PLO - All cards not technically tabled. Ruling?
I was playing $1/$2 ($5) PLO the other day. It was a very good table. Lots of very loose action and stacks of chips moving around the table.
Anyway, there was a small minor hand (which was unusual for the table). Two players see a flop for $15. Check flop. Turn completes a flush. Check though on turn. On the river, the first player bets $20. Other player calls. First player announces straight and tables all 4 cards. Second player says baby flush and tables 3 5 of the flush suit while simultaneously showing the other two cards while keeping them in his hand.
The dealer scoops up and mucks player one's cards, and pushes the pot to player two. Player two then flips over the two cards in his hand face down, and starts to collect the chips as the dealer starts to clean up.
Player one then immediately says the pot was pushed to the wrong player. The dealer starts to explain that the other player had a flush. Player one then says "He never tabled all 4 cards. My hand was the only hand tabled at showdown. I should win the pot."
Floor!!!!!!
Floor comes over, everything is explained to him. Everyone (who was paying attention) at the table says they could identify all 4 cards in the winning players hand. 2 flush cards plus whatever else. He actively showed the other two cards, he just never released them.
Floor rules that in the spirit of the game, player two won the pot. He warned player two that in the future he needs to play more clearly and table all 4 cards.
There was some side discussion on what it meant to table cards. I cannot verify, but player two claimed and a couple of other players verified, that player two touched the felt with the two cards in his hand while they were face up. He just never released them.
Does that matter?
I don't think so. My thought is that if we are going to get into the technicalities of what it means to table a hand then rule one should already be invoked. Everyone at the table could clearly see what player two hand. There was no argument there. Nothing was being hidden.
I don't play PLO (live) very often. I deal it fairly often, but something like this has never come up. However the more I think about it, I am surprised it does not happen more often.
Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences like this?
And no. I was neither player in the hand.
I think what happened in this situation was that player one was having a bad day and was frustrated and therefore tried to angle to win the pot. He played fairly tight and conservatively. I am not sure, but I think he was a regular, but not a massively winning reg. At best he was break even. More likely he lost a little and this was his mildly costly entertainment.
His river bet was stupid. It was obvious that he was too conservative of a player so his bet was only going to be called by something that could beat him (or chop with him). I easily fold top two there. Even sets are foldable without regret. Maybe, just maybe, top set calls him. He was just too tight.
I think he knew this and was embarrassed that he screwed up by betting the river so he lashed out and tried to win the pot by the rules.
Technically he was correct, only his hand was completely released, but his opponents hand was clearly shown and he waited until the hand was completely over (and his hand mucked) to complain.
It was an angle bourn of frustration. He knew he was bested.
I should also note that this was a best case scenario. An easy call. Player two showed all of his cards to everyone, even if they were not technically tabled.
I can imagine some nightmare scenarios where player two never shows the other two cards.
Once dealer scoops up player 1's cards, he is implying that player 2 has tabled a hand that beats it. Dealer cannot later go back and say player 2 did not table his hand, since player 2 clearly had not discarded his hand (he was still holding it), and there really isn't any other status the hand could be in which would cause him to proceed to awarding the pot. Ergo, the dealer should report to floor that in his opinion player 2's hand was fully tabled. And that should be the end of it, even if he also says that the player was still holding on to them and only the backs of the cards were on the felt.
If he didn't think that was the case, he should sit there silently until one of the two players asks him what he is waiting for, then he can explain that player 2 hasn't tabled his hand yet.
As played, I agree with you. As floor I come in and rule hand was tabled, and give a wrist slap saying to make sure to clearly table the hand in the future.
IMO this is a case of the spirit of the rules taking precedence. Regardless of the letter of the rules, the main characteristic of tabling a hand is that the cards are shown to the dealer and other players in such a way that they are readily identifiable. That seems to be the case here, so I would rule the hand tabled, even if there is some rule that states the cards must be released upon the felt. If there is such a rule, then, yes, inform that player that he violated it and technically did not table the hand clearly and that he shouldn’t do this again going forward. Since the hand was clearly shown and identifiable, it seems too harsh a penalty to give the pot to the other player.
To those saying the hand was tabled because everyone say the cards were seen, readily identifiable, whatever, that is not how it is done.
Consider, 4 flush hits on the river. Goes check check. P1 says he rivered a straight and tables it. P2 chuckles and shows he flopped a set by holding the cards up such that everyone can clearly see both cards. Then he mucks face down not realizing he had rivered a flush.
Who wins? By rule and actual practice and IIRC multiple times in this forum, P2 is 'scolded' to just table his hand and he wins. But as actually done, he has no claim on the pot.
I am not saying how the floor should have ruled. But there needs to be caution because it is widely established that just showing your cards to dealer/everyone, is NOT the same as tabling. Now what exactly defines tabling could be up for discussion here but it is more than clearly identifiable.
