Tricky Situation (Dealer not doing his job), could cost me 3.5K

a) yes, of course i turned my hand over ... when you look at my OG post i mention something like the whole table talking about how my shitty pair of 6s can win all that money

b) no, the dealer did nothing of the kind, as i also mentioned, he was bad and slow, he looked at the hands and then started to make change for the rake (while the mucked hand of the other guy was still out there, kinda "not really mucked").

c) the other guy was just tapping his head and smiling, and talking with the other guys like, "yeah, crazy, how 6s win here..."

d) for the gazillionth time: there is no side pot, since i cover them both, and i beat player As tabled hand, while player B has mucked (so i obv beat that hand too)

e) i didn't loose the hand, i scoop the pot. My point was about the fact that the dealer didn't muck the guy's hand properly, so he could have taken it back in case he suddenly remembered that he actually had something that can beat my 66

it's kinda exhausting sometimes to post here, gotta say that ... ;-)))

I know you've taken some undeserved **** in the past from some of the CCP regulars here, particularly when asking for advice about things that are just culturally different between US based rooms and foreign ones. Kudos for sticking with us through that and continuing to be an active member here, I appreciate it.

Having said that, you sometimes come here with a know it all attitude and are really condescending, like the response above. We see lots and lots of posters who come here, ask a question, don't like the answer they get, and then proceed to demonstrate their lack of knowledge and expertise by dying on a hill they are totally wrong about. Don't be that guy. Posters here enjoy taking the piss out of guys like this, especially when they are wrong about something objective.

Secondly, here at CCP we are happy to answer your questions, but we're also going to tell you when you're asking the wrong question. This is also one of those times, I believe. You have the freedom to ignore any of the advice you get here, but you don't get to tell us we're being dumb by telling you you're asking the wrong question. We're telling you that because the question you're asking doesn't actually cover the situation the way you think it does, and there is a better approach to enlightenment.

Yes, in general, the dealer should kill the hand of a player who has discarded their hand at showdown, and do so in an expeditious manner. Yes, we all know that when it doesn't happen (because the dealer is distracted by something else, or is just using bad procedure) it can be very painful for you as you scream inside your head for the dealer to kill the hand already if your hand is particularly vulnerable. There is not much you can do about it except continue to sit there looking like the obvious winner and wait. You've gotten that advice here already, and agreed with it. So far so good.

Having said that, in hands with side pots, that is no longer the controlling rule. The dealer should be particularly forceful in ensuring that the showdown is handled outside in, and should not read any hand that is not vying for the outside side pot.

In this case you say the dealer hasn't yet counted the stacks, so it's not clear which of the two hands is only in for the main pot and which is for the side pot with you. Leaving aside that this is not at all what you said in the OP, in this case, the dealer should immediately count the two stacks down to establish who is in for the main only, and who is in for the side, before reading any hands. Only then he should establish which tabled hand wins that side pot.

The only shortcut to this would be if the guy with the obvious biggest stack (or the obvious second biggest stack), who is in for all pots, tables his hand, and all the other players look at it and then discard their own hands. In a case like this, rather than waste time establishing the side pot order, everyone just mutually agrees to speed things along and you can kill the other hands and push the whole pot to the winner.

In your OP, you have the obvious biggest stack, but you have not yet tabled your hand [ETA: whoops, you apparently did, but it doesn't change the rest, unless it was totally clear that he was discarding to your pair of 6s], and one other player has, tabling Q hi. Since the dealer doesn't know who is in for just the main pot and who is in for the side pot, at this point he needs to figure that out. Then he can go ahead and read any tabled hands for the side pot. If that includes Q hi guy, then it's up to you to decide whether to table your hand and beat him, which I assume you would. Then he can move over to the other guy, and if he is still indicating he is discarding his hand, then congrats to you. If he decides to table it, then he'll read that hand too.

