Can a mucked hand still be the winning hand?

[Christine]

Hi there,

I have a very important question hope you guys can help. So on the river Player A bets, Player B calls. As soon as player B calls,
Player A mucks his hand saying that player B won.
The dealer shows player A`s hand as the one who bets has to show his hand if he was called.
What happens now is that the dealer shows that Player A wins the hand with a pair of 3 and player B has nothing!
What happens now? Who gets the pot?
My difficulty in this question is that i didn`t know the players so if i rule that player B gets the pot, as player A had folded his hand, even if its the winning hand I can be encouraging collusion, while giving the pot to player A isn`t fair as he had mucked his hand and declared that he lost! What ruling would you make?

[Nick C]

Christine,
 If player A surrendered his hand, the dealer should have killed the hand, awarded the pot to player B and then exposed the dead hand. IMO, Too many problems are created by improper procedures by dealers. The exception would be if Player B asked to see the discarded hand of Player A. Then the hand is live.

[chet]

Nick is absolutely correct.  Be sure to read the last two sentences!!

[MikeB]

Christine: I'll offer a slight twist to this subject... First, the bottom line... whether a called hand must be shown at showdown is at this point a house-specific rule. The TDA does not have a requirement that a called hand must be shown at showdown... Now to walk through some of the specifics:

1) The condition you describe in your original post is a "bet-muck", where Player A bets on the river, is called, and then mucks at showdown...

2) At the 2009 TDA Summit, there was an extensive discussion on this topic during the 2nd day, because alot of members wanted clarification on how it should be handled if a player elects to muck face down at showdown.... Where that discussion was left was that it is appropriate for the dealer to respect the muck of ANY player at showdown, and formally kill the hand by putting it to the muck.  Keep in mind that the mere verbal declare 'I fold" (or any other verbal utterance) does not kill a hand because the word "fold" has no meaning at showdown, because we're not parsing words at showdown, we're reading cards and letting them speak. As long as the cards have not been killed by the dealer they can be tabled by the player and are live...

3) Once the dealer has taken possession of the hand and moved it to the muck it is now killed. HOWEVER the "winning" player can still ask to see the hand. If he so requests THE HAND IS LIVE and can win the hand if it beats the "winning" players hand.

4) The remaining issue is whether the hand must still be shown if the "winning" player doesn't request to see it (because it was a called hand), and this is a house-specific rule that varies by venue. Perhaps some additional progress can be made at formalizing a TDA position on this at the next Summit. Thanks alot for your question!

Thanks to Dave Lamb for clarifying these details... Also, here's a link to an extensive thread on a similar question that may be of interest to you: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=156.0

[D.C.]

Hi Guys,

Regarding MikeB's answer, sepcially the part:

3) Once the dealer has taken possession of the hand and moved it to the muck it is now killed. HOWEVER the "winning" player can still ask to see the hand. If he so requests THE HAND IS LIVE and can win the hand if it beats the "winning" players hand.

Am I the only one here that sees it as a nonsensical procedure? 

WSOP's rules state that:

At the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive betting action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet during the final round, the player to the left of the button shows first, and so on in a clockwise direction. In stud games, the player with the high board must show first. In razz, the lowest board shows first. At showdown, any player at the table may request to see a folded hand from any player who has called all bets on the last round of betting. If a player with the last aggressive action on the last round of betting refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the player in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with
Rule No. 92.

In the Delaer Reference guide (available at http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/2010/2010-WSOP-Dealer-Reference-Guide.pdf), WSOP directors have written:

In Tournament, any player at  the table may request to see a called hand.  The dealer should take the hand, tap it on top of the muck to officially “kill” it and then turn it face up on the table.

Nowhere it is written that if the only remaining active player ask to see a mucked hand, then the hand is live.  I just can't find a reasonable justificaation for it.

Now, I ask you to step out of your casino/card room uniform and forget the rouse rules you're used to deal with, and debate this issue.

What do you guys think? 

Please let me know your thoughts 

[Stuart Murray]

hi all,  I agree with what Nick has written, in direct response to DC's question, it is part of RROP rules that where a player who has won a pot requests to see a mucked hand, that hand shall be 'revived' and have showdown value.

I like the WSOP rule that the dealer must kill the hand before tabling, which is something I have used on occasion, however my main use of this is when an absent player is all-in, in order to table their cards I would first 'kill' them before showdown, in order that they will be eliminated from the tournament.

I was TD at an event in Aberdeen where the 'must show' rule was enforced, from a player's perspective I am not fond of it, but from a TD's perspective I do like it a lot.

To answer the actual thread question I would ditto MikeB's response that under TDA rules alone the hand is dead, but this varies between cardrooms if there is a 'must show at showdown' rule in force.

Best Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

 This has become very interesting to me. I finally have someone agree with me and now I am having a tough time finding the written rule that I have been preaching for years. I always thought that at the showdown, if a player tossed his hand in the direction of the muck, and conceded the pot that if the "would be winner" of the hand requested to see it, it is live. I may be wrong...again. I just came across the ruling that I was looking for and it is a little different than I remembered it. If the opponent who would be winning the pot turns up an opponents hand HIMSELF, it is live, but if he asks the dealer to turn it up and the dealer does so without touching it to the muck, IT IS STILL DEAD! I always thought that if the winner wanted to see the opponents hand it was live. Maybe there are other rules regarding this, but I can't find any, yet.
 This does however relate to many other discussions on the forum. Indicating the intent of a player wishing to concede by folding, or discarding, or surrendering their hand. The hand should be deemed dead and killed immediatly by the dealer. It was also interesting to read that in tournaments, any player has a right to see a called hand, but in a cash game it was considered inappropriate unless collusion was suspected.
 I always thought that Mike's #3 was correct. Now I'm looking for some written confirmation. Maybe DC has made for another interesting debate.

