Ruling question; did villain fold or call?
Playing 1/2; details of the hand itself are unimportant, just river action. Here's a little history first:
Table plays 8-handed, I'm in seat 3, villain in seat 4. Villain has been at the table for awhile, I don't recognize him. He has been mumbling when he DOES talk, but kind of quiet/slow otherwise since he sat down. Previously, he had straddled UTG and forgotten that he had done so by the time preflop action completed (didn't remember if he limped or straddled, but it was definitely out before the cards were dealt). In another hand, he bet $35 on the turn got a call, and then got confused when the river came out because he had forgotten that he bet the turn. The same dealer for that was still dealing when this hand comes up.
Preflop, flop, and turn action are inconsequential. On the river, I check, he bets, and I raise. He thinks for a second, looks at me, mumbles something completely unintelligible (what I THOUGHT was something like "you got it", but I honestly couldn't tell), and tosses his cards face up towards the dealer (KJ which is top pair, but on a connected board). The dealer turns them over and mucks them, and as he's gathering the pot, I put a chip on my face down cards and move them around to the right so he can push the pot and then take them with his tip. As this happens, villain claims he called, claiming he said "call". Dealer says he never heard it, I say I never heard it, and seats 5, 1, and 2 all say they didn't hear it. I, personally, read him tossing his cards face up as him saying ok, you got it, look, I'm folding top pair. That was the dealer's impression (and everyone else's at the table) as well. He continues to insist he said call. Dealer says he'll call the floor, and I agree that's the right thing to do, leaving my cards face down and not touching/doing anything.
Floor comes over and the situation is explained by the dealer, saying he didn't hear the villain say call, and myself and a couple other players agree they didn't hear him say call. Floor thinks my hand is seat 2's hand because I had moved them around a bit to the right to return to the dealer while the pot was pushed. We correct them that it's my hand in seat 3. Seat 1 also mentions he heard seat 3 say something (because he DID mumble), but that it was unintelligible and he didn't know what it was. I agreed I heard something, but that I couldn't tell and it didn't sound like "call" or "I call".
We all saw his cards, they were tabled, but immediately flipped back over and mixed into the muck.
What would you say is the correct ruling here?
Did he put in any chips? If yes then I would rule call. If no I would rule fold.
The ruling can be he called. But it can also be its a fold because no chips were put out before the Dealer mucked his face up hand. Still because your hand is still face down and live it is no longer an angle trying to win after your hand was mucked.
It is always difficult when a player throws their hand face up because the assumption is often that they are folding but dealers don't always muck their hand.
Aside from actually calling the only thing that could have been going on is that Villain is trying to get a read on you and ultimately decided he had you beat. This is especially true because you didn't turn over your cards with the winning hand and say OK you owe me
If I was the Floor I would likely call it a fold because Villain said nothing when the Dealer took his cards and turned them over and put them in the muck pile. But it is possible the Floor ruled it a call because it may be that the player actually did say "Call" and your hand is still live.
Throwing your cards forward face up when facing a bet sounds like a fold if there's no money thrown in with the cards.
I’m letting him call. From what OP describes, sounds like he spoke up within a reasonable amount of time. It doesn’t take long to push a pot and muck the winning hand so for OP to still have their cards that would suggest it wasn’t more than a couple seconds between V’s hand getting mucked (which would be the first sign to V that something is amiss) and V object. His hand was also tabled so there’s no question about what his hand was.
V is playing with fire by not making his intentions obvious but in this case, I think I’m allowing the call and warning him to be more clear as he risks future floor calls going against his intentions.
Rarely do you see people throw their hand at the dealer face up and intending to call. A straightforward read of the hand is that he was folding. Putting you in a tough position with either a bluff or value, because now you are basically broadcasting your hand strength.
I am no brush, but he didn't protect his hand and didn't put out a calling chip, so it should be a fold.
Since there is no advantage gained, since all cards are identifiable, since player spoke up immediately when dealers intent to fold his hand and since there is no clear evidence of a fold, I would rule it a call. If any of those conditions were different or if the player had a histor6 of shenanigans, that might change. But as described the fairest thing is let the best hand win which is the basic rule of showdown.