If the side pot is between you and the head shaking guy, then the dealer should absolutely not kill his (kinda) discarded hand until he is sure that guy knows he is competing with you for the side pot, and not because of the tabled hand (that is in only for the main pot), and should make clear that it is between him and you for the side pot. Especially given that he did not make it clear before showdown who was in the main and who was in the side.

As noted above, it is commonly held by many here that this is an exception to the general rule above, to expeditiously kill hands which players discard at showdown, because it is a time where there may be some confusion. There are several other exceptions for situations where the dealer should not kill hands immediately (e.g. when the BB can see the flop for free but doesn't realize it, when a player doesn't realize another player has called/raised and thinks he has won, etc.), so this is not just a one-off type situation.

I will note that some, especially old hand dealers who've been doing it forever, don't really agree with this and will say they will kill any hand which is discarded at any time, caveat emptor. While many of us agree with the general sentiment and like these dealers and their experienced takes, we're generally more interested in making exceptions at times where there is confusion or ambiguity, or to protect new players and try to ensure that the best hand wins at showdown.

TDA rules are generally for tournaments, but many use them as a basis for cash game rules as well. TDA would require all hands to be turned up at showdown (or before, in this case), because at least one player is all in and no more action is possible:

a) thank you for your thoughtful response.
b) coming over condescending is good feedback, being condescending not my intention, if i do so i apologize.
c) yes, i guess i do know my stuff (doing this for a long time now), and if i ask a question (that is not answered), and get advice instead on an unrelated matter, i could probably react better. will try that in the future.
d) i didn't mention explicitly (just re-read my og post) that i tabled my hand, but thought that it was clear from the context (bc people were talking about how my 66 could win this pot, which is not possible (knowing my hand) if i hadn't tabled it). i'll try to be even clearer in the future.
e) but, for that reason (under d), there is clearly no side pot, so your whole argument (though good info for another case) doesn't apply here. No?

peace.

i play in this game a lot, and '"making the rake right" can take a minute or even longer, the dealer in this case can easily have a talk in-between with one of his dutch friends about the soccer match that's running on the TV or whatever ... these guys are slowwwwww and easily distracted.

well, then let's agree to disagree on that one, ok?
determining a potential side pot, when one guy wins it all is a waste of time, and not done in the places i play.
(bc all hands are either tabled or mucked, not in the right order, i agree, but that was just how it played out, nobody waited for the dealer to say in which order the hands should be tabled, the first guy just started and the second guy mucked, then i tabled)

Yes, like I said, if one of the two biggest stacks, who are in for all pots, tables their hand and all other parties want to discard then, that is a shortcut that will sometimes happen, and that is fine. But the dealer should be sure that a side pot player isn't folding to a main pot only player, because that happens sometimes and it is a pain to fix, if it can be fixed at all. In your OP it seemed like that was what happened, and seemed like that's what you wanted to happen.

In your recent updates, it's been made more clear that you tabled your hand right away, and that the other player who discarded knew that you had tabled a pair of 6s and discarded because he thought he lost to that too. In this case, yes, kill the hands and push the whole pot to you.

It just makes this a much less controversial topic though. But we had the discussion about what, if anything, you can do in the future, so that's good. I'm glad nothing shitty happened as a result.

FYI, though, you shouldn't claim that there isn't a side pot, because there is one, and if you say this people are going to want to correct you, even if it's immaterial.

that's probably either a language or definition thing then ... when the biggest stack wins everything there is no sidepot on our side of the world, even dealer/floor talk about it that way

His post above indicates that the other player mucked after seeing the Q9 hand but before OP tabled, so your post is still accurate that it wouldn't have been appropriate to immediately muck it.

There's always a side pot.

There isn't room for disagreement here. That the proper resolution order is skipped where you play does not mean that there is not a side pot where you play. There is — it's just not resolved in its proper order. (Might I suggest that this is an opportunity to show some humility? You absolutely know your stuff most of the time. This is an exception.)

