Exposing cards against aggressive action?

[pastor]

THNL Tournamet, tables with betting line:

Two players left (any betting round);
Player A - Bet or all-in (clear, chips are inside of the betting line)
Player B – Throws his cards face up in the middle of the board without saying nothing
Player A – Mucked his cards

Many floormans agree that Players B cards are still alive. If I'm a Player B, I will do this in every critical moment (bubble, against short stack...), because the odds, that this example will happen, are very high.
Our cash game rule is that Player B hand is dead!

2nd scenario: Player B - Throws his cards in the middle of the board without saying nothing (one face up and one face down)?

P.S. Please, don't talk about dealer mistake.

[Brian Vickers]

"Throws his cards face up in the middle of the board without saying nothing"

When a player throws his cards forward, that is a folding action; just as an up and down movement with the hand is a checking action.  A player who turns his cards face up in front of himself has not made a folding action as he has not pushed his cards forward, and especially not thrown them all the way to the middle of the board. 

I understand why a floor might think that B's cards should be live here, but it's only because they are overthinking the issue.  The floor is taking a rule that says that exposing the hand does not automatically kill the hand and applying it to a scenario that doesn't come close to matching the intent.  The part of the cards being exposed or not is not what will determine if the hand is dead, it is the action that the player takes with those cards.  If I pick my cards up and set them back down in front of myself face down, no floor would argue that my hand should be dead; if i pick up my cards and throw them forward face down in response to a bet, I don't believe any floor would argue them live.  Whether the cards were shown do not determine the action that player has taken, however the player may be subject to penalty if there is still action yet to take place, including his own pending action.

[pastor]

Correct, I agree with you Brian. Especially with the sentence: When a player throws his cards forward, that is a folding action.

[Nick C]

Pastor:

 It's difficult not to talk about the dealer in most of these situations. We are always looking for the "correct" solution from the floor. The only mistake by the dealer is not knowing when to call the floor. As soon as Player B tossed his cards face up in the middle of the board (silently), the dealer must freeze the action and call the floor. You need the dealer to respond or each situation gets more complicated.

 The ruling would depend on whether Player A's hand was retrievable. Player B's hand is live until it is mucked by the dealer. In your description, there is no mention of what Player A was thinking. Did he think he won the hand because Player B mucked? Or, was he bluffing and assumed Player B had him beat? There's the argument. Player A might have thought that Player B folded. What then? We prefer not to bring the dealer into the scenario but, that's why most of these problems are created.

[pastor]

Pastor:

 It's difficult not to talk about the dealer in most of these situations. We are always looking for the "correct" solution from the floor. The only mistake by the dealer is not knowing when to call the floor. As soon as Player B tossed his cards face up in the middle of the board (silently), the dealer must freeze the action and call the floor. You need the dealer to respond or each situation gets more complicated.

OK Nick C, we are here, behind the dealer & situation is clear. Players A cards are mucked. FLOP is Js, 7h, 3d. Players B - exposed cards are As Ks. Q. = WHO WINS THE POT?

 The ruling would depend on whether Player A's hand was retrievable. Player B's hand is live until it is mucked by the dealer. In your description, there is no mention of what Player A was thinking. Did he think he won the hand because Player B mucked? Or, was he bluffing and assumed Player B had him beat? There's the argument. Player A might have thought that Player B folded. What then? We prefer not to bring the dealer into the scenario but, that's why most of these problems are created.

1. I understand this, that in 2nd scenario you will kindly asked Player B to turn up his face down card if hi/she want to win the pot?
2. Player B's hand is live until it is mucked by the dealer.
- Dealer can not muck a live hand
- If he/she do this, cards speak for themselves

I can tell you that after three years on cash game, since we accepted the rule that exposed cards against aggressive action is fold, can not remember when I last solved this problem.

