at what point/time do you consider Ivey's cards "mucked"?
That's a pretty trivial example of "pushed towards the muck and released". Released being the key word. I can't wait to hear how you say this relates, or if your answer to the question differs.
Also, another thought. You listed "What the board is" as one thing you take into consideration when you make a ruling. However, in the original example you must not have taken this into account given the extreme unlikelihood of a player folding the nuts in any pot, let anyone a "HUGE" pot, especially just after having verbally announced call to another player's all-in.
With no info. as to the table rules for that room, I would say it's mucked as soon as the dealer scooped Phil's cards.
And the first thing I ever learned about table rules is that "Cards talk".
With no info. as to the table rules for that room, I would say it's mucked as soon as the dealer scooped Phil's cards.
And the first thing I ever learned about table rules is that "Cards talk".
But then you leave the opportunity for a player to angle-shoot by doing what Ivey does here. You could see your opponents reaction to what he may think is a fold, then quickly scoop up the cards before the dealer grabs them, and call or raise etc.
Edit: further... if the dealer accidentally flipped Ivey's cards when he reaches for them, does that make it a call?
Umm.. okay.. I didn't read anything before watching that video... and was expecting something more controversial...
But.. that hand has nothing to do with the discussion. At no point did Phil attempt to lift or expose his cards, at no point did Phil announce call, and at no point did Phil look / act / give evidence of an intention of doing either.
Other than the fact that it's a tourney that's a gr8 example Mark. In this case the cards are thrown face down, well forward, almost into the dealer tray, the dealer turns them up. Still it's ruled a live hand....
It's from a few months back.. the J.C. Tran vs. Douchebag hand
This is an excellent example...of tournament rules being different than cash game rules!!
In tournament play, once an all-in player has been called, and there is no more action pending, all cards MUST be faced; it is not possible to muck at this point (unless of course the player purposefully tossed them deep into the muck and they were not distinguishable from the other dead cards, in which case as a TD I would like give a penalty or at least a warning).
So, in this video example, there is NO POINT at which the cards can be considered mucked. The cards remain live and win the hand, at which point JC's hand, being the loser, is killed by turning it face-down into the muck, leaving only the winning cards on the table while the pot is pushed.
That's a pretty trivial example of "pushed towards the muck and released". Released being the key word. I can't wait to hear how you say this relates, or if your answer to the question differs.
Also, another thought. You listed "What the board is" as one thing you take into consideration when you make a ruling. However, in the original example you must not have taken this into account given the extreme unlikelihood of a player folding the nuts in any pot, let anyone a "HUGE" pot, especially just after having verbally announced call to another player's all-in.
/g2
By "what the board is" I was referring to what point of the hand we were at (ie: the flop, the turn or the river, if anything was premature, etc.).
I value your input in this discussion. But the essence of the conversation centers on properly table cards not the issue of "cards speak".
I've still got a few pages to read through before I'm caught up, but....
I think this quote is the problem 13cards:
You are looking at this as a technical issue (the bold) and your players are telling you that, whenever possible, we want a judgement in the spirit and best interests of the game. There has never been any disagreement that in this instance, (OP) this gentleman wanted to table his hand.
I feel your business is customer service and in this instance you are at odds with your market and have discovered a positive opportunity to improve to meet our needs.
Welcome back Kristy, we've missed you around here. You hit the nail on the head here , it is about the best interest of the game and the customer service associated with it.
And 13Cards, you keep talking about the difference in mucking differences between a cash and tournament game. For my own interest can you show where the two are documented? Or if not on the Net, do you have them documented at Fallsview? If so how about posting them here?
I got PM'd a piece of this thread - to make me post in it? As if this thread needs any more posts. I don't agree with this either, but I guess that is a whole other discussion.
I have hosted many games, both tournament and cash. I have made rulings, sometimes too hastily or without thinking through the whole situation and have been wrong. During the game, all players agreed with the ruling and things moved forward. Yes, they have been big rulings in key hands where someone has gone broke (both in tournament and cash game play).
The last time I made an incorrect ruling, after having time to think about it, I refunded the player the tournament buyin out of my own pocket. The player appreciated the gesture so much, they covered by buyin into another (smaller) tourney we were both playing in.
