I received a PM from 13cards which could have been posted in the thread. My response and questions are below.
13Cards, please clarify what happens in these scenarios:
1) At showdown, a players slow rolls by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping over the top card and then immediately after (ie. as quick as you could normally flip over two cards using one hand) flips over the second card. Is his hand dead?
2) At showdown, a player attempts to showdown by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping both cards but the bottom card falls back face down. Is his hand dead?
3) A player aggressively tables AK for a split but the king bounces slowly from the table on to its edge and lands face down. Everyone saw the king. Is his hand dead?
Also, have you ever dealt a card face up to a player? I think that dealing two cards face down to each player would be pretty simple but a lot of dealers can’t seem to do that. People make mistakes.
Punish cheaters and angle shooters. That’s what the rules are for. Don’t punish honest mistakes.
Live and if I were the player with the tabled AK and the other hand were ruled dead I would insist on the other player getting 1/2 the pot (assuming the other card were easily identified and, infact, a king). This is a situation that a DEALER should be able to handle and not slow down the game by calling over the floor. Needless to say, no tips for this dealer for the rest of the night if he can't effectively keep a time-charge game running.
Always nice to have you back on the board posting Dave, see you Saturday.
I received a PM from 13cards which could have been posted in the thread. My response and questions are below.
13Cards, please clarify what happens in these scenarios:
1) At showdown, a players slow rolls by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping over the top card and then immediately after (ie. as quick as you could normally flip over two cards using one hand) flips over the second card. Is his hand dead?
2) At showdown, a player attempts to showdown by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping both cards but the bottom card falls back face down. Is his hand dead?
3) A player aggressively tables AK for a split but the king bounces slowly from the table on to its edge and lands face down. Everyone saw the king. Is his hand dead?
Also, have you ever dealt a card face up to a player? I think that dealing two cards face down to each player would be pretty simple but a lot of dealers can’t seem to do that. People make mistakes.
Punish cheaters and angle shooters. That’s what the rules are for. Don’t punish honest mistakes.
Good post. In your three questions, I would apply the common sense rule and and the hands would not be dead.
However, players who do this are just asking for it. If a player pushes his hand forward facedown, he might just make the other player muck his cards. Then what? Guy could say other guy folded so I win. Now when the guy flips over his cards, and the other cards are in the muck, he looks like an angleshooter.
The other one is guys who slam their cards down and one goes in motion. In most casinos, if that sucker cartwheels off the table, and even everyone can see what it is and where it landed on the floor or someone's lap or on a drink card, good luck getting a floor to de-mummify that. Also if that card rolls into the opponents hand, it's dead forever.
Frankly, players that do the slowroll, one card flip, slam the cards down, well sometimes they deserve to lose a pot to sheer stupidity. In original post, stupidity ended up costing him the pot, regardless if is should or shouldn't have.
That's the final lesson. We all like to think we know what the floor should rule and they usually do. But once in awhile, they don't or the information gets mixed up or whatever and you lose a pot to your own stupidity.
That kind of logic and sensibility can get a man hurt round these parts, stranger . . . [\spits onto sawdust floor, and ambles through the swinging doors of the saloon into the dusty street\]
LTNS. The other card should be turned over. The player should be warned about opening two cards to win and chop the pot. If his cards have not touched the muck then they are live and he is in contention for half of the pot.
Regards,
GBH TD
*removed the name as I know 13Cards did not want to be identify in the past - westside8
I strongly agree. If a strict interpretation of the technical rules was always applied at Fallsview Casino, then so many of the big blinds should have been mucked ("Forward, face down and released") and so many pots would have gone to the losing hand (e.g., clearly identifiable cards can be ruled as mucked, winner only shows one card while the other card is "forward, face down and released", winner steps away from the table, winner stands up, or winner makes some other unintentional mistake).
As Bob "Robert's Rules" Ciafonne has written, "When rules are broken, it is extremely important to look at why the rule was made and why the rule was broken before you start administering what passes for justice." 13CARDS is not forced in a situation to shut his eyes and follow the letter of the law when the violation is an honest mistake that has done no damage to anyone. Like "GBH Tournament Director", he can make the fair decision in the best interest of the game.