As to the idea that dealer error can't be corrected once pot is pushed is also IMO wrong. While it is correct that dealer killed P1 one hand and P2 still had cards, but let's assume for now now tabled. That is a dealer error because the pot should not be pushed until the winning hand is tabled.
But once the pot is pushed, P2 mucks the "winning" hand w/o ever tabling it. Thus, it really isn't the winning hand if we determine it was not tabled. At this point we now have the dealer killing P1 winning hand. But we all know that cards speak and the dealer can never kill the winning hand.
Then continue an apply the rule that P1 has until the next hand begins to protest and claim the pot. P1 clearly did that in time.
So IF P1 is correct and P2 hand was never tabled, it is at least a floor call to rule at this point. This might be due to a dealer error but now we go to the rule that player is responsible to protect his hand. Which P2 did not do; he literally killed his own hand.
Now personally, were I a floor, I would rule best interest basis the hand was tabled. Then I proceed to warn P2 he needs to properly table his hand by putting it flat on the table face up. He can certainly keep control of the cards until winner is determined.
I talk to the dealer when I can and ensure he knows his error was killing P1 hand before P2 had clearly tabled his hand.
If I can I take P1 aside and explain since P2 did put the 4 cards touching the table which is at least a gray area w.r.t. tabline.
This presumes I believe the 2 non-playing cards were clearly displayed NEAR the table and may have touched. If I believe the 2 playing cards were tabled and the other 2 held out but not touching and not even close to being tabled, then I back P1.
For a small pot, I make a quick best ruling. But if it is a big pot where I KNOW whoever loses is going to be very pissed, I might sequester the pot and then review the cameras to see precisely what P2 actually did before I rule.
IMO this is a case of the spirit of the rules taking precedence. Regardless of the letter of the rules, the main characteristic of tabling a hand is that the cards are shown to the dealer and other players in such a way that they are readily identifiable. That seems to be the case here, so I would rule the hand tabled, even if there is some rule that states the cards must be re
Tabling a hand is defined as more than just making them readily identifiable. Was this full hand tabled? I don't know. But I do know that just showing your cards to dealer/opponent/other players doesn't table a hand.
We have all heard stories where a player does this and then discards them face down and loses the pot.
I think if I had to put a definition for tabling a hand, I'd say the hand would have to be turned face up so that the camera(s), the dealer, and at least one player (preferably not in the hand) can see them.
Tabling a hand is defined as more than just making them readily identifiable. Was this full hand tabled? I don't know. But I do know that just showing your cards to dealer/opponent/other players doesn't table a hand.
We have all heard stories where a player does this and then discards them face down and loses the pot.
TDA rule 13 (I know this is a cash game, but many do follow TDA rules) defines tabling as both 1)turning all cards face up on the table and 2) allowing dealer and players to read them. It is unclear that the cards must be released; that is not stipulated. If the player turned all cards face up (not in dispute as far as I can tell) and put them on the table (again according to OP they were on the table, just not released by the player). Those fulfill condition 1 of the definition. According to the OP condition 2 was also met, so the hand is tabled and wins the pot.
You are making my point for me though. The purpose of tabling a hand is to expose it so that it can be read by the dealer and other players. If some technicality is not met, the spirit of the rule still is - the hand is shown for all to see. It just seems wrong to not award a pot because, for example, a player held the cards face up and only 80% of the backs of the cards actually touched the felt. ItÂ’s certainly worth educating the player as to the rule, and maybe if they continue violating it you do award the pot to the other player. But there is no mention that this player is habitually doing this and no reason to think he is angling in any way.
FWIW, I had this situation come up when I was a dealer and a very good floorman that I respected ruled the pot was pushed correctly and warned the player they need to show all cards in the future or they might not be so lucky.
I was going to say what Dinesh said. Dealer treated hand as tabled
TDA rule 13 (I know this is a cash game, but many do follow TDA rules) defines tabling as both 1)turning all cards face up on the table and 2) allowing dealer and players to read them. It is unclear that the cards must be released; that is not stipulated. If the player turned all cards face up (not in dispute as far as I can tell) and put them on the table (again according to
Two cards were on the table. The other two cards he held on to. Only later is it mentioned that maybe the second two touched the felt.
Btw, I never said player must release cards to be tabled. In fact at least once I said the opposite. Going further, I recommend you don’t release your cards since protecting your hand is also a rule.
TDA is clear that cards, all of them, have to be on the felt face up. In this case, I am not certain that condition was met. But if it was clear the cards were never on the felt, the hands was never tabled. So tech it can’t win.
Considering the pot was pushed and the other hand was mucked, if I'm the floor I'm letting him keep the pot. He has every reason to believe the hand is over and the other player had plenty of time to point out the issue.
The player gets a warning to show all cards, and dealer gets reminded to not push a pot until all cards are tabled or mucked. I blame the dealer more than the player here.
