|
Title: Ruling question Post by: ItsMrAlex2u on February 21, 2011, 01:53:33 PM Betting is irrelevant... but it is a sizeable pot
After the river there is a straight on the board and the 2 players in the hand go check/check. One guy says "straight" the other guy laughs and says "me too" and throws his hand to the dealer expecting the pot to be chopped, the dealer starts splitting the pot and The guy who said "straight" starts going on about the hand being mucked, which it was - however is the mucking of the hand irrelevant as the guy is playing the board? Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: Cf on February 21, 2011, 01:59:30 PM Mucked hand is dead. Pot goes to the player who tabled his hand.
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: doubleup on February 21, 2011, 02:02:42 PM Mucked hand is dead. Pot goes to the player who tabled his hand. yup - you must show your hand to win a pot, lesson hopefully learned by the mucking player. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: StuartHopkin on February 21, 2011, 02:04:06 PM Mucked hand is dead. Pot goes to the player who tabled his hand. Sigh at enforcing that rule in this situation Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: Cf on February 21, 2011, 02:04:48 PM Mucked hand is dead. Pot goes to the player who tabled his hand. Sigh at enforcing that rule in this situation Well... if a ruling is called for then this is pretty much how it has to go down. If it was me playing i'd probably tell him what the rule is but happily split the pot anyway. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: david3103 on February 21, 2011, 02:11:06 PM Pretty low move to claim the pot imho
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: kinboshi on February 21, 2011, 02:16:27 PM We know the 'me too' guy had a straight?
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: StuartHopkin on February 21, 2011, 02:18:11 PM Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: ItsMrAlex2u on February 21, 2011, 02:18:36 PM But if the actual two cards in your hand arent part of the winning hand then surely it doesnt matter?
Isnt there a story (probably a myth) about TJ Cloutier winning a pot without actually holding any cards at all....? The pot was reluctantly chopped without a ruling being asked for as the table told the guy that he was out of order. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: ItsMrAlex2u on February 21, 2011, 02:19:39 PM Whoosh... Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: smashedagain on February 21, 2011, 02:23:53 PM i played a large cash pot in the holland casino amsterdam about 9 years ago. probably will have been fixed limit back then but the board ran out AAKKx. i showed the Ace and mucked my other card. they gave the pot to the other player who was local and a woman. lesson learned
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: cambridgealex on February 21, 2011, 02:56:22 PM Once the player has thrown his cards facedown towards the muck, the dealer should scoop them and put them in the muck. Once that has happened there is no way he can claim any part of the pot. However if the cards are just lying there in the middle of the table, the player can retrieve them once he realises his mistake. It is then a dealer error for not mucking them and he can then turn the face up, show that he is playing the board as well, and claim half the pot.
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: MANTIS01 on February 21, 2011, 03:10:34 PM But if the actual two cards in your hand arent part of the winning hand then surely it doesnt matter? Isnt there a story (probably a myth) about TJ Cloutier winning a pot without actually holding any cards at all....? The pot was reluctantly chopped without a ruling being asked for as the table told the guy that he was out of order. There could be duplicate cards or some kinda foul deck so cards have to be displayed. Also the guy who shows his hand is at a disadvantage if the other guy doesn't show in terms of info. Only small points but is the reason why cards must be shown to claim a pot. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: outragous76 on February 21, 2011, 03:13:05 PM go explain the rules to the guy in the car park!
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: doubleup on February 21, 2011, 03:22:25 PM go explain the rules to the guy in the car park! what? This isn't really an angle by the player who showed, anyone who has made the least effort to learn the rules of poker knows that you have to show your cards at showdown (for the reasons Mantis noted). I'd prob split but I'd make sure the guy knew he was in the wrong and i wouldn't split if a similar thing happened again. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: George2Loose on February 21, 2011, 03:24:37 PM I'd just ask the guy to turn his hand over and chop and explain to him that he always has to show to claim a pot
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: Girgy85 on February 21, 2011, 04:24:18 PM No way would I be chopping the pot If I had tabled my hand and the other guy had mucked his cards.
Rules state you must show two cards to claim a pot even when playing the board. Harsh but the guy would quickly learn his lesson!! Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: SuuPRlim on February 21, 2011, 05:04:09 PM the TJ clouiter story goes like this (not sure it was actually him tho...)
He's involved in a pot for a large % of his stack when he realizes that the dealer has taken his cards, he then puts his hands on the table to conceal the place where his cards WOULD BE so it looks like he just covering his cards with his hands. He then went all in or jammed on someone w/e and everyone folded and he got the pot :) The difference here is that its a SHOWDOWN, in order to win at SHOWDOWN, you have to show your cards SIMPLES. Reasoning for this is as MANTIS says its just an opportunity to police for foul play. SHOWDOWN = SHOW BOTH CARDS and there are no exceptions. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: ScotlandStu on February 21, 2011, 05:12:43 PM It wasn't TJ. Either Jack Strause or Amarillo Slim. My memory ain't too good these days. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: highmile on February 21, 2011, 05:22:53 PM I have heard the phrase 'I'm playing the board' used with 2 checks after the river and seen the pot split.
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: gatso on February 21, 2011, 05:39:30 PM cash or tourney? think most places would chop it up in a cash game but the mucked hand's gotta be dead in a tourney
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: ItsMrAlex2u on February 21, 2011, 06:02:18 PM cash or tourney? think most places would chop it up in a cash game but the mucked hand's gotta be dead in a tourney Why should it make any difference? Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: doubleup on February 21, 2011, 06:22:46 PM cash or tourney? think most places would chop it up in a cash game but the mucked hand's gotta be dead in a tourney Why should it make any difference? cos the rule is that you have to show to get the money - the player with cards can split as a concession in cash, but he simply doesn't have the authority to offer a split in a tourney because his decision affects everyone in the tourney. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: china mug on February 22, 2011, 03:12:48 PM TWO CARDS HAVE TO BE SHOWN TO CLAIM A POT,IF YOU RELAX THAT RULE HOW LONG BEFORE A CHEAT THROWS HIS CARDS INTO THE MUCK WHEATHER ITS A PLAY THE BOARD SITUATION OR NOT AND ACTUALEY KEEPS ONE CARD BACK IN ORDER TO CHEAT THEN WHEN FEARFUL HES ABOUT TO BE EXPOSED MUCKS THREE CARDS STRAIGHT INTO DISCARDED PILE IF DEALER IS SLOPPY,....PLAYER PASSES DEALER SHOULD SPREAD CARDS FACE DOWN TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE TWO THEN INTO MUCK
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: cambridgealex on February 22, 2011, 03:33:58 PM CAN'T YOU ALL SEE IT NOW?
Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: kinboshi on February 22, 2011, 04:33:01 PM CAN'T YOU ALL SEE IT NOW? YES, GLAD THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED. Title: Re: Ruling question Post by: ItsMrAlex2u on February 22, 2011, 07:28:46 PM CAN'T YOU ALL SEE IT NOW? YES, GLAD THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED. LOL, THANKS, ALTHOUGH STARTING TO WISH I HADNT ASKED |