Since nobody at Fallsview seems to want the vacant Poker Manager position, I hope that GBH's Terry or John apply for it.
The other card should be turned over. The player should be warned about opening two cards to win and chop the pot. If his cards have not touched the muck then they are live and he is in contention for half of the pot.
OP was looking for a big internet hug and got his feelings hurt because he's just plain 'ol wrong.
Actually, I think OP was deliberately trolling by posting yet another "You make the ruling" which he knew 99% of poker players would disagree with, just to flaunt that it doesn't matter what we think, since he's management and we're not. Fallsview isn't worth the drive. Brantford FTW.
Actually, I think OP was deliberately trolling by posting yet another "You make the ruling" which he knew 99% of poker players would disagree with, just to flaunt that it doesn't matter what we think, since he's management and we're not.
Actually, I think OP was deliberately trolling by posting yet another "You make the ruling" which he knew 99% of poker players would disagree with, just to flaunt that it doesn't matter what we think, since he's management and we're not. Fallsview isn't worth the drive. Brantford FTW.
HUGE POT!! The preceding action has the pot at approx. $3,500 with one player all in. Two other live players remain. The board looks like this:
Q-J-10-x-K rainbow
Chair #1 moves all in for $1,200. Chair #6 is already all in. Chair #8 insta-calls. No more action. 3 players total.
Chair #1 calmly and quietly turns over A-K for The Nuts, his cards are both face up, on the felt and still in his possession.
Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to muck his cards. HOWEVER, one card, the 9, lands face up on the felt. The other card lands face down near the center of the table. The player expects the dealer to turn down the face-up card and muck his hand. The dealer does NOT. The player then reaches to turn over the card himself. Instead, the player decides to turn over the face-down card. The dealer allows the player's outstretched arm to now expose the other card, which turns out to be an Ace, good enough for the chop. The player begins to laugh loudly saying " I forgot I had the Ace. Thought my low straight was beat.".
Chair #1 loudly protests that Chair #8's cards were clearly intended to be mucked as he did not even know what hand he had.
You are called over, given the above information, and now must rule on the $5,000+ pot.
HUGE POT!! The preceding action has the pot at approx. $3,500 with one player all in. Two other live players remain. The board looks like this:
Q-J-10-x-K rainbow
Chair #1 moves all in for $1,200. Chair #6 is already all in. Chair #8 insta-calls. No more action. 3 players total.
Chair #1 calmly and quietly turns over A-K for The Nuts, his cards are both face up, on the felt and still in his possession.
Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to muck his cards. HOWEVER, one card, the 9, lands face up on the felt. The other card lands face down near the center of the table. The player expects the dealer to turn down the face-up card and muck his hand. The dealer does NOT. The player then reaches to turn over the card himself. Instead, the player decides to turn over the face-down card. The dealer allows the player's outstretched arm to now expose the other card, which turns out to be an Ace, good enough for the chop. The player begins to laugh loudly saying " I forgot I had the Ace. Thought my low straight was beat.".
Chair #1 loudly protests that Chair #8's cards were clearly intended to be mucked as he did not even know what hand he had.
You are called over, given the above information, and now must rule on the $5,000+ pot.
What is your ruling and why?
In that case the dealer should have mucked the cards....he/she did not and if the player turns the card up (clearly identified as his) and presents enough for the chop it's chopped. Cards talk....not your assumptions as to whether he was folding or not.
Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to muck his cards. HOWEVER, one card, the 9, lands face up on the felt. The other card lands face down near the center of the table. The player expects the dealer to turn down the face-up card and muck his hand. The dealer does NOT. The player then reaches to turn over the card himself. Instead, the player decides to turn over the face-down card. The dealer allows the player's outstretched arm to now expose the other card, which turns out to be an Ace, good enough for the chop. The player begins to laugh loudly saying " I forgot I had the Ace. Thought my low straight was beat.".
Chair 8's intention was clearly to muck his hand. The dealer should have mucked it as the player expected him to.
I hope you aren't trying to say this situation is equivalent to the original.
