Why would the dealer prevent a player from tabling his cards? The player was obviously not trying to muck, otherwise he would not have reached out to correct the "flipped" card. Would the dealer prevent the player from doing this if the "flip" occurred directly in front of his chips? And if the Dealer DID try that, but the player was faster, what then? Player attempted to table his cards (in a foolish manner, I will grant you). Cards did not touch the muck. Cards should be live, and he should be allowed to table his other card. Any "House Rule" that contradicts this point is detrimental to the game and sets YOU up for angry confrontations with your customers, who will find somewhere else to play if this nonsense continues. This ruling ensures that I will visit Seneca or CN the next time I go to the Falls area to play poker. :mad:
I don't play much casino based poker, and god knows I am not that familiar with all the rules of the game, particularly for FV, BUT...I am aware that decisions are often made in the SPIRIT of the game, what is best for the game.
Don't think that I'm questioning your position or your knowledge 13, but does your decision support what is best for the game? I agree the player acted incorrectly, and might have been somewhat over excited, but if the card was easily found, shouldn't the decision be split pot in the spirit of the game?
Fallsview is your workplace. And I don't want to sound that I'm condemning, but I've found almost all of your posts AND your decisions very useful and educational, except this one. I'd have to say I would disagree based on what has been presented.
However, unlike a few other posters, I don't think this would change my mind about going to Fallsview in the future. I have been there in the past, enjoyed it very much, and I would love to go again. I wouldn't ever table my cards like the player in question did, so I would never find myself in his situation of having to lose a huge pot. And although I believe MORE players should be like ME , you can't predict what a player is going to do.
I look forward to going to Fallsview again sometime. One story of questionable content wouldn't prevent me from going...unless it happened to me...but like I said, I don't play that way MOST of the time.
My question is what are you going to do with the information gained from this post 13Cards? I hope that you listen to the responses in this forum and reconsider your decision. I also hope it is a topic of discussion at your next staff meeting. To me, that is the best kind if use of forum discussions.
1) The definition of what mucking/folding your hand is,
2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,
3) Table your cards the way they are supposed to be tabled, this is not Basketball, no slam dunks.
4) The truth hurts, get over it, learn something.
And now to my detractors...yes, 13Cards and I are friends & co-workers. I disagreed with him on his answer, and we had a somewhat heated discussion on it. Guess what? He's right. I was wrong. Know what? It doesn't affect me, because of the first three things I learned as stated above. As I've said before, don't act/play in a questionable manner, and there won't be any question. Act/play like a donkey, be prepared to get a kick in the A$$.
1) The definition of what mucking/folding your hand is,
2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,
3) Table your cards the way they are supposed to be tabled, this is not Basketball, no slam dunks.
4) The truth hurts, get over it, learn something.
And now to my detractors...yes, 13Cards and I are friends & co-workers. I disagreed with him on his answer, and we had a somewhat heated discussion on it. Guess what? He's right. I was wrong. Know what? It doesn't affect me, because of the first three things I learned as stated above. As I've said before, don't act/play in a questionable manner, and there won't be any question. Act/play like a donkey, be prepared to get a kick in the A$$.
Sounds to me like you're saying it's good to punish Chair #8 because he got excited over having the nuts in a HUGE pot.
We're not saying the wrong call according to the rules was made. We're saying that Fallsview repeatedly ignores the OTHER rule about what's in the "best interest of the game".
"Sounds to me like you're saying it's good to punish Chair #8 because he got excited over having the nuts in a HUGE pot."
no, I said:
"2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,"
I used the "best interest of the game" defence in my discussion with 13Cards, and understand now why using the other rule is better.
I used the "best interest of the game" defence in my discussion with 13Cards, and understand now why using the other rule is better.
I want to know why you changed your mind.. 13Cards really your boss perhaps? And you weren't supposed to disagree with him? lol, or is there perhaps some clarification on what the situation really was?.
"Sounds to me like you're saying it's good to punish Chair #8 because he got excited over having the nuts in a HUGE pot."
no, I said:
"2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,"
I used the "best interest of the game" defence in my discussion with 13Cards, and understand now why using the other rule is better.
Pretty much the exact same situation came up at Fallsview a couple months ago and it was ruled live.
Good job then. In the case I witnessed the dealer ruled that the intent was definately there to table the winning hand (he had Aces), I think it was a $50 pot on a 5/5 table. Everybody else at the table agreed except the loser even though it was a nothing pot. He let it go though, but made the statement "rules are rules".
