Controversial Floor Ruling - Do you agree?

Should and have to be shown during all-ins only IMO.

shinedown.45 said:

Should and have to be shown during all-ins only IMO.

Click to expand...

It was. It's the whole point of this thread...

House rules are implemented because of situations like these,you should know them,I play in a bar league that has the same rule,and there are players of all skills that play,I think this type of rule is more helpful towards a novice, to bad but house rules come first!!! :withstupi

shinedown.45 said:

Funny how you put Candians in a class of their own.
I guess Candians are a seperate ethnic group.

Click to expand...

lol

Phosphorous said:

But still, why not get rid of the "show your cards" rule? Why have it?

Click to expand...

It's there to prevent collusion.

If it weren't there Player X and his friend Player Y could make an agreement before the tournament that if they get seated at the same table, when they get the chance Player X is going to shove and Player Y is going to call regardless of their cards. Player X will show their hand and Player Y will muck, even if they have the best hand, because the deal was that Player X is the one that gets the chips. This gives Player X an unfair advantage in the tournament.

Forcing hands to be turned face up when there's an all in and a call isn't a complete solution to this problem but it certainly goes some way to discouraging it and forces people determined to collude to at least do it in more subtle and less effective ways. At the very least it forces Player Y to actually have the worst hand and if the cards show something suspicious (like Player Y made an insane call with absolutely no hand) it can give the tournament director some kind of cue to investigate and maybe take action against one or both players.

OzExorcist said:

It's there to prevent collusion.

If it weren't there Player X and his friend Player Y could make an agreement before the tournament that if they get seated at the same table, when they get the chance Player X is going to shove and Player Y is going to call regardless of their cards. Player X will show their hand and Player Y will muck, even if they have the best hand, because the deal was that Player X is the one that gets the chips. This gives Player X an unfair advantage in the tournament.

Click to expand...

This was my entire point. In the scenario described by this thread, collusion could have been a possibility for what happened (although I personally doubt it was). By allowing Player A to muck his cards the tourney director could have (and may have) allowed collusion to take place amongst two of the biggest stacks in the tournament.

I believe I understand the spirit in which the "asian" comment was made. My daughter inlaw is Thai. Many times her frasing on sentances in english are very different than ours. I have to ask for clarifications often. So no offence taken on the reference.

As far as the ruling, it is spot on. The house rules are in play, know them, obide by them.

This ruling is correct. The player said he mucked. The dealer touched the cards and asked if he mucked. therefore the hand was dead. he lost.

Read what Oz has to say--he's a professional and knows what he's talking about. I always appreciate his thorough explanations of rulings and have learned a lot from him.

Re ethnicity, what were Players A and B? I mean fair is fair, right?

Phosphorous said:

This was my entire point. In the scenario described by this thread, collusion could have been a possibility for what happened (although I personally doubt it was). By allowing Player A to muck his cards the tourney director could have (and may have) allowed collusion to take place amongst two of the biggest stacks in the tournament.

Click to expand...

True - but by the time a tournament director arrives at a situation like the one described in this thread he's really just making the best of a bad situation. If he rules the hand is dead then what seems to be the worst hand is dragging a monster pot. But if he rules it live then he's rewarding stupidity and there might be controversy over exactly which cards are supposed to be retrieved.

Long story short, the fact that this situation ended up a complete mess doesn't mean the rule about having to show both hands at an all-in showdown is any less effective at preventing collusion. It just needs to be enforced.

Where's the rule about floor decisions are final?