In that case the dealer should have mucked the cards....he/she did not and if the player turns the card up (clearly identified as his) and presents enough for the chop it's chopped. Cards talk....not your assumptions as to whether he was folding or not.
Chair 8's intention was clearly to muck his hand. The dealer should have mucked it as the player expected him to.
I hope you aren't trying to say this situation is equivalent to the original.
/g2
The two scenarios are identical in relevant information until the point that Chair #8 has reached out to turn over a card.
My point is that a player's intentions cannot be gauged by what I say, or what the dealer says, or even what the player says after-the-fact, but only by the player's actions. If you agree that in this 2nd example Chair #8 was mucking, when one card landed face up and one landed face down, then by the same token why would you not consider him mucking in the first example when the resulting action was EXACTLY THE SAME, one card face up and one card face down?!?!
Both hands are LIVE in my opinion unless the dealer has pulled the cards into the muck and they can't be indentified. All poker rooms should exercise a "Spirit of the Game" rule and some judgements based on this.
How would one of your dealers rule if I player tabled his cards (A9) face up and said "ACE high" on a board of 10 7 6 3 8 after the other player tabled his set of 7's? Would the dealer push the pot to the 7's or to the player that misread his hand?
The two scenarios are identical in relevant information until the point that Chair #8 has reached out to turn over a card.
My point is that a player's intentions cannot be gauged by what I say, or what the dealer says, or even what the player says after-the-fact, but only by the player's actions. If you agree that in this 2nd example Chair #8 was mucking, when one card landed face up and one landed face down, then by the same token why would you not consider him mucking in the first example when the resulting action was EXACTLY THE SAME, one card face up and one card face down?!?!
Ahh I think I get it now. Instead of teaching your dealers how to deal properly, Fallsview room staff just count whatever the dealers say as irrelevant. Am I understanding correctly?
Both hands are LIVE in my opinion unless the dealer has pulled the cards into the muck and they can't be indentified. All poker rooms should exercise a "Spirit of the Game" rule and some judgements based on this.
How would one of your dealers rule if I player tabled his cards (A9) face up and said "ACE high" on a board of 10 7 6 3 8 after the other player tabled his set of 7's? Would the dealer push the pot to the 7's or to the player that misread his hand?
Voodoo... I value your input in this discussion. But the essence of the conversation centers on properly table cards not the issue of "cards speak".
A player properly tabling his cards will win the pot (assuming the dealer does not misread the cards) if they show a winning hand, even if they do not realize they have a winning hand. Further to that, our rules do not allow a dealer to kill a properly tabled winning hand; as long as the cards were tabled correctly, even if they eventually end up face down in the muck, that hand will be declared the winner if it was the best hand.
The issue in both example I have presented require a decision as to whether in scenario #1 (one card face up and one card face down), the hand is LIVE while in scenario #2 (one card face up and one card face down), the hand is DEAD.
Ahh I think I get it now. Instead of teaching your dealers how to deal properly, Fallsview room staff just count whatever the dealers say as irrelevant. Am I understanding correctly?
/g2
The room staff should always take what a dealer has to say into consideration when making a decision. However, if a dealer tells me the player was "trying" to muck or "trying" to showdown, I must look at the other information that is available to me. Just as I cannot "know" what a player's intent is, neither can the dealer.
Yeah I understand what you're saying but what really needs to happen is that you have to get your floor supervisors together including the ones that are dealers but occasionally work as floor supervisors and sitdown and come to an agreement on a uniform set of rules and whether there will be exceptions because player retention should be an important part of your casino's marketing and business plan and situations are going to arise that will test you. Lets face it, accidents happen, players get drunk, players may table cards quickly in excitement and they might just flip over by accident. If its the casinos decision to punish them because of any one of those then its a public relations disaster waiting to happen.
I commend you for coming in here and posting scenerios and taking heat, but hopefully you're also taking some of these suggestions from players and at least considering them in future board meeting discussions.
I commend you for coming in here and posting scenerios and taking heat, but hopefully you're also taking some of these suggestions from players and at least considering them in future board meeting discussions.
This I think is the single most positive thing that could come out of this thread.... Now if only it really would....