Things are a little different in this scenario, and the casino isn't going to start giving refunds. I think we should just let this thread die and move on with more strategic discussion. Towards that point, I will try to remember to post a hand tonight that has been bugging me.
I got PM'd a piece of this thread - to make me post in it? As if this thread needs any more posts. I don't agree with this either, but I guess that is a whole other discussion.
Please add me to the list of people who is annoyed by the spam I received relating to this thread.
I was also PMd -- why? This post is getting absolutely ridiculous -- posting that hand with Booth and Ivey for what? 13cards, do you even know what your point is/was anymore? Obviously there is no common sense regarding references to your point or to your decisions, we get it. You should go back to not responding in this thread, you are just killing yourself here.
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....
Lets just agree with 13 cards that you cannot assess the state of mind of the player who released his cards. This MUST mean that anytime someone releases their cards (one or two) in a forward motion towards the muck, the hand is dead. You cannot measure the distance of the cards(s) from the players hands as this has no bearing on the situation. You cannot examine the action in the hand. Face down, forward motion, the hand is dead. Period. End of story.
I would like to see this rule enforced all the time. BB mucks a few inches forward -- the hand is dead. Wait, there is no action in the hand and no one is harmed, lets make an exception. After all the pot is small. So, when does the rule come into effect? Only on pots of a certain size?
There is NO WAY you can enforce the rule that you CANNOT take into account the state of mind of the player and that ANY forward motion of the cards face down towards the muck means the hand was dead.
Both ex. 1 & 2 can be ruled the same -- Hand Live. Or either can be ruled dead. However, you MUST take into account what the player was trying to do. Bob Ciaffone DOES explain there are situations where state of mind is extremely important. When someone tosses in say 3 100 chips and says call, and the bet was 3,000 there could be a misunderstanding and it is the OBLIGATION of the floor to ensure the player calling did know the amount they are calling. The all-in button is a small measure to help that rule, but there are other cases as stated in Robert's rules where you MUST take into account state of mind.
As it stands, good luck with the rule "Face down forward motion released card(s) are dead. All the time.
I think he only spammed those that voted against him.
I think so.. I got it too. Not sure what the point of it was. I suspect it was a way of trying to get us to change our thoughts on the second hand, so that he could say we are contradicting ourselves, but frankly, who knows.
IMO the different scenario should be a new thread, as it is completely different than the original poll question.
But then you leave the opportunity for a player to angle-shoot by doing what Ivey does here. You could see your opponents reaction to what he may think is a fold, then quickly scoop up the cards before the dealer grabs them, and call or raise etc.
Edit: further... if the dealer accidentally flipped Ivey's cards when he reaches for them, does that make it a call?
/g2
Okay, granted. But did you notice how short the time was between Ivey moving his cards forward and backing away, and when the dealer scooped them, right? That was what I was trying to get at. He made what appears to be a mucking action, and the dealer gives NO TIME for the angle shoot.
Okay, granted. But did you notice how short the time was between Ivey moving his cards forward and backing away, and when the dealer scooped them, right? That was what I was trying to get at. He made what appears to be a mucking action, and the dealer gives NO TIME for the angle shoot.
Okay, granted. But did you notice how high the stakes are and how likely this is one of the best dealers in the game.
Having been a floor supervisor, dealer and player in casinos, I can see the issue from all sides. Players, dealers and most supervisors have a sense of fairness, and as Bob Ciaffone wrote,
"Fairness should not be suppressed because the letter of the law has been broken....
Should people making rulings not be so literal-minded that they cannot see or do what is fair? For sure. We may remember the admonition of Confucius: 'Better wise men than wise laws.'"
Bellagio's Jack McLelland uses the principle that the pot should be awarded to the winning hand whenever possible, instead of using technicalities to unfairly give the money to somebody else.
Over 80% of poll respondents have voted that the winner's nut hand should be ruled live. Cardroom staff are often taken for granted by players, but one of the most important duties of gaming staff is to keep the gamblers happy so they will return to gamble some more. It is in the best interest of Fallsview Casino to make fair rulings instead of alienating so many players away to play in a competing casino or illegal club. I myself haven't returned to Fallsview since I read the ruling; maybe I'm afraid that my winning hand will be somehow ruled dead.