[K-Lo]

I'd be careful about thinking that implementing an absolute rule that says "exposed cards against aggressive action is a fold" in a tournament setting will solve all problems. It may just create other issues. For example, player A goes all-in, player B "mucks" by flipping his cards forward and up.  Dealer goes to muck B's hand. B says "what are you talking about, I said call".  Are you really going to kill B's hand here? 

There are so many variations of the original scenario described that it is difficult to apply a catch all rule. The situation will look quite different if it is the last bet of the final betting round, than if it is an uncalled bet on an earlier betting round; the situation will also look different if the bet being faced is an all-in bet versus one that is not.

It's been debated before that we should have a "folding action is a binding fold" rule, but currently that isn't a rule, and I'm not sure we'd all agree that there should be. I'm sure you've all seen the situation where someone is so excited after having set a trap, intends to call an all-in bet, throws his hand onto the table attempting to table the hand but the cards actually land face down instead, possibly near the muck. If the all-in player insists that was a folding action, and the other player insists he was about to call, would we really be right to insist that was technically a fold? 

In any case, I have no problem working with the general rule that a hand is live until it is mucked by the dealer. That said, if it looks like an angle is being played (i.e. B made an action that anyone would reasonably interpret as surrendering his hand and that the dealer simply wasn't fast enough to muck it, and now the player is making a last-ditch effort to try to take the pot on a technicality given that A mucked), then I personally will happily invoke Rule 1 and award the pot to A.  I might also tell A (and B for that matter if he really meant his cards to be live) that he should consider waiting for the pot to be pushed to him before surrendering his cards for his own protection.

[Nick C]

 Pastor:  I'll take some time tomorrow and see if I can better explain how I would sort out the mess.

[pastor]

I'd be careful about thinking that implementing an absolute rule that says "exposed cards against aggressive action is a fold" in a tournament setting will solve all problems. It may just create other issues. For example, player A goes all-in, player B "mucks" by flipping his cards forward and up.  Dealer goes to muck B's hand. B says "what are you talking about, I said call".  Are you really going to kill B's hand here? 

[color=blue]This is classc situation.
1st. Expoed cards speaks for them selves.
2nd. Floor will ask the other players who heard call and after this info. will make decsion, no mater if Player A muck his cards.[/color][/b]

There are so many variations of the original scenario described that it is difficult to apply a catch all rule. The situation will look quite different if it is the last bet of the final betting round, than if it is an uncalled bet on an earlier betting round; the situation will also look different if the bet being faced is an all-in bet versus one that is not.

It's been debated before that we should have a "folding action is a binding fold" rule, but currently that isn't a rule, and I'm not sure we'd all agree that there should be. I'm sure you've all seen the situation where someone is so excited after having set a trap, intends to call an all-in bet, throws his hand onto the table attempting to table the hand but the cards actually land face down instead, possibly near the muck. If the all-in player insists that was a folding action, and the other player insists he was about to call, would we really be right to insist that was technically a fold? 

I guarantee you that this player and all of his fans and friends, will never ever do this.

In any case, I have no problem working with the general rule that a hand is live until it is mucked by the dealer. That said, if it looks like an angle is being played (i.e. B made an action that anyone would reasonably interpret as surrendering his hand and that the dealer simply wasn't fast enough to muck it, and now the player is making a last-ditch effort to try to take the pot on a technicality given that A mucked), then I personally will happily invoke Rule 1 and award the pot to A.  I might also tell A (and B for that matter if he really meant his cards to be live) that he should consider waiting for the pot to be pushed to him before surrendering his cards for his own protection.

I'm not a doctor nor investigator. But I know, players want to be ruled and trust the floor.
I will give you an example: Soccer is the most popular game in the world, because rules are common and simple to understand. Let say offside (in poker case; betting line), player can score the goal but it is not valid if the judge see the line and everyone agree with judge decision...

However I don't see your decision who wins the pot, A or B?
 

