|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 1/8/2009 10:12:13 AM PACIFIC |
 What's your ruling?, Angel, 27. Dec 2003 15:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| An interesting situation developed yesterday at the table. The floorman made his ruling and then the two of us along with two other floormen retreated to the office to discuss it. I'd be interested in what you folks think. There are three players left involved in the hand, seats #5, #6 and #7. Seat 5 goes all-in before the flop. Seat 6 bets the flop and seat 7 calls, starting a side pot. On the river, seat 5 got up and walked away - presumably because the river did not give him a chance to win the pot, seat 6 bets again, seat 7 throws away and says he wants to see both hands. The dealer declares that he can't see the hands because he did not call the bet on the river. Seat 7 declares that he cannot see the hand in relation to the side pot - but after the side pot has been awarded and awarding the main pot is in question - any player can ask to see any called hand - and Seat 5 had called up till he was all-in. Seat 6 then suggested that while that was true - seat 5, when he walked away, had abandoned his hand which equated to throwing away out of turn. As such, he maintained that the dealers proper series of action was to 1. kill seat 7's hand, 2. push the side pot to seat 6, 3. kill seat 5's hand, 4. award the main pot. What's your call? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, Formless, 27. Dec 2003 17:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well what does the rulebook say? Bwahahaha, ok seriously. I think a player has to be there to turn his hand over at showdown. If not, his hand is mucked, which does not equate to a calling hand. I think seat 7 has no legitimate claim to see seat 5's cards, and seat 5 forfeits his interest in both pots. I don't think seat 6 nees to show cards to win either pot in this circumstance. The question is what constitutes a called hand, I think. The call on the flop does not make seat 6's hand 'called', i mean, if someone calls preflop is that a called hand? How about if they are in the blinds? So my call is seat 6 takes down both pots without having to show, seat 7 sits in the corner for 2 minutes for being difficult, and seat 5...let me guess: he has a hand good enough to take down the main pot, right? So he gets a lesson in protecting his hand. Everybody wins ;-) on 27. Dec 2003 15:26 Angel wrote: > An interesting situation developed yesterday at the table. The floorman made > his ruling and then the two of us along with two other floormen retreated to the > office to discuss it. I'd be interested in what you folks think. > > There are three players left involved in the hand, seats #5, #6 and #7. Seat 5 > goes all-in before the flop. Seat 6 bets the flop and seat 7 calls, starting a > side pot. On the river, seat 5 got up and walked away - presumably because the > river did not give him a chance to win the pot, seat 6 bets again, seat 7 throws > away and says he wants to see both hands. The dealer declares that he can't see > the hands because he did not call the bet on the river. Seat 7 declares that he > cannot see the hand in relation to the side pot - but after the side pot has > been awarded and awarding the main pot is in question - any player can ask to > see any called hand - and Seat 5 had called up till he was all-in. Seat 6 then > suggested that while that was true - seat 5, when he walked away, had abandoned > his hand which equated to throwing away out of turn. As such, he maintained > that the dealers proper series of action was to 1. kill seat 7's hand, 2. push > the side pot to seat 6, 3. kill seat 5's hand, 4. award the main pot. > > What's your call? > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, Mark, 28. Dec 2003 09:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that when seat 5 got up and walked away, he essentially folded his hand. Most cardrooms require that you be seated at the table or your hand is fouled (mucked). If you don't have to be seated, you at least need to be at the table. In every other instance when someone gets up and walks away from a hand, their hand is mucked when it is their turn and this should be no different. So if seat 5's hand is mucked, seat 6 has no right to see it. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, Angel, 28. Dec 2003 11:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 28. Dec 2003 09:39 Mark wrote: > I think that when seat 5 got up and walked away, he essentially folded his hand. > Most cardrooms require that you be seated at the table or your hand is fouled > (mucked). If you don't have to be seated, you at least need to be at the table. > > In every other instance when someone gets up and walks away from a hand, their hand > is mucked when it is their turn and this should be no different. Mark, I agree - his hand should be mucked BUT if he had waited until the action got to him as he should have, seat 7 could have said, "I want to see that hand." So seat 7's argument is that he shouldn't be penalized because seat 5 indirectly acted out of turn - said he, if he had waited to act in turn - I get to see the hands but because he acted out of turn I don't? Which is kind of hard to argue with - although I don't like letting seat 7 see seat 6's cards either. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, timmer, 28. Dec 2003 10:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Next hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, SmallFeesh, 28. Dec 2003 15:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well since seat 5 technically mucked his hand and the river bet was never called, then both hands were mucked... making the only live hand the winner... one live hand, one player actively in the hand... so he's not required to show his cards... if seat 7 wanted to play sheriff he should have called the bet on the river... obviously seat 5 should not have left before all action had been completed... its just bad poker etiquette. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, MozMan, 29. Dec 2003 18:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm not totally sure about this, but I think that when the all-in player abandoned his hand and seat, his hand is dead at that point and should be immediately mucked. The winner of the pot(s) should not have to show his hand, as he was uncalled at the river. -Moz -"I'm jealous of girls, because they get to wear dresses." -"One problem at a time, son." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What's your ruling?, KevinK, 30. Dec 2003 10:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I know that in online play, if someone is sitting out during tourney play, even if all in, that seat's hand gets mucked every time. There is no other way about something like that. Just move on, no other discussion needed. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|