I hope that when Fallsview Casino finds somebody brave enough for the vacant Poker Manager position, he/she will read and learn from this thread.
You are looking at this as a technical issue (the bold) and your players are telling you that, whenever possible, we want a judgement in the spirit and best interests of the game. There has never been any disagreement that in this instance, (OP) this gentleman wanted to table his hand.
I feel your business is customer service and in this instance you are at odds with your market and have discovered a positive opportunity to improve to meet our needs.
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.
In my opinion, the intent of a player's action IS VERY RELEVANT in making a ruling. What if Player #8 had a physical disability and while trying to turn the cards over he made a mistake? Would the other player immediately have a right to the whole pot? If so, this is a horrible way to approach your role as an arbitrator & mediator for poker games.
If the dealer is certain that the player attempted to muck, then the state of the cards (faceup or facedown) is irrelevant to the ruling and the pot should never be awarded to that player. This is not contradictory to the "fairness" since the player thought his hand could not win and decided to throw it away. Even if was an honest mistake (e.g. misread hand, forgot hand), the pot cannot be awarded to the player.
If the dealer is certain that the player was trying to turn over his cards but, either due to clumsiness or some other unknown factor, one or both of the cards happened to move towards the muck facedown, the player should be allowed to play his hand since his intent was to show the cards.
If the dealer is not certain when the floor is called, then the floor has to make a decision largely without the input of the dealer (hopefully, you rely on your dealers for evidence).
That being said, I will give my opinion regarding the situation that transpired.
In the second situation, "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." This situation requires no interpretation. If one card is near the middle of the table, the player's was intent is to muck. He is an idiot, since his pot equity is not zero (the board can come A, K), but nevertheless, his hand is dead.
In the first situation, 13 Cards states "Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to table his A-K for the chop. HOWEVER, only the Ace lands face up on the felt. The other card, which may or may not have been a King, lands face down near the center of the table." This situation is more complex because "apparently attempting to table his hand" contradicts with "the other card lands face down near the center of the table". If "the other card lands 3-6 inches in front of the player", then, hopefully, there would be no debate.
There are degrees of "apparently attempting". 1) The player can claim this, 2) the dealer can claim this, 3) other players not involved in the hand can claim this, and 4) the other players involved in the hand can claim this. If everyone at the table claims that chair #8 is apparently attempting to table his hand, you would have to be extraordinarily obtuse to ignore this information when making your ruling. However, I doubt that a situation this controversial would have a unanimous table verdict.
In this case, the betting action also sways the decision to the hand being live. In what situation would the player insta-call an all-in bet for $1200 only to jump up from the table and muck a hand that has some pot equity (since he still can get a chop even if he only has the bare ace)?
If the dealer was unsure of the player's intention, he/she should have asked. This would have been additional information to deliver the best ruling (whatever that may be). I believe that a dealer asking a player his intention before calling the floor prevents a LOT of misunderstanding. If chair #1 protests, then he is scum and an angle-shooter. If chair #1's only argument is the written rule that relies on technicalities to deny chair #8's privilege of playing his hand, I would be very unsympathetic to chair #1's case.
Given that the dealer didn't ask, he/she put you in a very difficult spot. I would review the betting action, look at the position of the card, ask everyone's opinion of the situation (players involved and observers at the table), and then make the best judgment possible. If the card touched the muck due to a chair #8's carelessness (even if he was really excited), I would rule that the hand was dead. If the card was equidistant between the center of the table and everyone is "fairly certain" that chair #8's intent was to turn over both cards, then I would rule the hand was live. If there was a disagreement over the intent of the player, then I would make a ruling solely based on the position of the card. Unfortunately, this is subjective, but it is the only piece of unambiguous data that you have available to you. If it came to this, I would point this out as I was making the ruling.
Regardless of the ruling, I would instruct the dealer, if he/she is uncertain of the player's action, to clarify the situation before calling the floor. I strongly believe that this is accordance with the spirit of the game.
In a perfect world, I would (if the card had not touched the muck and was clearly identifable) ask chair #8 exactly what he had. I would then announce the ruling saying "if you have what you said you have, your hand is live, otherwise it is dead". Of course, this is outside the scope of how rules can be interpreted...but, I think it's a pretty damn good ruling.