Two cards were on the table. The other two cards he held on to. Only later is it mentioned that maybe the second two touched the felt.Btw, I never said player must release cards to be tabled. In fact at least once I said the opposite. Going further, I recommend you don’t release your cards since protecting your hand is also a rule.TDA is clear that cards, all of them, have to
You’re right. It isn’t clear how player 2 showed the other two cards. Maybe they were technically never properly tabled. Still it was clear that they were shown even if not technically tabled properly and that the dealer and at least some of the players saw what they were. IMO that is enough, especially since player 1 allowed the pot to be pushed and his hand to be mucked before speaking up. By the letter of the rule, player 1 is probably right, but IMO it’s not better for the game to reward player 1 in this instance. We can certainly agree to disagree on this one, but the spirit of the rule was followed - all 4 cards were shown and identified by the dealer and players - so I’m ok with player 2 getting the pot.
If player 2 is habitually pulling stuff like this or is trying to get away with not showing all cards as an angle more than just this once, then maybe I do rule for player 1. It also is possible player 2 just doesn’t understand the rule, in which case, educate and warn him about the rule, but don’t take away the pot.
I should also note that this was a best case scenario. An easy call. Player two showed all of his cards to everyone, even if they were not technically tabled.
I can imagine some nightmare scenarios where player two never shows the other two cards.
"I think what happened in this situation was that player one was having a bad day and was frustrated and therefore tried to angle to win the pot. He played fairly tight and conservatively. I am not sure, but I think he was a regular, but not a massively winning reg. At best he was break even. More likely he lost a little and this was his mildly costly entertainment."
He's trying to win the pot on a technicality. I'm not a fan.
I actually think that the dealer was at fault here, because he should have told the guy with a flush to turn his cards over.
he should 2 cards that beat his opponents 4 cards... that's enough. Flush beats a straight... pot to player 2.
Should table all four cards though
He tabled nothing if he only showed 2 cards. In PLO you have not tabled a hand until all 4 cards have been 'on the felt', face up such that all can see all 4 cards.
So showing 2 cards (which is what you said) is not a flush even assuming you meant he tabled 2 cards. Until all 4 (or 5 or 6) are tabled, he has nothing.
He tabled nothing if he only showed 2 cards. In PLO you have not tabled a hand until all 4 cards have been 'on the felt', face up such that all can see all 4 cards.
So showing 2 cards (which is what you said) is not a flush even assuming you meant he tabled 2 cards. Until all 4 (or 5 or 6) are tabled, he has nothing.
ah good to know that cards must be over. My point
Everyone at the table’s at fault, floor ruled correctly.
Not sure why anyone trying to claim the pot would turn any of their cards facedown at showdown when their opponent tabled their hand. Hard to ascribe good intentions here unless it was pure accident.
But even if you know he was angling, it seems like a tall order to reward the pot to the losing hand when the winner didn’t release their hand until after the dealer killed the other hand and rewarded them the pot. Even in that case, I think correct ruling is to give player 2 (and dealer) a stern warning and let the table “ruling” stand.
But you seem to only be able to count to 2. And you are missing the whole must be on the felt part.
I guess your point is you knew 1 of at least 4 characteristics of tabled PLO hand.
To be fair, I do not know if you are responding to a different situation or the situation described in my OP. In my OP I tried to make it clear that I wasn't 100% sure if the hand was tabled or not, nor what actually made a hand tabled or not.
In my OP, two cards (which made a clearly winning hand) were tabled and released. The other two cards were vague at best. They were definitely shown. Some people claimed that they touched the felt, but were not released.
Does that make a tabled hand. Perhaps. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Nice theoretical discussion.
Maybe they never touched the felt. I do not know. Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention because it was a meaningless hand that did not involve me.
I genuinely do not know.
To be fair, I do not know if you are responding to a different situation or the situation described in my OP. In my OP I tried to make it clear that I wasn't 100% sure if the hand was tabled or not, nor what actually made a hand tabled or not.In my OP, two cards (which made a clearly winning hand) were tabled and released. The other two cards were vague at best. They were defin
Sorry to confuse. I was responding to the Comment by backstairs where he specifically claimed showing to cards that his opponent can’t beat makes him a winner. This was even after it was made clear to him that showing 2 for the winner is the spirit of who we want to win, it definitely doesn’t make the winning hand per actual rule.
Your original post was much more nuanced and subtle in best how to handle or rule. Backstairs basically says if you show two your opponent can’t beat, you get the pot. As I know you know, even if we assume showing 2 means 2 were tabled, it still doesn’t make the winner. If those 4 cards are now mucked but the opponent still holds his cards or his cards were correctly tabled, that is where pot should go per rules.
Personally, at this point in total, I am starting to think he is a poor chatbot. And that is the more generous opinion about him.
