Showdown Drama (1 Viewer)

[Rakrul]

Sounds like you want to award the pot to an obvious losing hand for some reason. If the dealer mucks V1's cards how can you say they are not dead, they are, what are they, where are they, I don't know they are not on the table anymore, did V1 show an invalid hand, I don't know its gone. How can you say the dealer can't kill a V1's hand, its gone, it's killed, it's in the muck. Also, if your willing to go to great lengths to retrieve and make live an obvious losing hand by digging V1's cards out of the muck, why not do the same for V2 and dig his cards out and show them. Or flip the entire discard pile over and show no irregular cards. No way in hell V1 should win this pot, V1 lost, the second V2 gave his cards to the dealer, the dealer should have exposed the two hole cards and awarded the pot to V2. This is a dealer error for not having the two cards be exposed before awarding the pot. This is a game with exposed cards at all times, so we know that V2 hand is the winner, the only way V1 could have won the pot at this point is if V2's hand is invalid, and even in the muck I think this could have been verified as not the case. No way a casino is awarding the pot to a losing hand that is currently in the muck pile based on a dealer error like not exposing the two hole cards when the winning hand was visible to the entire table.

I want to award the pot to the only living hand, if the correct winner's hand can't be recreated.

So if the dealer doesn't like the player he can just insta-muck the winning hand and the player is shit out of luck?
And it's not like everyone's memory is magically wiped when the dealer touch the cards.

What if V2 has a fouled hand, like 2x9c? Does he still get the pot?

 

[Darthhoodie]

No that's why the rule exists but you can verify that its not the case very easily and I would rather do that than award the pot to the losing hand in the muck.
Also how is a hand in the muck live, its not, V1 should have protected his hand. In your scenario where the dealer doesn't like the player all the player has to do is not allow the cards to be mucked, its the players responsibility to protect his hand, you quoted this earlier in the post. If I am V1 i don't give up may hand until I see V2's cards. If I am the dealer I do not award the pot until I have the two hole cards exposed, still not awarding the pot to V1.

 

[BGinGA]

Hang on, why would V1 make a crying call with trips showing? He cant beat what the guy is showing, why would he call? Maybe OP just mixed something up. Also, I dont know how to play hollywood, so if there is something that would make the trips not play, of course V2 needs to show his hand to win.

V2 wins pot. V1 has a valid argument, but wtf? V2's cards should be exposed first. Both players deserve KITN. Next hand, please.

You have it backwards. V1 bluff-bet on the river with two pair and V2 called with trip 7s. V1's cards were first tabled and then mucked by the dealer as the losing hand.

V2 tossed his hole cards to the dealer instead of tabling them. All the dealer has to do is return them to be tabled by V2 and then award the pot.

 

[Geremie]

Just to add some clarity, V1s cards were mucked when it was known that it could not be a winning hand.

V2s cards were passed to the dealer (not mucked or mixed with any other cards) and were beside the community cards when all of this discussion started. There was 0% chance that V2s hand was compromised in any way with other cards.

The argument was around “table a winning hand” vs “table all cards”. And that the player (V2) didn’t influence any cards being shown (i.e. showing one of two in hold’em)

Clearer rules and better execution would have avoided this.

Also, dealing Hero the Ad would have also helped in this situation because Hero would have shown the entire hand and dragged the pot with a smug ass look on his face

 

[Rakrul]

As long as the cards are tabled there's no doubt about which cards he holds. It doesn't matter if they're in the muck or not.
What if villain takes your cards and puts them in the muck, is this your fault for not protecting them? Seems like a horrible precedent to set and a barn door for angling.

Protecting your hand isn't referring to tabled hands, but face down cards (but still valid). I don't see why you're protecting the player that willingly mucked his cards as opposed to the player who had his tabled hand unwillingly mucked.

While I do agree that V2 should be the winner, it can't be despite the rules - it should be because of the rules. And the rules states the situation OP described, that V1 tabled and is a live hand. V2 never tabled but mucked. V1's hand can easily be restructured if you want to considered it killed, we don't know if V2's hand can be. If V2 can't be restructured (i.e. (edit: )not mixed in with muck pile and can't be easily identified), V1 wins. If V2's hand can be restructured he wins.

 

[grebe]

You have it backwards. V1 bluff-bet on the river with two pair and V2 called with trip 7s. V1's cards were first tabled and then mucked by the dealer as the losing hand.

V2 tossed his hole cards to the dealer instead of tabling them. All the dealer has to do is return them to be tabled by V2 and then award the pot.

Yeah, got it now, I knew I was missing something. What's the big deal then? V2 wins pot, next hand. V1 can be a big dick and ask to see other cards, but there is no way he "gets the pot" just because he didnt show all three.