[K-Lo]

A betting line is not necessarily a folding line, and betting lines on the whole are no longer widely adopted (perhaps some would argue they should be, but that's another debate entirely). Those venues who still use "lines" of some sort still typically need to rely on house rules to clarify what actions will be deemed to mean when the line comes into play.  

All I was saying is that there are strong views, widely held, both for and against the use of lines such as betting lines.  There is also, still, considerable debate over whether there should be a "folding action is a binding fold" rule.  I agree with you that there are benefits to having simple rules.  However, the fact is not everyone agrees that the betting line is the way to go.

However I don't see your decision who wins the pot, A or B?

I need A's explanation as to why his cards are in the muck. I assume it's something along the lines of "I thought B folded".
I need the dealer's explanation as to what he saw.
If the dealer agrees that it looked like B attempted to fold, I need to know why the dealer didn't muck B's cards.
If B is insisting he didn't muck, I need to know why the cards are in the middle of the table and not in his possession.

Assuming all evidence points to the fact that B was mucking and was trying an angle, I would award the pot to A.  If it looks like B was not trying an angle and really intended to call, and A was not being very careful about protecting his hand, then I am awarding the pot to B given he holds the only remaining live hand. I'm sorry I can't give a more definitive opinion because I wasn't there.  

I understand the desire to make rulings without needing to perform "investigations", but my personal view is that TDs should not be afraid to ask questions to try to determine what has actually transpired. Rule 1 allows us to override the technical rules when it would be fair to do so - I like to have as much info at hand as possible when making such decisions.

[Brian Vickers]

I think what's at hand is muck vs fold; while sometimes used synonomously, they are not always the same thing (Think of the old "a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not neccisarily a square).  A fold is an action whereby a player leaves the hand and has no more obligation to the pot, a muck is the discarding of one's hand.  These may sound like the same thing at first, but the difference is that a muck is not an action in and of itself.  If I'm facing a bet and I throw my cards forward I have both folded my hand and mucked my hand.  If I am at the showdown and I discard my hand I have mucked my hand but I have not folded my hand; I can't fold as once the showdown phase begins there is no more action. 

The TDA rules have a rule which refers to pushing your cards forward face down at showdown not automatically killing them, this is because I can not make the action of a fold anymore.  Throwing your cards away in response to a bet is a fold because I have to take an action in response to the bet so when I throw my cards in the action I have taken is a fold; and a fold is a fold is a fold.

Back to what Nick says though, if it's not clear if it's a fold or not the dealer should simply ask "is that a fold?" get a confirmation and move on.  I don't think the floor needs to come over in most cases.

[MikeB]

I think what's at hand is muck vs fold; while sometimes used synonomously, they are not always the same thing (Think of the old "a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not neccisarily a square).  A fold is an action whereby a player leaves the hand and has no more obligation to the pot, a muck is the discarding of one's hand.  These may sound like the same thing at first, but the difference is that a muck is not an action in and of itself.  If I'm facing a bet and I throw my cards forward I have both folded my hand and mucked my hand.  If I am at the showdown and I discard my hand I have mucked my hand but I have not folded my hand; I can't fold as once the showdown phase begins there is no more action.  

The TDA rules have a rule which refers to pushing your cards forward face down at showdown not automatically killing them, this is because I can not make the action of a fold anymore.  Throwing your cards away in response to a bet is a fold because I have to take an action in response to the bet so when I throw my cards in the action I have taken is a fold; and a fold is a fold is a fold.

Back to what Nick says though, if it's not clear if it's a fold or not the dealer should simply ask "is that a fold?" get a confirmation and move on.  I don't think the floor needs to come over in most cases.

Brian: real nice summary on the rules re muck vs. fold, and how the showdown is a unique situation. This was a major achievement of the 2013 Summit IMO.

[pastor]

Nice post Brian.

A fold is an action whereby a player leaves the hand and has no more obligation to the pot, a muck is the discarding of one's hand.

