constitutes him conceeding the pot. The dealer should take these cards and place them in the muck - the fact he failed to do so in this example is irrelevent.

Further, why did player 2 bother showing his cards? He is under no obligation to do so - he wins the pot as a result of the only player being left in the pot with live cards. Though whether he shows or not should have no affect on the outcome here.

Depends where you are on your second point.  I'm sure at DTD (and the Grosvenors I've played at, but I might be wrong) that you have to show your cards at showdown to claim the pot, even if everyone else has mucked their cards.  Think it's to reduce collusion (but might be wrong again).

They are if the rules state that there must be a showdown (which is the case in tournies in some establishments).

This is just wrong, at showdown a hand must be shown to claim the pot. That is why its called showdown.

James is correct. But the point is that when player 1 says "you win" and puts his hand face down he is declining the opportunity to show his hand down, and thus concedes the pot. If at this point player 2 shows down the nuts he would have no right to see player 1's cards. So in this respect it would be very easy for player 1 (who must act first) to angle-shoot, cos every time it goes check-check he says you win...sees player 2's cards...and then decides if he wants to show after the fact. So he only ever shows a winning hand but deprives player 2 of hand info whenever he loses.

Ka ching.

cards face down and over the line are dead and waiting to be mucked

i had an incident on an aqqxx board one night 1 player tables aq the other player flashes his cards at his mate to the left then places his cards face down over the line so i mucked them. the guy claimed to have aq after his cards were mucked which was verified by 4 players at the table (including independants) but he had killed his hand.

if in doubt, table your hands instead of mucking or declaring, that way its the dealers responsibility a responsibility you forfeit when you declare a loss or interfere with the dealers job

the ruling was right imho as the dealer had not mucked the cards - which the dealer should have done to prevent the grab and flip. however under strict play rules both hands would have to be tabled on request, A high should win it

What would your ruling have been Zac?

I had this happen to me the other day. Or at least a similar example.

In a four card Omaha pot, we have come to showdown and player 1 has asked player 2, "Have you got the top straight?"

He responds no, and shows  7d  9s

The board reads.  6d  2h  8s   9d   Tc

Player 1 then says, "You win."

However, he keeps his cards in his hands and after a pause just tosses them down onto the table.

I notice that, (having all landed face up) that he has  7s  Tc and announce that it is a split pot.

Player 2 was not impressed, however, I said that despite the fact that he said "You win.", his hand was tabled and the cards speak for themselves. In this situation, I think that despite his verbal passing and throwing down of cards, that they stand.

In this example whatever the player with A high said means nothing as his hand is still live as the dealer had not killed it and he was able to retrieve it.

In future the dealer should muck the cards before shipping the pot to the other player who must table 2 cards to win the pot!!

this

one of the first things i learnt playing poker was "the verbal declaration is binding"

Couldn't saying "you win" and then before the dealer kills your hand or you muck it turn it over to show the winning hand be construed as slow rolling.. and also  put you in line for a good solid beating?

agreed

This is correct imo. Once the cards have been tabled face up the verbal declaration by the player is irrelevent - the cards speak.

Obviously, a player intentionally misdeclaring his hand should be given some sort of penalty. In this instance though I'm more inclined to assume it was an honest mistake.

It's not a verbal declaration at showdown that's binding - it's the cards.  If you said "I have the nuts" it wouldn't be accepted unless your cards agreed with the statement.

Slow-rolling is bad, but if you've got the winning hand you still win the pot.  You might win a beating as well though.