I can only speak for myself, but I decided not to go to Fallsview a long time ago. I think moose is the same.
/g2
I was there Easter weekend, and that just added to my dislike for that pokerroom. Never had any problems with the dealers, just the attitude of management and the unorganized, inefficient way of conducting business. Though the supervisor was a nice guy, the assistant was a prick. Other than wpt sats, prob the only time i'd go again.
I used the "best interest of the game" defence in my discussion with 13Cards, and understand now why using the other rule is better.
Seriously jp.. Put up or shut up. Tell us what 13 said that makes it so apprently clear that he was right.. and don't quote me bullshit like rule 4. subsection 3 paragraph 5.
It's horrible decisions like the one that 13 made that make tarnish the game and make people stop playing.
Do you think C8 will be back? Is he a satisfied customer? How was the universe of poker 'done right' by forcing him to fold on a technicality?
To Compuease: No his not my boss. He is a Supervisor, I am a Dealer, but we hardly ever are in the same pit. We discussed the situation, ran through various scenarios, and I concluded I was wrong. I can admit that.
To GTA: Meow? Whatever...
To BBC Z: Like I said, we discussed the scenario, ran through a number of "what if... " situations, and, like I said, I concluded I was wrong.
Horrible decision... only if you play like a donkey... expect to be treated like an A.S.S.
Will C8 be back? Maybe, maybe not. Will he table his cards like that again? I'm betting no, unless he's a donkey, but I have a little more faith in human intelligence than that, so no.
I hear Monreal has the poker tables with no dealers, just video screens... can't screw that up, now can you? No acting out of turn, no mucking by mistake, no dealer error... but do you REALLY want that? If you do, stay on the internet.
pj, well then if he convinced you to change your opinion we need to know the rational. ie are the facts different than he presented? Are there some other extenuating circumstances. Did he invoke the "friend" clause?
Your about face on the issue is pretty obvious... so why?
Fallsviews general arrogance and lack of concern for us, "your clients" is somewhat disturbing to say the least. And this is not coming from a 20 year old kid...
To Compuease: No his not my boss. He is a Supervisor, I am a Dealer, but we hardly ever are in the same pit. We discussed the situation, ran through various scenarios, and I concluded I was wrong. I can admit that.
To GTA: Meow? Whatever...
To BBC Z: Like I said, we discussed the scenario, ran through a number of "what if... " situations, and, like I said, I concluded I was wrong.
Horrible decision... only if you play like a donkey... expect to be treated like an A.S.S.
Will C8 be back? Maybe, maybe not. Will he table his cards like that again? I'm betting no, unless he's a donkey, but I have a little more faith in human intelligence than that, so no.
I hear Monreal has the poker tables with no dealers, just video screens... can't screw that up, now can you? No acting out of turn, no mucking by mistake, no dealer error... but do you REALLY want that? If you do, stay on the internet.
ah, that's a solid argument -- everyone knows the ontario casinos have the worst dealers in the province if not the country or the continent, thanks for the ongoing confirmation
I hear Monreal has the poker tables with no dealers, just video screens... can't screw that up, now can you? No acting out of turn, no mucking by mistake, no dealer error... but do you REALLY want that? If you do, stay on the internet.
With the attitude displayed so far, maybe these tables ARE going to be an improvement, if only from a customer service standpoint. You STILL have not disclosed what specifically made you change your mind. Why not?
1. I ruled the hand DEAD. The entire pot was awarded to Chair #1.
2. Forward, face down and released is mucked. The face down card was never properly tabled.
3. To win a pot, a player must show all/both cards face up on the table OR be the only remaining player with live cards.
4. A dealer should NEVER table a player's card(s) for them; the dealer has access to all of the cards and could switch the cards. Only one player to hand means only that player may turn over cards, not a dealer and not another player.
(Points 5 & 6 have been omitted as they were not discussed)
7. The dealer did absolutely NOTHING WRONG in this hand; the fault lies entirely with the player.
8. The easiest thing to do in poker is turn over your cards at showdown.
Without pulling out a transcript of our conversation, (which is unavailable at this time) this is what we discussed. I played devil's advocated, and 13Cards arguement was more convincing than mine. That's it, that's all. If you people have never had your mind changed on anything, I truly feel sorry for your narrow mindedness. This is a counrty where we are free to disagree, so leave it at that.