These stupid flexes with no action left to be had really bug me. Just flip your damn cards over! Ugh. I still stand by that both players deserve KITN for slowing the game down. Show your stupid cards!

 

[Marius L]

As long as the cards are tabled there's no doubt about which cards he holds. It doesn't matter if they're in the muck or not.
What if villain takes your cards and puts them in the muck, is this your fault for not protecting them? Seems like a horrible precedent to set and a barn door for angling.

Protecting your hand isn't referring to tabled hands, but face down cards (but still valid). I don't see why you're protecting the player that willingly mucked his cards as opposed to the player who had his tabled hand unwillingly mucked.

While I do agree that V2 should be the winner, it can't be despite the rules - it should be because of the rules. And the rules states the situation OP described, that V1 tabled and is a live hand. V2 never tabled but mucked. V1's hand can easily be restructured if you want to considered it killed, we don't know if V2's hand can be. If V2 can't be restructured (i.e. (edit: )not mixed in with muck pile and can't be easily identified), V1 wins. If V2's hand can be restructured he wins.

But all players and the dealer as already know that V2 holds the winning hand because of the single face up card (7). That card alone gives him a winning hand compared to V1s two pair hand.

If all you are worries about is the hand potentially being compromised with for example two of the exact same cards, can't you just open up all the cards and check if the deck is complete and good?

I know the rule is to show a hand to win, but in this case it seems that reason and common sense should play its part as well. When all the players at the table including the dealer and the loosing player know for a fact that V2 has the winning hand, I just dont see the problem.

 

[ChipEnvy]

Nope. Dealer cannot kill a winning tabled hand, even if he sets them on fire. And until Villain2 tables, Villain1 is winning.

Really? Give Villian 1 the pot and show him and anyone that agrees with him the door.

No one needs this level of douchebag drama at a home game.

 

[Rakrul]

There are two situations here that kind of interfers with the discussion and there seems to be a whole lot result-oriented monday night quarter-backing here, ignoring the decades of experience that went into the rules. Also, a whole lot of nit-picking, at least from my end.

1) Dealer mucking V1's tabled hand before V2 has tabled his
2) V2 mucking 2 (irrelevant) cards at showdown

1) Even if the dealer incorrectly "kills" the hand, it can, and should, be reconstructed. As everyone saw it, it shouldn't be a problem.
2) The rules clearly says "To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.". The majority wants to ignore this rule and award the pot anyways, that's fine but it's STILL a violation of the rules UNLESS you reconstruct V2's hand that the rules allows. I don't quite get the animosity for this requirement, btw.
If you choose to ignore this rule, even when the hand can't be reconstructed, then fine, but the rule is there for a reason, albeit perhaps more valid in a casino setting than a home game. The important thing is that you make a conscious choice where you consider the consequences of ignoring this rule (for all situations and not this isolated clear cut winner-situation), and state it in your house rules (if they exist) so your rulings are consistent.

What if V2 showed the wrong card and mucked the winner, but they're still identifiable?
What if V2 showed the wrong card and mucked the winner, and they're not identifiable?
What if V2 doesn't know where his 3rd card is? What if there's 51 cards in the afterwards? What if there's 53?
What if V2 only has the winner card left after (incorrectly) mucking his two other cards on a previous street?

Do you want to make whole new rule section to protect players who doesn't follow one of the most basic rules in the book? This is just some situations that might make for a slippery slope on your future rulings if you don't clarify them before you're in the gist of it. But then again if you don't see any issues with it (honestly, this isn't the worst rule you can ignore), go ahead.

(Again, I don't really object to V2 winning the pot here - I'm looking at the principle of this. Ignoring a rule for the fairness of the game is certainly within the power of floor but it's not black and white either.)

 

[grebe]

There are two situations here that kind of interfers with the discussion and there seems to be a whole lot result-oriented monday night quarter-backing here, ignoring the decades of experience that went into the rules. Also, a whole lot of nit-picking, at least from my end.

1) Dealer mucking V1's tabled hand before V2 has tabled his
2) V2 mucking 2 (irrelevant) cards at showdown

1) Even if the dealer incorrectly "kills" the hand, it can, and should, be reconstructed. As everyone saw it, it shouldn't be a problem.
2) The rules clearly says "To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.". The majority wants to ignore this rule and award the pot anyways, that's fine but it's STILL a violation of the rules UNLESS you reconstruct V2's hand that the rules allows. I don't quite get the animosity for this requirement, btw.
If you choose to ignore this rule, even when the hand can't be reconstructed, then fine, but the rule is there for a reason, albeit perhaps more valid in a casino setting than a home game. The important thing is that you make a conscious choice where you consider the consequences of ignoring this rule (for all situations and not this isolated clear cut winner-situation), and state it in your house rules (if they exist) so your rulings are consistent.

