Mucking a split

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

At the river on a board 34567 rainbow

A bet
B call
A shows KK
B muck and the (tired) dealer mix his hand with the muck
Another player notice and says that any hand split or wins against the KK
"FLOOR"
...

What rule is the stronger?
- The rule for not killing a "winning" hand?
- The rule for the winning "last hand alive"?
- The rule for the "collusion"?

 

[Nick C]

Hello Guillaume,

In a tournament setting there's no question of what I would do. Split the pot.

[D.C.]

Easy call for the floorperson:

17: Playing the Board at Showdown
When playing the board a player must table all hole cards in order to get part of the pot.

Mucked hand = did not show his cards, therefore cannot win part of the pot. Poker is a game of continous observation and attention.

All the best,
DC

[WSOPMcGee]

^^^^^^^^  Winner ^^^^^^^^^

[Nick C]

Shouldn't argue with DC on this one. I still don't like the fact that the other player showed KK...and I don't like giving any chips to any player that shouldn't get them. How does this not fall under possible collusion? Every day I find another rule that I question.

[WSOPMcGee]

Shouldn't argue with DC on this one. I still don't like the fact that the other player showed KK...and I don't like giving any chips to any player that shouldn't get them.

Why do you believe that the player who tabled his hand does not deserve to receive chips?

How does this not fall under possible collusion? Every day I find another rule that I question.

It is not collusion because you already said it yourself.... it's only "possible". We make decisions based on facts. Not possibilities. The fact is one player tabled their hand and the other player voluntarily mucked their hand.

In addition to the above rule DC pointed out, this falls under the One Player to a Hand rule: Telling another player to turn their hand faceup, i.e. table their hand, at the
showdown. It is the players own responsibility to table their hand to be read by
the dealer.

Even you have argued this point. It's the players responsibility to protect their hand and to be able to read the board.

[Nick C]

Thomas:

You can look back five years and you will see that I've been in disagreement with any (tournament) player being deprived of chips he should have received when in for all bets. If you read my answer you'll understand that the player is receiving more chips than he should. That's what I meant when I said the pot should be split.

This has been a hot topic since the last Summit. That is; suggesting that all tournament hands be tabled at showdown. If that were the case, so many of the showdown issues that we discuss on a regular bases would disappear. The player would not have been allowed to muck, and TDA #17 could be eliminated.

You asked about collusion...do you think I wouldn't suspect collusion in this scenario:  You ditched your cards with the nut hand on board and your friend winds up with 50% more chips than he would have...Oh, wait a minute...of course that would be impossible if one of the players was all-in?!?  I don't get it, sorry...I just don't get it.

Of course it's the players responsibility to protect their own hand, and it's the TD's responsibility to assure that the rightful winner gets the pot!

[BillM16]

Easy call for the floorperson:

17: Playing the Board at Showdown
When playing the board a player must table all hole cards in order to get part of the pot.

Mucked hand = did not show his cards, therefore cannot win part of the pot. Poker is a game of continous observation and attention.

All the best,
DC

I agree, player B failed to qualify for his share of the pot. 

1: Floor Decisions
Floorpeople must consider the best interest of the game and fairness as top priorities in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

I think it is unfair to player A to give player B half of the pot.  I don't think it would be in the best interest of the game to say TDA Rule 17 should be overruled, unless there is solid proof of collusion, in which case, neither player would be awarded any part of the pot and would be disqualified from the tournament.

[Nick C]

Bill:

Would you agree if either player were all-in, the pot would have to be split?

[BillM16]

Bill:

Would you agree if either player were all-in, the pot would have to be split?

Hey Nick, so I guess you are asking me if rule 15 trumps rule 17 or vice versa?

15:  Face Up for All-Ins
All cards will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other
players in the hand is complete. See Illustration Addendum.

In my opinion, it would be easy enough for rule 15 to say "unless the hand was mucked" or rule 17 to say "unless there is an all-in."  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  I guess that I don't hold to the idea that a poker player should be protected from their own mistakes and lack of attention at the table.  If you muck your hand you are not entitled to any part of the pot resonates better with me.  I think there is value to rule 15 and occasionally saving an unaware player is a reasonable price to pay ... but not if they mucked.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thomas:

You can look back five years and you will see that I've been in disagreement with any (tournament) player being deprived of chips he should have received when in for all bets. If you read my answer you'll understand that the player is receiving more chips than he should. That's what I meant when I said the pot should be split.

Fair enough. It just sounded like you didn't want the player to receive any chips, whether it be due to a split pot or due to your suspicion of collusion, in which case as Bill said, both players would be disqualified and forfeit all chips.

This has been a hot topic since the last Summit. That is; suggesting that all tournament hands be tabled at showdown. If that were the case, so many of the showdown issues that we discuss on a regular bases would disappear. The player would not have been allowed to muck, and TDA #17 could be eliminated.

True, except for that would take away one of the essential requirements of being a card player, which is, reading the board.

You asked about collusion...do you think I wouldn't suspect collusion in this scenario:  You ditched your cards with the nut hand on board and your friend winds up with 50% more chips than he would have...Oh, wait a minute...of course that would be impossible if one of the players was all-in?!?  I don't get it, sorry...I just don't get it.

Yes, but the player wouldn't be eliminated. We don't protect people from making errors in judgement (ie as is being able to read the board) and thus losing chips. We only protect players from being eliminated unduly. How would the 2009 WSOP have turned out if Ivey is protected from mucking a flush?? Under your recommendation of eliminating rule #17, Ivey would have been awarded the pot, protecting himself from misreading his hand simply because he was in for all bets at showdown.

Of course it's the players responsibility to protect their own hand, and it's the TD's responsibility to assure that the rightful winner gets the pot!

I understand that your position is predicated on the basis that WE as a group always want the best hand to prevail. But we shouldn't protect players from themselves and eliminate one of the fundamental skills of the game, except to stave off elimination.

[Nick C]

Thanks Bill...I guess I'm trying to protect the rightful winner from making a mistake, yes...that's true, and I realize there are consequences for overlooking, or missing something in your own hand. However, the most important factors that I'm addressing are, First: The players involved are in for all bets...so I'm not talking about a player that folds facing a bet. Second: There is no further action pending. I'm also not speaking of a cash game. I'd be happy to know that someone holding a better hand than mine, decided to muck! I'll take it. However, I strongly believe that tournament poker involves each and every player that paid the price for admission. Each player may be affected by a windfall of chips in the hands of an undeserving player. It has happened on numerous occasions already in major events.

I know I sound like a broken record much of the time, or most of the time perhaps, but I feel that strongly about it. I've never been in favor of forcing a player to put more chips into the pot than he intended, and I'm not in favor of giving away chips to a player that we know with certainty, is entitled to some of the chips we just passed to another player.

One other mention. Maybe you can explain to me how: the protection for all players that I'm now referring to, is only "guaranteed" if there happens to be any player in the hand all-in!??!?  
Please think this one through because it's very important.

[Spence]

Long time no post.
I agree with Nick here.  The integrity of the Tournament is on the line.  What happens now that A has X number more chips and then he doubles through player C or D two hands later?  We need to protect ALL the players in the tournament not just those who are involved in the current pot.  The rule might state otherwise but it should be a split.
Welcome back Spence!

[WSOPMcGee]

Long time no post.

Welcome back Spence!

Well Happy Days! Welcome back!

Now if only DCJ001 and Jasper would chime in.

[Nick C]

DCJ001...Is he? or she? still around?