In my opinion, the intent of a player's action IS VERY RELEVANT in making a ruling. What if Player #8 had a physical disability and while trying to turn the cards over he made a mistake? Would the other player immediately have a right to the whole pot? If so, this is a horrible way to approach your role as an arbitrator & mediator for poker games.
If the dealer is certain that the player attempted to muck, then the state of the cards (faceup or facedown) is irrelevant to the ruling and the pot should never be awarded to that player. This is not contradictory to the "fairness" since the player thought his hand could not win and decided to throw it away. Even if was an honest mistake (e.g. misread hand, forgot hand), the pot cannot be awarded to the player...- Mark
Again, I use the string-raise example to show that "intent" cannot always be considered when a player's "actions" (or the result of said actions) do not correspond and do not fall within the "rules" surrounding the action (or the result of said action).
EXAMPLE:
The bet is $20. Player #2 verbal declares "I call your $20 bet and raise you $100 more on top."
The "intent" of the player is clear; he attempted to make a raise.
However, the "actions" of the player do not correspond with this intent and there are clear rules governing this situation (string-raise). Although the player's "intent" can easily be seen/read/established/deciphered, there is a clear rule dictating that his actions do not allow the raise to be made, regardless of the intent.
The same reasoning can be used to declare a card that is face-down in the middle of the table to be mucked, regardless of the player's intentions.
At showdown, a player has two choices: table your cards or muck them. A player that does not properly table their cards MUST be mucking them by process of elimination.
At showdown, a player has two choices: table your cards or muck them. A player that does not properly table their cards MUST be mucking them by process of elimination.
Just to show how stupid this statement is:
A player that does not properly muck their cards MUST be tabling them by process of elimination.
Comments
Also, another thought. You listed "What the board is" as one thing you take into consideration when you make a ruling. However, in the original example you must not have taken this into account given the extreme unlikelihood of a player folding the nuts in any pot, let anyone a "HUGE" pot, especially just after having verbally announced call to another player's all-in.
/g2
With no info. as to the table rules for that room, I would say it's mucked as soon as the dealer scooped Phil's cards.
And the first thing I ever learned about table rules is that "Cards talk".
But then you leave the opportunity for a player to angle-shoot by doing what Ivey does here. You could see your opponents reaction to what he may think is a fold, then quickly scoop up the cards before the dealer grabs them, and call or raise etc.
Edit: further... if the dealer accidentally flipped Ivey's cards when he reaches for them, does that make it a call?
/g2
But.. that hand has nothing to do with the discussion. At no point did Phil attempt to lift or expose his cards, at no point did Phil announce call, and at no point did Phil look / act / give evidence of an intention of doing either.
Mark
However: A few differences
- Tournament vs. Cash game
- Specific rule is in this tourney
- Dealer actions are different
Poker Videos - News, Interviews, Strategy, Lifestyle and Tournament Coverage
It's from a few months back.. the J.C. Tran vs. Douchebag hand
Casino Niagara,
Player 1 shows pocket black KK for trip kings... on the river. No heart on a 4heart river board.
Player 2 Looks at the 4heartflush board and tosses his hand into the middle showing only Jh, Not showing the other card.
Dealer awards the pot to....
Player 1.
This is an excellent example...of tournament rules being different than cash game rules!!
In tournament play, once an all-in player has been called, and there is no more action pending, all cards MUST be faced; it is not possible to muck at this point (unless of course the player purposefully tossed them deep into the muck and they were not distinguishable from the other dead cards, in which case as a TD I would like give a penalty or at least a warning).
So, in this video example, there is NO POINT at which the cards can be considered mucked. The cards remain live and win the hand, at which point JC's hand, being the loser, is killed by turning it face-down into the muck, leaving only the winning cards on the table while the pot is pushed.
By "what the board is" I was referring to what point of the hand we were at (ie: the flop, the turn or the river, if anything was premature, etc.).
I've still got a few pages to read through before I'm caught up, but....
I think this quote is the problem 13cards:
You are looking at this as a technical issue (the bold) and your players are telling you that, whenever possible, we want a judgement in the spirit and best interests of the game. There has never been any disagreement that in this instance, (OP) this gentleman wanted to table his hand.