Invoke the "friend" clause? What are we, 5 years old?
Final thought: Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics, (you know the rest, and if you don't look it up).
Fin.
1. "Knowing" the intent of a player's actions is a very difficult area. I can "know" that a player intends to raise when they say "I call your $20 and raise you $300 more". But, I think, most on here would agree that would be a string-raise. Should it be allowed, in some circumstances, for some extreme reasons? I think NO. A string is a string, even if we "know" what the player intended to do.
2.Can I "know" the player intended to table his A-K? I can (exactly the same as above) but can I allow it to change what he ACTUALLY did? I cannot.
3. I have stated why I think the card that was face down was DEAD. Can someone convince me, with reason and rules (not just one, but BOTH reason AND rules) that the card that is face down, in the middle of the table, no longer in his possession and out of reach of the player should be LIVE?
4. The original conversation with jpajamas contained inaccurate information (a slip of the tongue, a miscommunication, whatever), much like my OP before editing did. Can everyone agree that the way the scenario was presented there originally dramatically changes the outcome compared to the 100% accurate edited post that is there now?
5. The rule that management may override any written rule "in the best interest of the game" is thrown around much too much. That rule is written to provide management an "out", if you will. It covers our ass. It is for the most EXTREME of situations; things that are clearly not covered by other written rules or for multiple, snow-balled error-fests. The situation in my OP does NOT require the "best interest" rule to be invoked.
6. BBC_Z: "Do you think C8 will be back? Is he a satisfied customer? How was the universe of poker 'done right' by forcing him to fold on a technicality?"
-C8 has been back, more than once, since the incident.
-He was upset, obviously, at losing money. Was he satisfied? I believe he is now, after a cooling off period; satisfied the correct call was made. I asked him to put himself in C1 position, who would have been just as upset if that card hand been ruled live.
- the other 9 players at the table, and the 10-15 or so watching, can be satisfied to know that the rules will be enforced in our room. C8 was not "forced" to fold; he chose to do that on his on, intentionally or in a haphazard accident that involved only himself. The easiest thing to do in poker is table your hand properly at showdown. I know from past threads, BBC_Z, that you must have learned this by now.
7. The muck is the collected pile of dead cards that players have folded. Folded cards can be considered dead BEFORE they ever "hit the muck". There are numerous situations where players' cards should be deemed DEAD and then collected into the muck. Whether folded cards "hit the muck" or not should not be used in deciding whether they are indeed folded/dead.
18. Cards speak. At showdown, a player must show all of his/her cards face up on the table to claim to any or all of the pot, unless no other player remains with live cards.
2.Can I "know" the player intended to table his A-K? I can (exactly the same as above) but can I allow it to change what he ACTUALLY did? I cannot.
3. I have stated why I think the card that was face down was DEAD. Can someone convince me, with reason and rules (not just one, but BOTH reason AND rules) that the card that is face down, in the middle of the table, no longer in his possession and out of reach of the player should be LIVE?
Based on your posts, I doubt anyone can convince you of anything. But I will respond to these two points.
If you had to choose between knowing if the player intended to muck his hand or table his hand I think any reasonable person would know he wanted to show the nuts and win the pot.
As for point 3, how many dozens of times a night do you have a player show one card and expect to get the pot pushed their way, both in front of them and with forward motion. Every time the player is told by the dealer that they need to show two cards to win. Does the dealer pull in the cards one card up and one card down and push the pot to the other player? No. They are given a chance to correct their mistake.
I ask you again, why did you make the original post?
...As for point 3, how many dozens of times a night do you have a player show one card and expect to get the pot pushed their way, both in front of them and with forward motion. Every time the player is told by the dealer that they need to show two cards to win. Does the dealer pull in the cards one card up and one card down and push the pot to the other player? No. They are given a chance to correct their mistake.
A player showing only one card, while still holding the other card, will be told "two cards to win" and given the opportunity to table both of their cards properly.
A player showing only one card, and tossing the other card face down to the center of the table, will have his hand declared dead as the face down card is folded and a player must properly table "two cards to win".
1. "Knowing" the intent of a player's actions is a very difficult area. I can "know" that a player intends to raise when they say "I call your $20 and raise you $300 more". But, I think, most on here would agree that would be a string-raise. Should it be allowed, in some circumstances, for some extreme reasons? I think NO. A string is a string, even if we "know" what the player intended to do..