That said, if the dealer has made an actual effort to communicate the proper order (what Black Aces and dinesh are saying), then the responsibility has to eventually shift to the players who are vying for the outer pots. If a player is still determined to ignore the prompts, then the dealer should, at some point, honor the muck attempt. (That point is subjective, kind of "you know when you know", but the hand shouldn't be hanging out in the middle of the table unacknowledged.)

Just out of curiosity (and then i'm really done with this threat):
You do realize that you insist on explaining (again) a rule that doesn't apply to this case, do you?
And then follow up with "but if it had happened that way" (which it didn't) then it should have been like this bla bla etc.?

Believe me, i'm all for proper communication and etiquette, but we have a saying that goes something like this (freely translated): The way you shout into the woods it comes back.

without fully knowing (and some guys clearly didnt even read it all) whats going on i'm accused of trying to unfairly steal a pot, and don't even hit back accordingly, but you guys wanna explain to me about humility???

All right then ;-))))

The rule does apply though. Explanations have been about why it applies, and they have been met with your insistence that it doesn't. There's no "agree to disagree", you are just objectively and uniquely wrong.

By rule he most certainly did not necessarily give up anything.

Your problem is the point #2 is not correct. On #3, he actually did show his hand face up.

At this point, you trying to get his hand killed is exactly trying to win without the best hand.

When I read your original post I thought the guy mucked his hand because he thought the Q high hand had him beat and that you hadn't turned over your hand yet. I also thought that you were upset because you were then going to have to turn over your hand before the mucked hand was put in the muck pile. The reason why I thought this was because the guy who mucked his hand could have misread the opponents hand and in fact his hand could have beaten the pair of sixes.

What you have to understand is that if the guy who mucked his hand was in the main pot and not the side pot then the dealer has to resolve the side pot first. And in that case the guy who mucked his hand would get to see your hand and would be able to pull back his mucked hand.

What the dealer did by not mucking the other players hand was 100% correct until the side pot is resolved. If you don't know this then so be it. But to insult me and not be correct in what your saying is pretty awful.

There is a side pot. The side pot is between you and the biggest stack of the other two players. The main pot is the size the smallest stack all in with both you and the other player calling/matching.

gotta say i'm starting to enjoy this tag team approach of you guys.

yes, i actually do understand what a side pot is and how it works, believe it or not.
but what all you guys seems to either forget or deliberately to ignore is, there is a - lets call it "supreme rule" that's towering over all of that:

To be able to claim any part of any pot (be it side or main) you need to table your hand - if you don't do that, but muck instead, you relinquish all your claims.

this is what the second guy did, he mucked (thereby giving up on both main and potential side (if he were to be the bigger stack of the other 2)).

at that time trying to make the side pot right (since i cover guy A and guy B is out) is just a waste of time, since i win it all.

so, accusing me of trying to get money that doesn't belong to me is not only insulting and unfair, but also pretty damn stupid. and i am called out for being too "condescending" in my language for not willing to let this stand. sure.

Ok, understood ... this seems to be the way then in "us-centric-forums", helps me understand other things better too, thank you for that.

wrong

oh, now you're telling me what actually happened when i was there and you weren't???
at some point you guys should stop with the mushrooms or whatever you take ... this is now beyond ridiculous and starting to get delusional.

but: funny, i give you that ;-)))

can't believe i'm actually doing this, but you guys really pissed me off, so congrats on that.

now, here's chatgpt. i put in the whole hand exactly as it happened, and then told it to check every rule he can find (including tda etc.) and gimme his conclusion. under normal circumstances i'd expect this to be finished then, but i'm sure someone will find a reason that came to him in a dream or something for why this is still wrong ... have fun with it, but i'm out, said everything there is to say.

--------------------------------------------------------------

(Reasoned about poker side pot rules for 18 seconds)

In short, no—once a player mucks (discards) their hand at showdown, they generally forfeit any claim to the pot, including the side pot, regardless of whether their hand might have been strong enough to win.