I feel your business is customer service and in this instance you are at odds with your market and have discovered a positive opportunity to improve to meet our needs.
Good luck!
And 13Cards, you keep talking about the difference in mucking differences between a cash and tournament game. For my own interest can you show where the two are documented? Or if not on the Net, do you have them documented at Fallsview? If so how about posting them here?
I have hosted many games, both tournament and cash. I have made rulings, sometimes too hastily or without thinking through the whole situation and have been wrong. During the game, all players agreed with the ruling and things moved forward. Yes, they have been big rulings in key hands where someone has gone broke (both in tournament and cash game play).
The last time I made an incorrect ruling, after having time to think about it, I refunded the player the tournament buyin out of my own pocket. The player appreciated the gesture so much, they covered by buyin into another (smaller) tourney we were both playing in.
Things are a little different in this scenario, and the casino isn't going to start giving refunds. I think we should just let this thread die and move on with more strategic discussion. Towards that point, I will try to remember to post a hand tonight that has been bugging me.
Please add me to the list of people who is annoyed by the spam I received relating to this thread.
Lets just agree with 13 cards that you cannot assess the state of mind of the player who released his cards. This MUST mean that anytime someone releases their cards (one or two) in a forward motion towards the muck, the hand is dead. You cannot measure the distance of the cards(s) from the players hands as this has no bearing on the situation. You cannot examine the action in the hand. Face down, forward motion, the hand is dead. Period. End of story.
I would like to see this rule enforced all the time. BB mucks a few inches forward -- the hand is dead. Wait, there is no action in the hand and no one is harmed, lets make an exception. After all the pot is small. So, when does the rule come into effect? Only on pots of a certain size?
There is NO WAY you can enforce the rule that you CANNOT take into account the state of mind of the player and that ANY forward motion of the cards face down towards the muck means the hand was dead.
Both ex. 1 & 2 can be ruled the same -- Hand Live. Or either can be ruled dead. However, you MUST take into account what the player was trying to do. Bob Ciaffone DOES explain there are situations where state of mind is extremely important. When someone tosses in say 3 100 chips and says call, and the bet was 3,000 there could be a misunderstanding and it is the OBLIGATION of the floor to ensure the player calling did know the amount they are calling. The all-in button is a small measure to help that rule, but there are other cases as stated in Robert's rules where you MUST take into account state of mind.
As it stands, good luck with the rule "Face down forward motion released card(s) are dead. All the time.
Cheers
Magi
13cards PM'd a bunch of us with his new scenerio.
I think he only spammed those that voted against him.
I think so.. I got it too. Not sure what the point of it was. I suspect it was a way of trying to get us to change our thoughts on the second hand, so that he could say we are contradicting ourselves, but frankly, who knows.
IMO the different scenario should be a new thread, as it is completely different than the original poll question.
Okay, granted. But did you notice how short the time was between Ivey moving his cards forward and backing away, and when the dealer scooped them, right? That was what I was trying to get at. He made what appears to be a mucking action, and the dealer gives NO TIME for the angle shoot.
/g2
"Fairness should not be suppressed because the letter of the law has been broken....
Should people making rulings not be so literal-minded that they cannot see or do what is fair? For sure. We may remember the admonition of Confucius: 'Better wise men than wise laws.'"
Bellagio's Jack McLelland uses the principle that the pot should be awarded to the winning hand whenever possible, instead of using technicalities to unfairly give the money to somebody else.
Over 80% of poll respondents have voted that the winner's nut hand should be ruled live. Cardroom staff are often taken for granted by players, but one of the most important duties of gaming staff is to keep the gamblers happy so they will return to gamble some more. It is in the best interest of Fallsview Casino to make fair rulings instead of alienating so many players away to play in a competing casino or illegal club. I myself haven't returned to Fallsview since I read the ruling; maybe I'm afraid that my winning hand will be somehow ruled dead.
I hope that when Fallsview Casino finds somebody brave enough for the vacant Poker Manager position, he/she will read and learn from this thread.
If the dealer is certain that the player attempted to muck, then the state of the cards (faceup or facedown) is irrelevant to the ruling and the pot should never be awarded to that player. This is not contradictory to the "fairness" since the player thought his hand could not win and decided to throw it away. Even if was an honest mistake (e.g. misread hand, forgot hand), the pot cannot be awarded to the player.
