Who gets the pot? - ruling please

[Duff85]

I should add that this rule is in place to counter someone knowingly collecting all the cards off the board really quickly after all the hands have been shown (only really a problem in self dealt games).

[saintpeter]

Where does it say player 2 mucked his cards? If he opened his cards, regardless of what he said, the cards speak i.e. his hand is a straight flush and the winner.

[Bucko]

I beleive the pot would go to the straight flush. Wouldnt the onus be on the dealer as both hands were exposed regardless of the player thinking he only had a flush ?

[boomstix]

Hi Guys,Thanks for the rulings.For those that mentioned that this type of thing happens often with 'drunk donks at pub poker games' this funnily enough is exactly where this took place.At the time i did not have another Tournament Director watching this table. The only people who could confirm the hand were 2 players as well as a very reliable source from the onlookers. I came to the conclusion, given PLAYER 1 was not denying that player 2 may have in fact had a Straight Flush, that he did in fact and thus the pot should therefore be awarded to him for having exposed the best hand.Upon my return to the table, the argument had not only stopped but the players were in the middle of 'splitting the pot' as they had come to an amicable agreement to do so. Had this have been the Aussie Millions, i would have over-ruled, but given the situation and the fact that pub-poker is designed around the social aspect rather than the poker, i allowed the 'sharing' of this pot and for the game to continue.Danny, i was not trying to imply that it was our written rule that 'cards speak' i was simply explaining to less experienced enthusiasts that no matter what a player announces as his hand, the best 5 card hand he exposes to the table is the one that plays.thanks alot for your input guys....Bushy

[boomstix]

by the way, player 2 never mucked his cards. After it was declared that Player 2 (also the dealer) was the winner, that player mucked all cards and passed to the next person.Bucko, as mentioned - the onus may be on the dealer, but the problem we face with self-dealt tournaments is that in this case, the dealer happened to be the beneficiary of the error.tough one but it worked out well in the end!

[bigfatbastard]

"Bearing in mind that although there is a responsibility to the player to recognise his hand there is also a rule of "cards speak"."Why have two contradictory rules - you either have cards speak - if the cards are tabled then he gets the pot, or you don't have cards speak.Danny,I don't think our friend Mr. boomstix said that there was a "rule" to recognise his own hand, just a responsibility. That the cards speak for themselves should have priority (rule or not), and in a self-dealt game as this was, it is also the responsibility of other players to speak up about the exposed cards - which, it seems, they did - eventually!Without knowing the character of the players involved it is impossible to make any assumption, but there must be some level of suspicion (though perhaps not quite accusation) directed towards the player/dealer who himself has the same responsibility to speak up, but instead took the pot and pushed the cards to the next player (or is he a ba-na-na too?).Ultimately the muppet with the straight flush gets the pot, or as ant0s put it: "cards were exposed.. maybe the clown does get the pot." Unfortunately, this person's stupidity/ ignorance is no reason to dishonour the game.So - what happened?BFBOf course there remains the clarification questions of:-Who mucked the cards, the player or the dealer? -Were the cards actually exposed and opened up, or just seen by a couple of people beside him?-How quickly did the dealer shove everything to the next person, and should anything be inferred by his actions? (ie: did he always move things along this fast or just this time?)-How long afterwards did the other players speak up?-Was there any independent observer to assist?-Was is too late or impossible to 'reconstruct' the hands?-Did Pazz say "Ya Mum" and Andre say "giggidy" and if so, what do think was meant by those statments and do they have any bearing on the subsequent events?-Who's on first?

[bigfatbastard]

I hate it when I type a reply only to click 'post' and find the answers to my well thought-out questions are already there, making me look kind of foolish. I wish the posted time could be when you started to type, not when you hit the 'post' button. < end whinge > Doh!BFB

[Strong Play]

Personally, I don't like the rule, but cards must speak.Personally i think if you are not concentrating enough to know that you have the winning hand, then, as they say, lose sometimes...The only exception i can think of is if Player A says "full house", Player B mucks his cards without exposing them, THEN Player A exposes his cards, revealing something other than a full house. In that situation I would award the pot to Player A, but give Player A a time penalty. If Player A is reported to have done this again, INSTANT disqualification. - The only exception to this would be if "ialwayswinnomatterwhat" was involved in the pot, in which case he would win; no matter what.I think dealers in general are not forceful enough when making the player who must show first actually show first, and it can become quite frustrating for the rest of the players on the table. My two cents anyway.Great post Bushy, keep 'em coming.

[JK.]

Yes,good post Boomstix,keep them coming.The answer is very simple in this case.Punty,Strong Play,Saint Peter and Bucko,all gave you the correct answer."The cards speak".

[Jonno P]

The “cards speak” rule exists primarily to protect newer players who may undervalue, or misread the strength of their hand, and to make sure the integrity of the game is upheld.I do not believe you should have let the players split the pot. Regardless of whether you are playing for free or for millions of dollars, the integrity of the game must always be your number one priority. As Tournament Directors at these Pub Poker venues, you have a duty of care to your players to ensure that the games you run are fair, and that the rules are upheld. Although splitting the pot may seem like the fair thing to do for the players, it is NOT the fair thing to do for the game. You should act not only as an enforcer of the rules, but as an educator and ambassador for the game itself. Everybody is quick to call these new Pub Poker players “muppets”, but they are only playing by the rules they have been taught in the venue they are playing.