Explanation
Finality of Mucking:
In most poker rule sets (including those endorsed by the Tournament Directors Association), the act of mucking your hand is treated as a final decision. When you muck, you effectively withdraw your hand from contention. This means that even if later evidence (or a “what if” scenario) suggests that your hand could have beaten another hand, you lose the right to claim any part of the pot.

Intent and Responsibility:
The rules assume that if you choose to muck your hand, you are doing so intentionally and are aware that you are giving up the opportunity to win the pot. Even in cases where the muck might have been accidental, the general ruling is that the finality of the action stands unless a tournament director makes an exception under very specific circumstances.

Side Pot Implications:
In your scenario, where player A shows and player B mucks his hand, player B’s action is final. The dealer and floor staff will rule based on the cards that remain in contention. If player C wins both the main and the side pot, player B does not have any claim—even if, hypothetically, his mucked hand would have beaten player A’s.

Conclusion
There is no standard rule that grants a player a retroactive claim to the pot once they have mucked their hand. Any potential recovery from a mis-muck would be at the sole discretion of a tournament director, but under normal circumstances, the player’s decision to muck is final.

You can't even be honest with the AI. Ask it if there is a side pot in this situation.

For you to describe a side pot and then spend the rest of the thread denying that there was a side pot is bizarre and would be considered so in any part of the world. It is much much much easier to act normal about this, but instead you have spent multiple paragraphs being weird to the point where you are now pasting them from ChatGPT.

The question is no longer one about poker. You should figure out what compels you to argue with folks who know more than you and who largely agree with you. There really is no reason to get pissed off.

Okay.

"How to win an argument by randomly reciting only parts of a message to fit my own narrative" ... yeah, i read that book too buddy.

to give you guys some peace of mind:
the whole thing is a fantasy, never happened, i don't even play poker, my name is Francesca, and this was a social experiment for my only-fans account.
have a nice day you all

A player who was eligible for the side pot mucked his hand when he saw a hand only eligible for the main pot. You hadn’t tabled when he mucked per your own post. Under the rules which have been clearly pointed out, the dealer is supposed to protect the hand and get the side pot right. You can’t forfeit the side pot by mucking to a main pot hand.

And if you weren’t hoping to win with the worst hand, what exactly were you worried about happening with the mucked hand and how could you have been “cost 3.5k”?

honey, you are 100% correct ... and if you like, you can come to my site for only 19.99$ per minute and we continue this talk in a more private setting ;-)

This isn't right. A mucked hand at showdown is not dead. Its only dead if the dealer takes it and puts it in the muck pile. Or as happened to me at Foxwoods in a cash game I mucked my hand towards the muck pile and out of my reach. When I called the Floor over realizing I had made a mistake the Floor ruled that my hand was dead. Otherwise I have never seen a mucked hand that was not touching the muck pile be called dead when the player who mucked the hand retrieved it.

It is intentional but it does not give up the opportunity to win the pot. Only when the Dealer puts it in the muck pile is it a dead hand. I have never seen a general ruling that the mucked hand is dead unless it is actually touching the muck pile (or what I said above happened to me when I couldn't reach the mucked hand without standing up and walking around the table).

This is just wrong. As long as the mucked hand is retrievable by the player who mucked it, he can win the main pot.

This is just flat out wrong.

The only time a hand is declared dead when nothing is said out loud, is when it is pitched forward face down when facing a bet. Then when the player tries to recover it and the Floor comes over it will always be declared dead. However if the hand is thrown forward face up it gets interesting when facing a bet. Then it will depend on the House rules and the Floor. In tournaments the player will get a penalty if the hand is declared live.

The reason I post in this forum is to help people understand how to protect their hand in difficult situations especially when somebody is angleshooting. In your case it was unclear if you had won the pot or not or if you had even turned your hand over. In reality I get that you were afraid you wouldn't win a huge main pot if you turned your hand over and the guy who mucked his hand realized he had you beat and then turned his hand over. But understand that subconsciously you already know that that could have happened and that his hand was still live. Given that the other player had mucked his hand as if he couldn't beat Q high looked like you were going to win the hand unless he was mistaken and thought the other guy had a K. So I get why you didn't want to turn your hand over until his mucked hand was placed in the muck pile. And in theory you could ask the dealer to muck his hand which would work most of the time if there wasn't a side pot that didn't include him.