If the dealer is certain that the player was trying to turn over his cards but, either due to clumsiness or some other unknown factor, one or both of the cards happened to move towards the muck facedown, the player should be allowed to play his hand since his intent was to show the cards.
If the dealer is not certain when the floor is called, then the floor has to make a decision largely without the input of the dealer (hopefully, you rely on your dealers for evidence).
That being said, I will give my opinion regarding the situation that transpired.
In the second situation, "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." This situation requires no interpretation. If one card is near the middle of the table, the player's was intent is to muck. He is an idiot, since his pot equity is not zero (the board can come A, K), but nevertheless, his hand is dead.
In the first situation, 13 Cards states "Chair #8 stands up and throws his cards to the table, apparently attempting to table his A-K for the chop. HOWEVER, only the Ace lands face up on the felt. The other card, which may or may not have been a King, lands face down near the center of the table." This situation is more complex because "apparently attempting to table his hand" contradicts with "the other card lands face down near the center of the table". If "the other card lands 3-6 inches in front of the player", then, hopefully, there would be no debate.
There are degrees of "apparently attempting". 1) The player can claim this, 2) the dealer can claim this, 3) other players not involved in the hand can claim this, and 4) the other players involved in the hand can claim this. If everyone at the table claims that chair #8 is apparently attempting to table his hand, you would have to be extraordinarily obtuse to ignore this information when making your ruling. However, I doubt that a situation this controversial would have a unanimous table verdict.
In this case, the betting action also sways the decision to the hand being live. In what situation would the player insta-call an all-in bet for $1200 only to jump up from the table and muck a hand that has some pot equity (since he still can get a chop even if he only has the bare ace)?
If the dealer was unsure of the player's intention, he/she should have asked. This would have been additional information to deliver the best ruling (whatever that may be). I believe that a dealer asking a player his intention before calling the floor prevents a LOT of misunderstanding. If chair #1 protests, then he is scum and an angle-shooter. If chair #1's only argument is the written rule that relies on technicalities to deny chair #8's privilege of playing his hand, I would be very unsympathetic to chair #1's case.
Given that the dealer didn't ask, he/she put you in a very difficult spot. I would review the betting action, look at the position of the card, ask everyone's opinion of the situation (players involved and observers at the table), and then make the best judgment possible. If the card touched the muck due to a chair #8's carelessness (even if he was really excited), I would rule that the hand was dead. If the card was equidistant between the center of the table and everyone is "fairly certain" that chair #8's intent was to turn over both cards, then I would rule the hand was live. If there was a disagreement over the intent of the player, then I would make a ruling solely based on the position of the card. Unfortunately, this is subjective, but it is the only piece of unambiguous data that you have available to you. If it came to this, I would point this out as I was making the ruling.
Regardless of the ruling, I would instruct the dealer, if he/she is uncertain of the player's action, to clarify the situation before calling the floor. I strongly believe that this is accordance with the spirit of the game.
In a perfect world, I would (if the card had not touched the muck and was clearly identifable) ask chair #8 exactly what he had. I would then announce the ruling saying "if you have what you said you have, your hand is live, otherwise it is dead". Of course, this is outside the scope of how rules can be interpreted...but, I think it's a pretty damn good ruling.
- Mark
Again, I use the string-raise example to show that "intent" cannot always be considered when a player's "actions" (or the result of said actions) do not correspond and do not fall within the "rules" surrounding the action (or the result of said action).
EXAMPLE:
The bet is $20. Player #2 verbal declares "I call your $20 bet and raise you $100 more on top."
The "intent" of the player is clear; he attempted to make a raise.
However, the "actions" of the player do not correspond with this intent and there are clear rules governing this situation (string-raise). Although the player's "intent" can easily be seen/read/established/deciphered, there is a clear rule dictating that his actions do not allow the raise to be made, regardless of the intent.
The same reasoning can be used to declare a card that is face-down in the middle of the table to be mucked, regardless of the player's intentions.
At showdown, a player has two choices: table your cards or muck them. A player that does not properly table their cards MUST be mucking them by process of elimination.
Just to show how stupid this statement is:
A player that does not properly muck their cards MUST be tabling them by process of elimination.
/g2