What if V2 showed the wrong card and mucked the winner, but they're still identifiable?
What if V2 showed the wrong card and mucked the winner, and they're not identifiable?
What if V2 doesn't know where his 3rd card is?
What if V2 only has the winner card left after (incorrectly) mucking his two other cards on a previous street?

Do you want to make whole new rule section to protect players who doesn't follow one of the most basic rules in the book? This is just some situations that might make for a slippery slope on your future rulings if you don't clarify them before you're in the jist of it. But then again if you don't see any issues with it (honestly, this isn't the worst rule you can ignore), go ahead.

(Again, I don't really object to V2 winning the pot here - I'm looking at the principle of this. Ignoring a rule for the fairness of the game is certainly within the power of floor but it's not black and white either.)

While you are correct in stating he must show all cards, I think the problem that everybody has is the nit pickyness of V1. EVERYBODY at the table knows V1 lost...including V1. Now he is trying to angle his way to the pot by saying he didnt show all cards. This is NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME. The spirit of the game is that the best hand wins at showdown....not he who angles the best or whines the most. At this point the 2 other cards are irrelevant except in the VERY EXTREME examples you have pointed out.

I do agree that V2 should get a warning (as well as V1), but not to the tune of giving up the pot. The pot whenever possible should be awarded to the best hand at showdown.

 

[Steve Birrer]

V1 has zero argument to win the hand. He KNOWS he is beat once he is called. Trying to coerce some ruling to award him the pot is chicken shit. He wouldn't get the pot in my game and probably would never be invited back.

 

[Rakrul]

While you are correct in stating he must show all cards, I think the problem that everybody has is the nit pickyness of V1. EVERYBODY at the table knows V1 lost...including V1. Now he is trying to angle his way to the pot by saying he didnt show all cards. This is NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME. The spirit of the game is that the best hand wins at showdown....not he who angles the best or whines the most. At this point the 2 other cards are irrelevant except in the VERY EXTREME examples you have pointed out.

I do agree that V2 should get a warning (as well as V1), but not to the tune of giving up the pot. The pot whenever possible should be awarded to the best hand at showdown.

I wholeheartedly agree, but V2 has some responsibility in being awarded the pot as well, so my premise is based on the rule book rather than "naah, F U".

If the discussion was V2 had the best hand but mucked 2 cards and they're unidentifiable, should we ignore the "table all cards"-rule and award him the pot? it is a different discussion that I suspect everyone but me is currently participating in.

 

[upNdown]

I don't want to award this pot to V1, and I probably never would. But I'm real annoyed with V2 for A) Announcing he won without showing his cards, and B) mucking his hole cards without showing. The dealer gets a piece of the fault for taking V1's cards without a proper showdown and for not controlling this situation better. But this is mostly V2's fault. If he's a new player, this is a good opportunity to explain the rules to him. If he's a seasoned player who was either too lazy or too smug to show his hand, he deserves a slap on the wrist. In either case, I agree with @Rakrul that the hands should be reconstructed just to satisfy the rule. Because that's the only way to award the pot properly and satisfy the rule. And its a good learning experience for everybody - "see the stupid crap we have to go through when you guys don't do things right?"
If V1 was arguing for the sake of rules clarification, good on him. Seriously. Let's make sure we all know what the rules are - that's a good thing. If he's arguing that he should actually win the pot, he's a douche.

 

[upNdown]

V1 has zero argument to win the hand. He KNOWS he is beat once he is called. Trying to coerce some ruling to award him the pot is chicken shit. He wouldn't get the pot in my game and probably would never be invited back.

I've actually found myself in similar situations, and it can be frustrating. I'm the guy who might argue for ten minutes just to get an understanding and explanation of the rules. As villain 1, I'd never ask for or expect the pot here. But I think it's fair to get the floor (host) to clarify the rules that control the situation.

 

[Steve Birrer]

I've actually found myself in similar situations, and it can be frustrating. I'm the guy who might argue for ten minutes just to get an understanding and explanation of the rules. As villain 1, I'd never ask for or expect the pot here. But I think it's fair to get the floor (host) to clarify the rules that control the situation.

Had I been in V1 shoes I would have politely reminded the table that the rules require all cards to be shown and moved on. That's fine but to try and bully you way into getting the pot is pure garbage regardless of the rules. V1 knew damn well he lost the pot fair and square.