I was playing in a WSOP tournament some years ago when a guy mucked his hand at showdown and the dealer started to push the pot to me. I asked the dealer to stop and put the mucked hand in the muck. The Dealer refused to do it so I called the Floor over and asked him to have the dealer move the mucked hand into the muck pile before he did anything else. And the Floor did exactly that and teh next dealer change he took the Dealer aside to explain why it was important to do that. If the Dealer had pushed the pot to me and I hadn't turned over my hand the guy with the mucked hand could have just turned his hand over and he would have won the pot if my hand was in the muck and had never been turned over. The reason I wanted the hand in the muck pile though was specifically because I didn't want to have to turn my hand over. If the guy wanted to see my hand (and not win the pot) he would have to turn his hand over (which he didn't want to do). Prior to the tournament rule change I would have had to turn my hand over to win the pot anyway and that is basically the same situation you were in. Should I turn over a bluff calling hand which could lose to the mucked hand before the hand was put in the muck pile? Or should I try to get the dealer to muck the hand?

In your situation I understand why you would try to get the dealer to muck the hand into the muck pile, but because there was a side put in your situation the dealer should not be doing that until your hand is turned over to determine the winner of the side pot. Now it is clear that the dealer sucked and was not interested in counting chips and creating a side pot physically and he would definitely get more tips and the house would get more rake if he sped things up and mucked the hand into the muck pile and then had you turn over your hand so that whoever won he wouldn't have to spend time counting chips (assuming it was clear the muck guy had the smallest stack). I still don't know if you turned over your hand before the guy's mucked hand hit the muck pile and really I don't care anymore.

I had posted this before: at the Borgota in a 20/40 LHE game a player mucked after being called on the river. It was a big pot and the other guy in the hand didn't want to turn his hand over until the dealer put the hand in the muck pile but the dealer refused to do that. So after about 15 seconds the guy who had mucked reached for his cards and turned them over. He had hit a straight on the river and hadn't realized it because it was a gutter and he had thought he was bluffing with a missed flush draw. The guy who had mucked his hand on the river won the pot. I went to the Floor to complain that on the river the dealer is supposed to put the mucked hand into the muck pile and the Floor agreed with me. And while I was talking to the Floor away from the table it happened again. Same players same situation same dealer. The mucked hand player won again, the player who had lost again left the room and probably never came back. The dealer was removed from our table and took a scolding and never appeared in the high stakes area again.

So I get that you wanted the mucked hand discarded into the muck pile. In cases where there isn't a side pot I would agree that it should be done regardless of whether the hand was a winner or not. But with a side pot in play, the side pot must be resolved first before the mucked hand is put in the muck pile. And if I was the dealer I would have asked you to turn over your hand before I put the mucked hand into the muck and I would have pulled up the 776 on the board to show that you had won with T6 and I would then ask the player who mucked his hand if his hand was mucked in the main pot or I would wait about 3 seconds and then put the mucked hand in the muck pile. Which I'm guessing is close to what happened or you wouldn't have complained up the chain (for no reason at all).

Rick, you are def. one of the more reasonable guys in here, which i appreciate, and put a great effort into explaining things, and that is why i am answering you one final time.

Unfortunately even you are still basing your argument on a false premise (see above):
I did turn my hand over, right away, how many more times do i have to say this???
As i mentioned in my post, the whole table was talking about how my lousy pair of 6s could win this pot (while the dealer was still trying to make change for the rake), how do you think they knew my hand if i didn't turn it over???

My bad I didn't get that.

What happened next? Did the dealer wait more than a few seconds to muck the other hand? Did the dealer push up the 776 on the board? Did the dealer say your hand out loud? Or did he just wait until the other player re-pushed his mucked hand?