Dealer mucks a player's hand after player exposes a missed draw on the river with action left behind
Seats 2 and 9 are involved in a pot. 9 acts first on every street
Board is As 8h Ts 4c 4h. Both players still have chips going into the river
After the river, Seat 9 pushes his cards to the middle of the table and intentionally exposes his QsJs for a missed straight/flush draw
The dealer interprets that action as a fold, and mucks his hand. Seat 2 claims he had the 9s7s as he's scooping the pot.
Seat 9 berates the dealer for mucking the player's hand, and says that he thought Seat 2 was all in, even though he clearly wasn't
Was the dealer correct in mucking the hand?
14 Replies
River action, Seat 9 tosses his exposed cards toward the dealer, who mucks them. Seat 9 was first to act.
Sounds like a muck to me and he's trying to find somebody else to blame after hearing he had the best hand (if we believe s2. He might have just said that to troll s9 for open mucking).
If he "clearly wasn't" mucking, why didn't he object until after the pot was pushed? Because he was mucking. Fuck that guy.
I have played in casinos where according to the house rules dealer made a misstake here.
If seat 9 opens his hand at the showdown and there is still action to be made, then usually his hand is still alive, but he is not allowed to raise anymore.
So if the other player behind still has action, he can now decide if he wants to bet and also even go allin.
Seat 9 can then only call or fold, but can not raise himself allin if the opponent decided to make a bet.
But of course it would be also fine to just muck the hand if the house rules are otherwise.
Some casinos (probably most) would say
It is the players responsiblity to follow the game. The hand can also be regarded as an open fold.
But I think it wouldn't have hurt if the dealer asked the player if he wants to fold his hand before mucking, as it seems as if the player 9 might not get the situation. But that is optional. It is more a goodwill thing.
It depends on the house rules.
MagRailPro I would say that the first house rule you describe is too rare for serious consideration here, but I do wonder if those rooms are able to articulate a logical reason for the rule.
Seat 9 folded his hand. The dealer can ask if that is the player's intent, but if it is not policy or if the dealers in that room are otherwise not consistent in asking, then he risks admonishment for not assuming a fold and mucking fast enough, including from the player who is attempting to fold. It is no-win, and I won't fault him for not asking.
Not at showdown. Player not facing action. Push hand back with “action on you”, do NOT read hand as Q high. Player then checks or bets.
Not at showdown. Player not facing action. Push hand back with “action on you”, do NOT read hand as Q high. Player then checks or bets.
Isn't the purpose of the rule to not fold when not facing action is in multi way pots? There's no 3rd player gaining any advantage by folding in turn without facing a bet.
Yes totally agree. It is rare, and that house had many strange rules. Players were constantly debating stuff with the floor, because it didn't make sense. Unfortunately some of the higher ups in the staff were pretty ignorant and arrogant towards the players.
..and intentionally exposes his QsJs for a missed straight/flush draw
You need to better explain what seat 9 did. This sounds very clear cut if you explain how the dealer received the cards. Were they face up or face down when they went toward the dealer? Face up=live, face down=fold.
If he briefly flashed his cards for everyone to see but then sent them toward the dealer face down, that's a fold. If he acted like he lost but tossed his cards face up toward the dealer they are live.
What exactly happened?
Not as clear cut as it seems. You describe how it works at showdown. We are not at showdown. The player may think we are but there is a player to act behind. So player isn’t tabling hand. He is exposing it without acting on river. Also even if facedown, player is not facing action so hyper technically he cannot fold.
So in either case, face up or down, the hand should be live. Since player has not acted on the river action is on player to bet or check.
However that is not what happened. Dealer should not have killed the hand, but he did. Fault is still on player for not protecting his hand. Even though we should know the cards I don’t think we should go into muck and retrieve them. IF IF IF we were at showdown yes because dealer cannot kill a properly tabled hand AT SHOWDOWN.
As stated, while dealer should have pushed cards back to player because he can’t fold facing no action, once the hand was killed and in the muck it is dead. Player did not protect his hand.
Puts cards face up, within 6 inches of the muck. (Muck is to the right of the dealer).
The dealer, who is incentivized to keep the game moving, shouldn't assume that the player is giving up with his queen high? If the hand plays out normally, after the player exposes his missed draw, the other player is betting 100% of the time?
To start, the hand is not at showdown from the description. Therefore the "cards speak" rule doesn't apply. Seat 9 had time to object to his cards being put in the muck. Seat 9 didn't make a bet. It appears that his objection only started when Seat 2 said he had a weaker hand. Ideally, the dealer could have asked him if he was mucking, but hit was handled fine.
Keep in mind that table talk is exactly that. I'll tell villains that they bluffed with the best hand, even if it isn't true.
Agree generally with venice.
The dealer SHOULD have pushed cards back to player because technically player cannot fold not facing action. So push cards back, action on player to check or bet. Hand then proceeds.
But since dealer killed the hand, we are not at showdown so yes hand can be killed, the hand is dead. We have all seen a hand get killed by dealer accidentally; same thing here. Player is reminded he is responsible to protect his hand.
Since we should know the cards, the floor (never the dealer) could resurrect the hand but I strongly feel he should not. Player not only did not protect his hand but he took an action ‘encouraging’ it to be killed.
To the question above if dealer should push the Q high back to the player…YES, player cannot fold facing no action. But not what happ3nec.
It's a fold don't throw your cards toward the dealer if you don't want your hand to be folded.
The only reason he said a word is because he found out he had the best hand.