Certainly could warn player to make his actions clear. Dealer should also clarify player intent if any doubt or question. The room should have rule to make the pot right and get chips into pot and follow that rule
since all cards are identifiable, since player spoke up immediately when dealers intent to fold his hand
The dealer mucked his cards... And, V didn't mention anything until the dealer started moving the pot toward Swanhatch.
Aside from actually calling the only thing that could have been going on is that Villain is trying to get a read on you and ultimately decided he had you beat. This is especially true because you didn't turn over your cards with the winning hand and say OK you owe me
The potential for a freeroll here makes me really not want to allow the call. By tabling his cards, Villain protects a number of possibilities, each marginal on its own but adding up to a significant advantage:
- He could have already factored in your likeliness of having a worse hand given your unwillingness to show.
- He could be relying on the impression that he folded if it turns out he is wrong about you having a worse hand. The whole table believes that he folded. Nobody heard him say "call". Now despite this testimony that would otherwise point strongly at a non-call, the burden is on you to argue that he did call.
Basically, your strong evidence of a non-call becomes his to advocate against his own initial claim that he called. He can choose between adamantly denying that he folded and softly and briefly claiming that he called. The floor has to act perfectly and consistently here for Hero to not get screwed, and I can definitely imagine some number of floors saying "Well, it does sound like you folded, be more careful next time." as if Villain is a victim and walking away before anyone realizes what happened.
(Also, the game would slow to a crawl if we all acted ambiguously, so we should err on discouraging that behavior.)
I'd rule it is not a call. Showing your hand does not mean you called. He did not clearly verbally say call. He needed to put some money in. He did not.
Of course for poetic justice, I'd like to see that he still had the losing hand.
The dealer mucked his cards... And, V didn't mention anything until the dealer started moving the pot toward Swanhatch.
You say this like the dealer does a dance routine between mucking the hand and pushing the pot when the average time between those two things is like 2 seconds max.
I wish dealers took two seconds to muck the losing hand and push the pot. That’s a very rare skill.
Since there is no advantage gained, since all cards are identifiable, since player spoke up immediately when dealers intent to fold his hand and since there is no clear evidence of a fold, I would rule it a call.
You think there is no advantage for the villain is seeing hero's reaction to thinking villain is folding? I think that is a huge advantage.
Furthermore, I think it is widely accepted that forward motion with release of cards when facing a bet is a fold (unless there is a clear verbal declaration). Clearly there wasn't any verbal declaration (let alone be clear) as not a single person at the table heard him say call.
So if I am the floor and was given the information in the OP, I would rule it a fold. Don't get me wrong, I am not married to that and could be persuaded otherwise, but I think that just the fact that there was forward motion with the cards when facing a bet would make it a fold and put a big burden on the villain to change my mind.
I think calling it a fold protects the integrity of the game. If the villain is angling, it doesn't reward him. If the villain wasn't angling and genuinely thought he was calling, then he will have learned an expensive lesson that almost every poker player has had to learn. Play cleanly and protect your hand. Villain did neither. He was ambiguous in his actions and literally threw away his hand.
Fold.
I wish dealers took two seconds to muck the losing hand and push the pot. That’s a very rare skill.
To be fair, as a dealer you will hear otherwise. There are times where on the river, a player will be facing action, show his cards while tossing them forward (showing a medium strength hand such as top pair, ok kicker). I am 90%+ positive his intent is to fold, however thr consequences of immediately mucking his hand is way worse than the consequences of taking the time to clarify his actions. So I will try and clarify. Yet the folding player and other players in the game will look at me like I am an idiot and make comments about getting the game moving onto the next hand.
I have learned to roll with it mostly because if you have read most of what I have posted here as a dealer I am all about getting out the hands. I pride myself on my speed. But it can be frustrating being put in ambiguous situations where you are fairly sure what was intended, but my read on intent shouldn't be the deciding factor.
Many dealers, if not all, can do a better job in these situations, but the real blame is the ambiguity of the play.
20 seconds is plenty of time (if someone waited 20 seconds to act every time, I'd go nuts!), but he should have spoken up the minute his hand was mucked. And, he should have thrown out a chip to indicate a call. Nothing about his actions indicates a call.
