Dispute? ruled right or Wrong

[ZAC]

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

[MANTIS01]

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

[celtic]

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.

[MANTIS01]

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?

[celtic]

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

[gatso]

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?

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

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

[gatso]

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?

[Rookie (Rodney)]

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

[kinboshi]

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. 

[Cf]

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.

[kinboshi]

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).

[doubleup]

Incorrect ruling imo.

At showdown players are under no obligation to table their hand if they don't want to do so.

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

[Royal Flush]

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.

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

[relaedgc]

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

Ka ching.