Folding a chop?

[BillM16]

The SB has ThTd. 
The BB has TcTs. 
The Button has 9c9s. 
After opening with light betting and calling, the flop comes AcJsQs.
Again there is small betting and calling by all the three players. 
Then, the turn brings the Qc. 
All three players check and the river shows the Ah.
Again it is checked around.  The SB tables his pocket tens.  The BB tables his pocket tens.  Finally, the Button pushes his pocket nines face down towards the muck, releases control, but the cards are not quite into the muck. The UTG says “Wait it’s a three-way chop!” The dealer calls the floor.  How do you rule?

[Mateus93]

Hi bill

Its cleary a mistake of the button that didnt see that the ouhters 2 players had the board like him. So i think the dealer can request his show down, once the cards are identificable and split the pot by 3. the rule 14 say : "Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck." i think thats a good situation to apply this rule.

[Dave Miller]

Ditto.

I would also rule that unless the cards are not touching the muck, the player must state their rank and suit before turning them over. If he identifies them incorrectly, his hand is dead.

[Max D]

If the cards are clearly identifiable then it is a three way chop, if they are in the muck and unretrievable it is a two way chop.

[MikeB]

rule 14 say : "Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck." i think thats a good situation to apply this rule.

And that's exactly why that rule was adopted in 2013: to make clear when cards are live at showdown, and when they are dead. Prior to that there were different standards as to when cards were live and when not... some outlying venues even made verbal statements at showdown binding. This rule clears all of that up.

Jack Effel had an interesting comment on this btw: paraphrasing.... "I don't want a player arm-wrestling with the dealer, but if you can reach your cards and table them, they should be live"

[Nick C]

I know what the rule states, I just don't like allowing any player in for all bets to muck their hand. Any way you debate this, there will be chips distributed to players that should not have them. The player that mucked-obviously by mistake- either mucked the best hand, or he is entitled to his share of the pot.

 It raises too many possibilities...collusion?...chip dumping? Intentional or accidental? How else can we be sure?

 At the 2013 Summit, one of our new members on the Board Of Directors suggested that all cards MUST be tabled...just like when a player is all-in. For some reason, his comment was never addressed again...not until I brought it up on this discussion forum after that Summit. I believe that we must reconsider the advantages for such a rule.

 Back to the question...unless the player that mucked had too many cards he is entitled to one third of the pot!

[BillM16]

So, rule #2 also says that we must "follow one player to a hand."  My question is: How does the UTG or anyone else know that it was a chopped pot?  The button discarded his cards face down toward the muck.  I told the forum here that he had pocket nines, but the other players didn't know this.  Does this change your answer?  For example, what if the hand was saved and it showed Kh2s.  The button would become the winner by virtue of another player contribution to his decision.  Do you still believe that the hand should have played?

Thanks,
B~

[Nick C]

BillM16,
 If you are questioning me, I gave my answer in the first paragraph of my last reply: "The player that mucked-obviously by mistake- either mucked the best hand, or he is entitled to his share of the pot."

 Another answer from my last sentence:  "Back to the question...unless the player that mucked had too many cards he is entitled to one third of the pot!"

 So your example would kill the best hand if he were allowed to muck, (which is not good). Or it would award the total pot to the player that mucked if he were allowed to retrieve his hand, (which in my opinion, would assure that the pot is awarded to the proper player)! This would prevent any possible "chip dumping" or suspicion of collusion. Not only that, how could the player that mucked not get at least 33.33% of that pot?

 The only logical fix is to insist that all players, in for all bets that are at showdown, must table their cards...they can not muck!

 We are talking about tournament poker only...in a cash game, there is little "protection" for any player that chooses to muck a winner. That's unfortunate but acceptable, especially if you get the chips!


 

[Steff0111]

Cards speak!
The Button decided to muck- cards are face down.
Should we allow everyone at the table to claim that the mucked hand is a winner hand???
UTG has no info about the hole cards of Button.
I guess he could not see the hole cards, because there were at least two people between Button & UTG.
So itīs just a assumption of UTG.
If we allow here to split the pot to three players, dealers & floors will have to do a lot in future.
Everyone could everytime claim a winning hand will be mucked at that moment...

[Brian Vickers]

Dealer's role here: first player tables hand; dealer announces hand as "Aces and Queens with Jack kicker;" second player tables hand; dealer announces "same hand" or repeats announcement; player three mucks face down; dealer slowly reaches for those cards - allowing just enough time for player three to realize his error but not making it too obvious - this is a courtesy only as you don't want to muck a losing hand but you also do recognize that it's the player's role to table his hand if he wants a share of the pot; someone else says something about "don't muck those;" you ignore that player completely and continue to reach for those cards; player three still hasn't realized his error; you muck and don't even feel a little bad because you gave him every opportunity.

I describe it as a slow mucking but realistically it's like 2-3 total seconds; still longer than the normal split-second muck.

If player three had said something like "board" before mucking it would be ok to say to that player "you still have to table to play the board" but he has to turn them over.

[Nick C]

Brian, and everybody else out there that sees nothing wrong with a player (in for all bets, at showdown) to muck any time he wants. I guess you like the idea that a player might overlook his winning hand and muck by mistake...okay, I get it. However, what about the guy that intentionally mucks so his friend can get the chips, (that's chip dumping, by the way) or any other form of collusion that would be related to a muck without exposing any cards.

 

[Dave Miller]

Chip dumping and other forms of collusion are hard to prove. And it's much different than mere stupidity. Until proven, or at least suspected, I'd assume it's stupidity and act accordingly. And on that note, Brian hit the nail on the head.

[Nick C]

Okay, Dave...we are safe to say that there is no such thing as chip dumping, or collusion because all they have to say is: "Gee I made a stupid mistake!" Of course, that can only be determined if we get to see their mucked hand! 

[Max D]

Dave just chooses to believe in the "goodness" of people until proven otherwise, it also depends when the tourney is run, is it a weekday with a group of regulars or weekend one with a lot of "vacation players" that dont know what they are doing...

[Dave Miller]

Dave just chooses to believe in the "goodness" of people until proven otherwise

Yes, I do. Is there something wrong with that?

If so, then perhaps we should recommend to the cash players that they count and bag chips before taking a smoke/bathroom break...