I think we would all (most) agree on this being a string but I do no agree it is the same thing.
3. I have stated why I think the card that was face down was DEAD. Can someone convince me, with reason and rules (not just one, but BOTH reason AND rules) that the card that is face down, in the middle of the table, no longer in his possession and out of reach of the player should be LIVE?
Well without spending hours, how about rule 54 from the WSOP.. "54. All cards will be turned face up once a player is all in and all action is complete. If a player accidentally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned up, the Tournament Staff reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards if the cards are clearly identifiable."
Now I know this is a tournament rule but don't see why it would be different.
Also on several sites on the famous internet this rule is stated and I believe fits. "Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player.
Cards thrown into another player’s hand are dead, whether they are faceup or facedown."
4. The original conversation with jpajamas contained inaccurate information (a slip of the tongue, a miscommunication, whatever), much like my OP before editing did. Can everyone agree that the way the scenario was presented there originally dramatically changes the outcome compared to the 100% accurate edited post that is there now?.
Ok, so JP gave his "live" vote based on a verbal miscommunication between he and yourself? The rest of us didn't have that clarification... So be it.. I agree that your edited post is different then the original but does not significantly change how I would rule.
5. The rule that management may override any written rule "in the best interest of the game" is thrown around much too much. That rule is written to provide management an "out", if you will. It covers our ass. It is for the most EXTREME of situations; things that are clearly not covered by other written rules or for multiple, snow-balled error-fests. The situation in my OP does NOT require the "best interest" rule to be invoked.
Your opinion only, and I think it is clear that the vast majority on here, and some pretty experienced players, do not agree.
6. BBC_Z: "Do you think C8 will be back? Is he a satisfied customer? How was the universe of poker 'done right' by forcing him to fold on a technicality?"
-C8 has been back, more than once, since the incident.
-He was upset, obviously, at losing money. Was he satisfied? I believe he is now, after a cooling off period; satisfied the correct call was made. I asked him to put himself in C1 position, who would have been just as upset if that card hand been ruled live.
- the other 9 players at the table, and the 10-15 or so watching, can be satisfied to know that the rules will be enforced in our room. C8 was not "forced" to fold; he chose to do that on his on, intentionally or in a haphazard accident that involved only himself. The easiest thing to do in poker is table your hand properly at showdown. I know from past threads, BBC_Z, that you must have learned this by now.
18. Cards speak. At showdown, a player must show all of his/her cards face up on the table to claim to any or all of the pot, unless no other player remains with live cards.
In summary, while I respect your opinion and authority at Fallsview ONLY, I certainly do NOT agree with your decision. However as some others have said, I would never have never have gotten that excited so it wouldn't happen to me. I'm the quiet sneaky one at the table....
Well without spending hours, how about rule 54 from the WSOP.. "54. All cards will be turned face up once a player is all in and all action is complete. If a player accidentally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned up, the Tournament Staff reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards if the cards are clearly identifiable."
Tournament rules are not the same as cash game rules. The reasons behind this are easily found all over this Internet thing you speak of.
Also on several sites on the famous internet this rule is stated and I believe fits. "Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may 1 be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game 2. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player 3. "...
1. may be retrieved. In no way is this deemed necessary.
2. again, in the best interest of the game, IMO this situation does not require this rule as there are clear written rules to cover this situation and it is not a "comedy of errors" type of scenario.
3. Chair #8's cards were NOT folded as a result of false information; he simply did not properly table both of his cards face up. That action was entirely on him.
Tournament rules are not the same as cash game rules. The reasons behind this are easily found all over this Internet thing you speak of.
1. may be retrieved. In no way is this deemed necessary.
2. again, in the best interest of the game, IMO this situation does not require this rule as there are clear written rules to cover this situation and it is not a "comedy of errors" type of scenario.
3. Chair #8's cards were NOT folded as a result of false information; he simply did not properly table both of his cards face up. That action was entirely on him.
Your mind is obviously already closed, no use discussing...
The false info statement meant extra effort, you clearly made no effort... And MOST tournament rules ie folding, etc are the same as cash game rules..... Maybe you should learn to use the google part....
I was a supporter..... I'm done... Seneca is clearly the winner here...
Comments
Don't think that I'm questioning your position or your knowledge 13, but does your decision support what is best for the game? I agree the player acted incorrectly, and might have been somewhat over excited, but if the card was easily found, shouldn't the decision be split pot in the spirit of the game?