[Stuart Murray]

hi Nick,

RROP under Section 13 - The Showdown:

5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player's hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Thanks Stuart,

 Now there's an old rule that was changed for the better. Or was it?

[JasperToo]

NickC, Which version of RROP have you been reading 

I thin that there is really no difference between tournaments and cash games regarding "any" player asking to see a hand.  It is all about checking for collusion. 

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
 How does that prove collusion? The interesting part of the rule to me is the fact that it says all players at the table have a right to see a called hand, but if the would be winner asks to see a discarded hand and it proves to be better than his, the hand is live. I teach that rule but that is flawed, too. Why shouldn't the winner have a right to see the hand without risk of giving up the pot?

 To answer your question about RRoP, I don't always recognize that as the final say. There are many sets of rules that need to be standardized. I think that is what the TDA is trying to do. In a perfect "poker world" there will be one set of rules that the whole world will abide by, just like the ranks of hands are universal, so too should be rules and regulations for all poker rooms. If we keep working on the TDA rules, some day they might be the standard.

[JasperToo]

Jasper Too,
 How does that prove collusion?

If there are two guys working the table they could be putting squeeze plays on the other players and pushing with nothing constantly so you can see if a player just folded on the end after big pushes to his "buddy"... or the opposite is true.  The guy with a winning hand bets it up with his buddy but folds the best hand so he can dump chips to his friend.  I think it is difficult to spot and probably as difficult to prove but just putting them on notice that you THINK they are cheating you can be enough to stop it.  The problem is that the rule has been overused and people have been allowed to use it just to get a look at a players hand.

And so if someone that is heads up decides he wants to see a mucked hand obviously collusion isn't a concern, he just wants to see the guys cards for information so he should risk losing the pot (in the other example there is no risk to the players not in the showdown)

To answer your question about RRoP, I don't always recognize that as the final say. There are many sets of rules that need to be standardized. I think that is what the TDA is trying to do. In a perfect "poker world" there will be one set of rules that the whole world will abide by, just like the ranks of hands are universal, so too should be rules and regulations for all poker rooms. If we keep working on the TDA rules, some day they might be the standard.

I would love some other input here, especially if I am wrong, but I was of the understanding that RROP is foundational to TDA rules.  And the problem with trying to rewrite/expand/whatever TDA rules is that there is A LOT rules for poker that need to be clear and simply understood but TDA is meant strictly for TOURNAMENT standardization.  In fact, you probably noticed the threads that were started that related strictly to ring games and all the first responses were: this is about tournaments.

**EDIT**  Please check out the intro to the official TDA rules available from the front page.  The intro clearly states that the TDA rules SUPPLEMENT the standard or "house rules".  So I will concede that it might not always be RROP in some places.  But it seems to me that RROP is the most popular (best ??) choice.

[chet]

As I recall my discussions with the TDA Board of Directors (BOD) and other folks who have much more experience than I, it is the desire of the TDA BOD and the members I have had the good fortune to meet, NOT to force or cram the TDA rules on any poker 'house'.  Furthermore, as the intro to the current TDA rules state, there may be some local gaming agency rules/regulations with which a TDA rule disagrees and in which case the local gaming agency rules/regulations apply.

To my knowledge, the none of the TDA BOD believes they or their 'systems', rules, thoughts or ideas are the solution to each and every situation.  There is a very good reason the rules adopted by the TDA are written the way they are.  In my opinion, that reason is to give sufficient latitude in interpretation such that these rules can be adopted and implemented by as many different forums as possible while maintaining the integrity of the rule and of the local 'house'.

The TDA Mission Statement (which can be found on the TDA web site, "www.pokertda.com") is: 

"To adopt basic standards, rules and procedures that will positively impact the Poker Industry by inviting tournament directors, players and media representatives to discuss, evaluate and review proposed rules."

Hope this helps with this discussion!!

[JasperToo]

Very pertinent post chet...thanks.

The mission statement seems to highlight what I was thinking and essentially what Nick was saying.  I happen to be using RROP as my foundation and TDA wraps around that for tournaments.  Nick might be using something else but TDA should be , uh, open(?) enough to work with whatever foundational rule book/or house rules you might be using.

So any "clarifying" changes to TDA rules has to be simple/minimal and not too confining.

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
 I agree that the TDA is the best set of rules to "supplement" house rules of any card room or casino. I also know that the original question posted by Christine is not covered in the TDA rules. I believe that Christine handled the situation perfectly. If we go back to the original situation, the fact that there were only two players is important. Two players should eliminate thoughts of collusion. In my opinion, once a player mucks their hand, knowing that they will concede the pot to the opposing player, their hand is dead.
 If I can add anything to what has already been discussed, I would consider awarding the pot to the winner, before turning over the discarded hand. This way, should the mucked hand prove to be the best, there is no pot to dispute. My personal feelings are; any player has a right to see a called hand. I also don't think it necessary to reveal every called hand, of every player at the showdown, unless requested as stated above. Who cares? It would slow a game down to a crawl.