2 seconds, not 20. If he spoke up before the pot was even pushed, I think it's fair to argue that V spoke up pretty quickly.
I agree, V should have been more clear with his actions, but I think in this instance, it sounds like he spoke quick enough.
2 seconds? Must be the fastest dealer ever, especially considering that H had put a tip on his cards and was pushing them to the dealer -- H must move super fast, too!
2 seconds? Must be the fastest dealer ever, especially considering that H had put a tip on his cards and was pushing them to the dealer -- H must move super fast, too!
I don't think you realize how simple both of those actions are. You don't have to move at lighting speed to put a hand into the muck then begin pushing a pot that is ~1 foot away.
I wish dealers took two seconds to muck the losing hand and push the pot. That’s a very rare skill.
To be fair, as a dealer you will hear otherwise. There are times where on the river, a player will be facing action, show his cards while tossing them forward (showing a medium strength hand such as top pair, ok kicker). I am 90%+ positive his intent is to fold, however thr conseq
I’m not even talking about a situation like this. I feel like the majority of dealers will just straight up not even muck the losing hand, leaving a live hand just sitting there, face down or not.
It usually doesn’t effect anything, I’m just very skeptical of the two seconds claim.
For pots won without showdown, the vast majority of dealers will kill the 2nd to last hand, then push the pot. Even subpar dealers are doing that in just a few seconds. There's not really much else they need to do after killing the hand.
If hero still has his cards and can expose a winning hand, I don't see how I would call this a fold. Villain tabled his hand and said something and then contested the dealers determination he foldedbin a reasonable time. It séems like hero was hopping the best hand wouldn't win here.
If you don't speak clearly and then proceed to not protect your hand and you have not even flicked a $1 chip into the pot, you shouldn't expect anyone to think you called.
You're right. He shouldn't expect to. What V did was very careless and when you do careless things like fail to make your intentions clear, you risk the possibility of a floor ruling against your intended action.
A *possibility*, not a guarantee. Floors shouldn't spite rule against somebody just because they do something stupid. You look at the entirety of the event/actions and determine what is most fair. To me, V objected and clarified his intention within a reasonable amount of time.
without looking at the replies first,
i would say he is open mucking because he didn't put any chips in (including tossing one chip in which some ppl do) and saying "you got it" is folding talk.
He should be warned by the dealer to make it clearer for future hands. Hand dead for me.
Since there is no advantage gained, since all cards are identifiable, since player spoke up immediately when dealers intent to fold his hand and since there is no clear evidence of a fold, I would rule it a call. If any of those conditions were different or if the player had a histor6 of shenanigans, that might change. But as described the fairest thing is let the best hand win
Oh dear. Another one that Backstairs wins over Fore in terms of rules.
If hero still has his cards and can expose a winning hand, I don't see how I would call this a fold. Villain tabled his hand and said something and then contested the dealers determination he foldedbin a reasonable time. It séems like hero was hopping the best hand wouldn't win here.
Correct. Could have ended it all by flipping up a winner. Obviously when he can't beat top pair he's rooting for the muck.
Surprised the floor didn't look at the other hand (even without showing everyone else). Surely the floor can do what they like in that regard?
If hero still has his cards and can expose a winning hand, I don't see how I would call this a fold. Villain tabled his hand and said something and then contested the dealers determination he foldedbin a reasonable time. It séems like hero was hopping the best hand wouldn't win here.
Correct. Could have ended it all by flipping up a winner. Obviously when he can't beat top
The floor looking at the other hand and not showing anyone else is literally the worst ruling to be made here. I think it is a clear fold, but I can at least understand people thinking differently that it is a call.
The floor secretly looking at a hand that doesn't need to be exposed is the worst of all rulings.
Correct. Could have ended it all by flipping up a winner. Obviously when he can't beat top pair he's rooting for the muck.
Surprised the floor didn't look at the other hand (even without showing everyone else). Surely the floor can do what they like in that regard?
Uh, not sure I wanna be on the side of the person who thinks the floor should look at OP’s hand before making a ruling.