Fallsview is your workplace. And I don't want to sound that I'm condemning, but I've found almost all of your posts AND your decisions very useful and educational, except this one. I'd have to say I would disagree based on what has been presented.
However, unlike a few other posters, I don't think this would change my mind about going to Fallsview in the future. I have been there in the past, enjoyed it very much, and I would love to go again. I wouldn't ever table my cards like the player in question did, so I would never find myself in his situation of having to lose a huge pot. And although I believe MORE players should be like ME
I look forward to going to Fallsview again sometime. One story of questionable content wouldn't prevent me from going...unless it happened to me...but like I said, I don't play that way MOST of the time.
/g2
/g2
Ahhhh...little slow today
Glad you feel better g2
1) The definition of what mucking/folding your hand is,
2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,
3) Table your cards the way they are supposed to be tabled, this is not Basketball, no slam dunks.
4) The truth hurts, get over it, learn something.
And now to my detractors...yes, 13Cards and I are friends & co-workers. I disagreed with him on his answer, and we had a somewhat heated discussion on it. Guess what? He's right. I was wrong. Know what? It doesn't affect me, because of the first three things I learned as stated above. As I've said before, don't act/play in a questionable manner, and there won't be any question. Act/play like a donkey, be prepared to get a kick in the A$$.
We're not saying the wrong call according to the rules was made. We're saying that Fallsview repeatedly ignores the OTHER rule about what's in the "best interest of the game".
/g2
no, I said:
"2) Celebrate too early, and you may not have anything to celebrate,"
I used the "best interest of the game" defence in my discussion with 13Cards, and understand now why using the other rule is better.
meow?????????
Good job then. In the case I witnessed the dealer ruled that the intent was definately there to table the winning hand (he had Aces), I think it was a $50 pot on a 5/5 table. Everybody else at the table agreed except the loser even though it was a nothing pot. He let it go though, but made the statement "rules are rules".
I was there Easter weekend, and that just added to my dislike for that pokerroom. Never had any problems with the dealers, just the attitude of management and the unorganized, inefficient way of conducting business. Though the supervisor was a nice guy, the assistant was a prick. Other than wpt sats, prob the only time i'd go again.
Seriously jp.. Put up or shut up. Tell us what 13 said that makes it so apprently clear that he was right.. and don't quote me bullshit like rule 4. subsection 3 paragraph 5.
It's horrible decisions like the one that 13 made that make tarnish the game and make people stop playing.
Do you think C8 will be back? Is he a satisfied customer? How was the universe of poker 'done right' by forcing him to fold on a technicality?
To GTA: Meow? Whatever...
To BBC Z: Like I said, we discussed the scenario, ran through a number of "what if... " situations, and, like I said, I concluded I was wrong.
Horrible decision... only if you play like a donkey... expect to be treated like an A.S.S.
Will C8 be back? Maybe, maybe not. Will he table his cards like that again? I'm betting no, unless he's a donkey, but I have a little more faith in human intelligence than that, so no.
I hear Monreal has the poker tables with no dealers, just video screens... can't screw that up, now can you? No acting out of turn, no mucking by mistake, no dealer error... but do you REALLY want that? If you do, stay on the internet.
Your about face on the issue is pretty obvious... so why?
Fallsviews general arrogance and lack of concern for us, "your clients" is somewhat disturbing to say the least. And this is not coming from a 20 year old kid...
ah, that's a solid argument -- everyone knows the ontario casinos have the worst dealers in the province if not the country or the continent, thanks for the ongoing confirmation
i guess your new argument is meow meow meow meow?
With the attitude displayed so far, maybe these tables ARE going to be an improvement, if only from a customer service standpoint. You STILL have not disclosed what specifically made you change your mind. Why not?
Without pulling out a transcript of our conversation, (which is unavailable at this time) this is what we discussed. I played devil's advocated, and 13Cards arguement was more convincing than mine. That's it, that's all. If you people have never had your mind changed on anything, I truly feel sorry for your narrow mindedness. This is a counrty where we are free to disagree, so leave it at that.
Invoke the "friend" clause? What are we, 5 years old?
Final thought: Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics, (you know the rest, and if you don't look it up).
Fin.
2.Can I "know" the player intended to table his A-K? I can (exactly the same as above) but can I allow it to change what he ACTUALLY did? I cannot.
