78s in the cut off (2 Viewers)

[MoscowRadio]

I'm with Ben. The 9 brings in JT and could be used as a scare card against Villain.

I hope everything goes well with your friend's procedure. It's nice of you to be watching out for him.

 

[grandgnu]

Bet $15-20

 

[DrStrange]

*** Just when we thought it was over ***

Ok, the consensus is bet. Hero bets $20. Villain snap calls.

Hero tables his hand without comment. {Notable that whenever Hero tables a bluff, he does so proudly and with authority. Hero never reads the board for the table, just waits for them to process the information.} No one says anything for the moment. Villain looks over the tabled hand and then mucks. Maybe three seconds pass before someone says, "its only eight high! You can't beat that?" Villain realizes he has made a mistake, says he held AQ and then grabs what appear to be his cards and flips over .

Let's stipulate that villain did officially muck, even he would agree that the hand was tossed face down in the middle of the table and associated with the other mucked cards. We also "know" that villain didn't call $20 with less than eight high, villain's fold was a mistake. Villain's claimed hand is his actual hand.

I remind everyone that A) this is a long running friendly home game, B) villain is the host, C) Villain is on pain meds from a surgery last month, D) do not discount the level of distraction caused by the sports on TV, I am sure some players have no clue villain mucked and reclaimed his hand {not that being ignorant of the circumstances will deter them from having opinions} and E) Villain is going to act as the floor and offer a ruling since he his the host.

So, what should Hero do?

DrStrange

 

[Mr Tree]

I'd probably let him take the pot. Obviously he had you beat and made a mistake. It's not a ton of money and these are friendly regulars.

By the same token though I wouldn't think someone was out of line if they said, "no way, you mucked. This is my pot."

 

[grandgnu]

So, what should Hero do?

DrStrange

Villain is going to act as the floor and offer a ruling since he his the host. (i.e. abide by the ruling of the floor)

 

[DrStrange]

Yes villain will rule, but Hero will likely have time to advocate a point of view.

DrStrange

 

[grandgnu]

Yes villain will rule, but Hero will likely have time to advocate a point of view.

DrStrange

Well then, OPTAH

Maybe three seconds pass before someone says, "its only eight high! You can't beat that?" Villain realizes he has made a mistake, says he held AQ and then grabs what appear to be his cards and flips over .

 

[Ben]

Villain should be shipping the pot to you without comment. ESPECIALLY as the host.

If he doesn't, well, my only comment would be "floor's decision." I'm not offering him the pot, and I'm not going to tell him he shouldn't have it, either.

 

[Mental Nomad]

On the play - that's why I advocated a $10 river bet. If villain was going to fold, $10 would likely do it. Betting more is just extra risk, when trying to take the pot with a sure loser.

On advocating an outcome - absolutely do not argue that you should have the pot, unless you want to be as welcome a douche who steals candy from babies and canes from the elderly.

I'd suggest saying something like, "I know you mucked your hand, but that was clearly a mistake. I'll let you decide how to handle this. After all, you're the host, so you get to rule on it, anyway." And leave it totally in their hands.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

On advocating an outcome - absolutely do not argue that you should have the pot, unless you want to be as welcome a douche who steals candy from babies and canes from the elderly.

I'd suggest saying something like, "I know you mucked your hand, but that was clearly a mistake. I'll let you decide how to handle this. After all, you're the host, so you get to rule on it, anyway." And leave it totally in their hands.

If I were the host and villain, I would ship you the pot. I made a major mistake by mucking, and pushing you the pot sets a standard that I would like all my players to expect (and demonstrate) in my games.

If I were the host but not in the hand, I would ship the pot to Villain with a warning to table his hand at showdown if he wants to compete for the pot (assuming this is a one-off and not something that Villain does regularly). Poker is not "Gotcha," Villain had the best hand, this is a friendly home game, and the pain meds/distraction provide significant extenuating circumstances.

If I were Hero, I would surrender the pot to Villain for the same reasons listed above.

OTOH, if this were a casino game and I was Hero, I would be using the mucked hand and OPTAH arguments to ensure that the floor awarded me the pot.

 

[BGinGA]

Although I like really like Schmendr1ck's response (pretty classy, bro), I'd probably look Villain in the eye with a grin and say "okay, let's run it twice.... I win the first one (where you mucked), and you win the second one (with your retrieved hand). Chop it up!"

And in the confines of a friendly game with drugs and alcohol involved, there are worse decisions than chopping a pot when somebody makes a huge error.

 

[snooptodd]

I've had similar things happen in my home game, which plays at similar stakes. It's a friendly game and there's no real "floor" as we all rotate hosting duties. So long as the hand is retrievable, the best hand wins the pot in my game. There would be a discussion, but the group would eventually reach a consensus that awarding the pot to the best hand is the right decision.

 

[AlPresidente]

I agree with Nomad. Villain had the best hand and called with it and it's not significant money. Let him decide if he wants to take the pot or not.

 

[grandgnu]

I agree with Nomad. Villain had the best hand and called with it and it's not significant money. Let him decide if he wants to take the pot or not.

Does the amount of money involved change what is correct or incorrect in this situation?

 

[snooptodd]

Does the amount of money involved change what is correct or incorrect in this situation?

Probably doesn't change what's correct, but does change what is right. The tone of the game has an impact on how rules should be interpreted and enforced, and the stakes play a role in that.

Semantics FTW!

 

[AlPresidente]

Does the amount of money involved change what is correct or incorrect in this situation?

Sure. It's a small, friendly game; the telly's on, presumably we have some novice players who expect to lose a few bucks and are just having fun. Throwing RROP about kind of wrecks the game.
If it's a $500 pot in a serious game against a decent opponent, he mucked and I want to rake my pot and will argue it.

 

[DrStrange]

*** The end ***

Hero mucks and shoves the pot to villain. Hero knew he had the worst hand, no matter what villain might have called with. There is no realistic question that villain might have somehow "pulled the rabbit out of the hat".

How far out of it was villain? About 15 minutes later he either figured out what happened {or perhaps felt guilty?} and tossed Hero $20 which was politely declined.

Here we see why Hero is less than enthusiastic about trying to bluff his way to victory in this game. Villain calls three streets of chunky bets with 2nd pair / top kicker. Far better to value bet villains like this till they are bled dry than try to bluff them. "once and done" is about all that seems prudent with regards to bluffing these folks.

DrStrange

 

[Mental Nomad]

Far better to value bet villains like this till they are bled dry than try to bluff them. "once and done" is about all that seems prudent with regards to bluffing these folks.

Agreed. If he had a busted draw, a small river bet might take him out. If he has a small piece of the board, even a large bet is unlikely to fold him. Our busted draw can't beat anything in a showdown.

So perhaps bluff small when it might steal a pot (like this river), but mostly just value bet, value bet, value bet, when appropriate.