I commend you for coming in here and posting scenerios and taking heat, but hopefully you're also taking some of these suggestions from players and at least considering them in future board meeting discussions.
QFT... no matter what happened with these situations I think that some feedback should be taken from the responses here, and if possible used to ammend current rules, to avoid questionable situations like this in the future.
The room staff should always take what a dealer has to say into consideration when making a decision. However, if a dealer tells me the player was "trying" to muck or "trying" to showdown, I must look at the other information that is available to me. Just as I cannot "know" what a player's intent is, neither can the dealer.
What other information are you taking into consideration, other than "Oh, the card is face down, the hand is dead"?
What other information are you taking into consideration, other than "Oh, the card is face down, the hand is dead"?
/g2
Where the action stands?
Who/what has caused any actions?
What the dealer explains the preceding action to be?
What the board is?
Where the stub is?
What actions have taken place since the dealer interjected?
Who is involved?
Etc...
Etc...
I try to take into consideration ALL of the information available to make a ruling.
Where the action stands?
Who/what has caused any actions?
What the dealer explains the preceding action to be?
What the board is?
Where the stub is?
What actions have taken place since the dealer interjected?
Who is involved?
Etc...
Etc...
I try to take into consideration ALL of the information available to make a ruling.
I meant specifically in regards to the original situation presented and the modified one.
I meant specifically in regards to the original situation presented and the modified one.
/g2
Both scenarios present all of the available information that is relevant to make a ruling; the most important of which; but not limited to, is the location/presentation of both of Chair #8's cards.
Comments
13Cards, please clarify what happens in these scenarios:
1) At showdown, a players slow rolls by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping over the top card and then immediately after (ie. as quick as you could normally flip over two cards using one hand) flips over the second card. Is his hand dead?
2) At showdown, a player attempts to showdown by pushing both cards forward face down on the felt and in the same motion flipping both cards but the bottom card falls back face down. Is his hand dead?
3) A player aggressively tables AK for a split but the king bounces slowly from the table on to its edge and lands face down. Everyone saw the king. Is his hand dead?
Also, have you ever dealt a card face up to a player? I think that dealing two cards face down to each player would be pretty simple but a lot of dealers can’t seem to do that. People make mistakes.
Punish cheaters and angle shooters. That’s what the rules are for. Don’t punish honest mistakes.
Always nice to have you back on the board posting Dave, see you Saturday.
Prophet 22
However, players who do this are just asking for it. If a player pushes his hand forward facedown, he might just make the other player muck his cards. Then what? Guy could say other guy folded so I win. Now when the guy flips over his cards, and the other cards are in the muck, he looks like an angleshooter.
The other one is guys who slam their cards down and one goes in motion. In most casinos, if that sucker cartwheels off the table, and even everyone can see what it is and where it landed on the floor or someone's lap or on a drink card, good luck getting a floor to de-mummify that. Also if that card rolls into the opponents hand, it's dead forever.
Frankly, players that do the slowroll, one card flip, slam the cards down, well sometimes they deserve to lose a pot to sheer stupidity. In original post, stupidity ended up costing him the pot, regardless if is should or shouldn't have.
That's the final lesson. We all like to think we know what the floor should rule and they usually do. But once in awhile, they don't or the information gets mixed up or whatever and you lose a pot to your own stupidity.
LTNS. The other card should be turned over. The player should be warned about opening two cards to win and chop the pot. If his cards have not touched the muck then they are live and he is in contention for half of the pot.
Regards,
GBH TD
*removed the name as I know 13Cards did not want to be identify in the past - westside8
As Bob "Robert's Rules" Ciafonne has written, "When rules are broken, it is extremely important to look at why the rule was made and why the rule was broken before you start administering what passes for justice." 13CARDS is not forced in a situation to shut his eyes and follow the letter of the law when the violation is an honest mistake that has done no damage to anyone. Like "GBH Tournament Director", he can make the fair decision in the best interest of the game.
Since nobody at Fallsview seems to want the vacant Poker Manager position, I hope that GBH's Terry or John apply for it.
Actually, I think OP was deliberately trolling by posting yet another "You make the ruling" which he knew 99% of poker players would disagree with, just to flaunt that it doesn't matter what we think, since he's management and we're not. Fallsview isn't worth the drive. Brantford FTW.