3. I have stated why I think the card that was face down was DEAD. Can someone convince me, with reason and rules (not just one, but BOTH reason AND rules) that the card that is face down, in the middle of the table, no longer in his possession and out of reach of the player should be LIVE?
4. The original conversation with jpajamas contained inaccurate information (a slip of the tongue, a miscommunication, whatever), much like my OP before editing did. Can everyone agree that the way the scenario was presented there originally dramatically changes the outcome compared to the 100% accurate edited post that is there now?
5. The rule that management may override any written rule "in the best interest of the game" is thrown around much too much. That rule is written to provide management an "out", if you will. It covers our ass. It is for the most EXTREME of situations; things that are clearly not covered by other written rules or for multiple, snow-balled error-fests. The situation in my OP does NOT require the "best interest" rule to be invoked.
6. BBC_Z: "Do you think C8 will be back? Is he a satisfied customer? How was the universe of poker 'done right' by forcing him to fold on a technicality?"
-C8 has been back, more than once, since the incident.
-He was upset, obviously, at losing money. Was he satisfied? I believe he is now, after a cooling off period; satisfied the correct call was made. I asked him to put himself in C1 position, who would have been just as upset if that card hand been ruled live.
- the other 9 players at the table, and the 10-15 or so watching, can be satisfied to know that the rules will be enforced in our room. C8 was not "forced" to fold; he chose to do that on his on, intentionally or in a haphazard accident that involved only himself. The easiest thing to do in poker is table your hand properly at showdown. I know from past threads, BBC_Z, that you must have learned this by now.
7. The muck is the collected pile of dead cards that players have folded. Folded cards can be considered dead BEFORE they ever "hit the muck". There are numerous situations where players' cards should be deemed DEAD and then collected into the muck. Whether folded cards "hit the muck" or not should not be used in deciding whether they are indeed folded/dead.
18. Cards speak. At showdown, a player must show all of his/her cards face up on the table to claim to any or all of the pot, unless no other player remains with live cards.
Based on your posts, I doubt anyone can convince you of anything. But I will respond to these two points.
If you had to choose between knowing if the player intended to muck his hand or table his hand I think any reasonable person would know he wanted to show the nuts and win the pot.
As for point 3, how many dozens of times a night do you have a player show one card and expect to get the pot pushed their way, both in front of them and with forward motion. Every time the player is told by the dealer that they need to show two cards to win. Does the dealer pull in the cards one card up and one card down and push the pot to the other player? No. They are given a chance to correct their mistake.
I ask you again, why did you make the original post?
A player showing only one card, while still holding the other card, will be told "two cards to win" and given the opportunity to table both of their cards properly.
A player showing only one card, and tossing the other card face down to the center of the table, will have his hand declared dead as the face down card is folded and a player must properly table "two cards to win".
It's sad to see the someone who is so high up in the poker world doesn't understand the meaning of his own rulebook.
It's sad to see someone who is so low in the poker world doesn't understand the meaning of a rulebook.
Your nonconstructive comments in this thread have yet again brought nothing new to the table for me to ponder
Now I know this is a tournament rule but don't see why it would be different.
Also on several sites on the famous internet this rule is stated and I believe fits. "Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of false information given to the player.
Cards thrown into another player’s hand are dead, whether they are faceup or facedown."
Ok, so JP gave his "live" vote based on a verbal miscommunication between he and yourself? The rest of us didn't have that clarification... So be it.. I agree that your edited post is different then the original but does not significantly change how I would rule. Your opinion only, and I think it is clear that the vast majority on here, and some pretty experienced players, do not agree. In summary, while I respect your opinion and authority at Fallsview ONLY, I certainly do NOT agree with your decision. However as some others have said, I would never have never have gotten that excited so it wouldn't happen to me. I'm the quiet sneaky one at the table....
Tournament rules are not the same as cash game rules. The reasons behind this are easily found all over this Internet thing you speak of.
1. may be retrieved. In no way is this deemed necessary.
2. again, in the best interest of the game, IMO this situation does not require this rule as there are clear written rules to cover this situation and it is not a "comedy of errors" type of scenario.
3. Chair #8's cards were NOT folded as a result of false information; he simply did not properly table both of his cards face up. That action was entirely on him.
Your mind is obviously already closed, no use discussing...
The false info statement meant extra effort, you clearly made no effort... And MOST tournament rules ie folding, etc are the same as cash game rules..... Maybe you should learn to use the google part....
I was a supporter..... I'm done... Seneca is clearly the winner here...