The worst example to explain this is when player check, bet or raise and dealer takes his cards and pushed it into the muck. In this case cards are mucked but player did't made a fold. The penalty for this player in my opinion is the rigorous.

Throwing your cards away in response to a bet is a fold because I have to take an action in response to the bet so when I throw my cards in the action I have taken is a fold;

This thesis must be written on the first pages of poker bibles

Another answer to this topic from one of the top respected TD in Europe:

Hi Robert, for making the right decision it is necessary to have the full explanation of player A & B and the dealer. But generally I would rule the hand of player B dead because he didn't say call AND it was a clear forward motion.

I will give you another interesting example:

IPT - THNL Main Event

Head's Up on a board after turn: 8s, Jd, Jc, 2d.
Player A was made a bet, player B took their cards and with hand slowly went towards to the middle of the table. But his cards were still held in his hand. During this time player A opened one card (Js) and the other one thrown in the muck. Player B is pulled his hand back and requested fold of player A.
I came to the table and decided that player B hand is fold.

[BillM16]

Rather than speculate on how I’d rule without firsthand knowledge, I’d like to express a desire to have clarification on some of these rules.

Whether or not intentional, Player B has violated TDA Etiquette rules.  Indeed, it seems that by Rule 58: “a penalty MAY BE invoked” and by Rule 59: “obligated to protect other players” he should not “disclose contents of (his) live or folded hand”. By exposing his cards he also violates Rule 60 and “may incur a penalty” but could also be playing the angle unfortunately left open by (misinterpretation of) the phrase in Rule 60: “but will not have a dead hand.” And, of course, the penalty if any, would be given after the chips are given.

It is unfortunate that the TDA Rules do not make explicitly clear that a CALL must be declared before Player B tables his hand while facing a bet lest it be interpreted as a FOLD.  (It ought to be more than a matter of good etiquette.) It is also unfortunate that the TDA Rules do not make clear that Player A must protect (his) hand at all times until the pot has been awarded to the correct player.

And lastly, most players table hands with a forward action to help the dealer reach the cards.

[Nick C]

I have to agree with BillM16 when he says "It is unfortunate that the TDA Rules do not make explicitly clear that a CALL must be declared before Player B tables his hand while facing a bet." There are too many violations of simple etiquette that create these situations. Failure to protect your own hand, failure to make your intentions clear, releasing cards in the direction of the muck face up

 As far as the response from Brian, Wow...I had to read it six times, and I still don't get it. If that was one of the discussions at the 2013 Summit, I'm glad I missed it!

 When you are contesting a pot at the showdown, there is a simple process that follows: The dealer will direct the last aggressive bettor, or the first person that checked the final betting round, to uncover their cards. The order will follow clockwise until the winning hand is determined...losing hands are mucked and the winner receives the pot.

 Any player, that fails to follow this simple procedure, will risk losing a pot that...they should have won.

 When a bet is made: The bettor must retain possession of their hand until the next player folds, face down, or clearly calls or raises. If a player decides to toss his cards, face up, without comment, two actions should immediately follow: #1 The dealer must freeze any action from the Bettor and ask the opposing player to either call or turn his hand over and conceed. #2 The bettor must never expose his hand until the opponents actions are clear. Dealers are constantly stacking chips, preventing out of turn action, correcting players from irregularities like splashing the pot, etc., etc. Somehow, when we need them to control the game at the showdown, TD's don't want them to participate, even though they could easily prevent 99% of all these uncalled for mishaps.

 If you are calling a bet: #1 Never release your cards until you clearly call the proper amount. Or #2 You announce that you are calling before exposing your hand...That should be simple enough, don't you think? If you make a bet, retain possession of your cards until the opponent has clearly surrendered his hand into the muck or the dealer has pushed you the pot.

 I don't know about the difference between folding and mucking at the showdown, or anytime during a hand, and please don't try to explain it again.

 While we're at it, I'd like to address TDA #16; the last sentence: Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand fade down.  :