Word.
asdfasdf
QFT
asdasdf
HUGE POT!! The preceding action has the pot at approx. $3,500 with one player all in. Two other live players remain. The board looks like this:
Q-J-10-x-K rainbow
Chair #1 moves all in for $1,200. Chair #6 is already all in. Chair #8 insta-calls. No more action. 3 players total.
Chair #1 calmly and quietly turns over A-K for The Nuts, his cards are both face up, on the felt and still in his possession.
Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to muck his cards. HOWEVER, one card, the 9, lands face up on the felt. The other card lands face down near the center of the table. The player expects the dealer to turn down the face-up card and muck his hand. The dealer does NOT. The player then reaches to turn over the card himself. Instead, the player decides to turn over the face-down card. The dealer allows the player's outstretched arm to now expose the other card, which turns out to be an Ace, good enough for the chop. The player begins to laugh loudly saying " I forgot I had the Ace. Thought my low straight was beat.".
Chair #1 loudly protests that Chair #8's cards were clearly intended to be mucked as he did not even know what hand he had.
You are called over, given the above information, and now must rule on the $5,000+ pot.
What is your ruling and why?
In that case the dealer should have mucked the cards....he/she did not and if the player turns the card up (clearly identified as his) and presents enough for the chop it's chopped. Cards talk....not your assumptions as to whether he was folding or not.
I hope you aren't trying to say this situation is equivalent to the original.
/g2
I was thinking along similar lines.
The two scenarios are identical in relevant information until the point that Chair #8 has reached out to turn over a card.
My point is that a player's intentions cannot be gauged by what I say, or what the dealer says, or even what the player says after-the-fact, but only by the player's actions. If you agree that in this 2nd example Chair #8 was mucking, when one card landed face up and one landed face down, then by the same token why would you not consider him mucking in the first example when the resulting action was EXACTLY THE SAME, one card face up and one card face down?!?!
How would one of your dealers rule if I player tabled his cards (A9) face up and said "ACE high" on a board of 10 7 6 3 8 after the other player tabled his set of 7's? Would the dealer push the pot to the 7's or to the player that misread his hand?
/g2
Voodoo... I value your input in this discussion. But the essence of the conversation centers on properly table cards not the issue of "cards speak".
A player properly tabling his cards will win the pot (assuming the dealer does not misread the cards) if they show a winning hand, even if they do not realize they have a winning hand. Further to that, our rules do not allow a dealer to kill a properly tabled winning hand; as long as the cards were tabled correctly, even if they eventually end up face down in the muck, that hand will be declared the winner if it was the best hand.
The issue in both example I have presented require a decision as to whether in scenario #1 (one card face up and one card face down), the hand is LIVE while in scenario #2 (one card face up and one card face down), the hand is DEAD.
The room staff should always take what a dealer has to say into consideration when making a decision. However, if a dealer tells me the player was "trying" to muck or "trying" to showdown, I must look at the other information that is available to me. Just as I cannot "know" what a player's intent is, neither can the dealer.
I commend you for coming in here and posting scenerios and taking heat, but hopefully you're also taking some of these suggestions from players and at least considering them in future board meeting discussions.
1) didn't hit the muck
2) didn't get muck or touched by dealer
3) cards speak
And wasn't your last response supposed to be 3 days ago?
Just wonderin that's all.....
QFT... no matter what happened with these situations I think that some feedback should be taken from the responses here, and if possible used to ammend current rules, to avoid questionable situations like this in the future.
/g2
Where the action stands?
Who/what has caused any actions?
What the dealer explains the preceding action to be?
What the board is?
Where the stub is?
What actions have taken place since the dealer interjected?
Who is involved?
Etc...
Etc...
I try to take into consideration ALL of the information available to make a ruling.
/g2
Both scenarios present all of the available information that is relevant to make a ruling; the most important of which; but not limited to, is the location/presentation of both of Chair #8's cards.
YouTube - High Stakes Poker - Phil Ivey Faces a Tough Decision
at what point/time do you consider Ivey's cards "mucked"?