Re: Is this the proper ruling?

"Joe Long" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TdadnY2i8Oby3KjXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tad Perry wrote:

Unfortunately, you don't have an actual floor because you're a home game
and
you also don't have a set of rules adopted that clearly says what to do
here, but your solution was not unreasonable if we assume a rule such as
"last live hand takes it if all hands are dead if everyone folds to an
illegal hand".

In the absence of a specific rule to the contrary, this is the correct
way to do it.

We could also say that because the 3-card hand is dead, no subsequent
action
based on that raise should be used to punish any of the other players.
In
that case, as long as the jack high flush hand never touched any other
cards
and is easily identifiable, it would not be unreasonable to award the
money
there. Why should this fold be punished, but not the fold by the
two-pair?
After all, both hands were folded due to illegal play by a third player.
Should one be less dead than the other due to position?

In poker, when you muck you give up all further interest in the pot. A
player who has not mucked still has an interest in the pot. So, yes.

They both folded.

I can even imagine some floors reconstructing the hand and giving
everyone
their money back.

I had that happen when a dealer improperly mucked a flop with two
players still live (I was one of them). I believe the proper action was
to split the pot between the remaining live players -- why should the
players who mucked before the error get anything back?

As long as everyone agrees, that becomes the rule. I'm not even clear if
any
of the official sets of rules out there are definitive in a situation
like
this.

True, but in the absence of a house rule the standard that the last live
hand winds the pot is pretty basic.

It's true that "last live hand" is sometimes clearly listed in the rules,
but this example shows why that may not be the best rule.


I remember once in a dealer's choice tournament, pineapple was called
and I
had a difficult decision, so I called time, but the dealer didn't hear
me
and brought the flop. Rather than the flop goes back, the ruling was
that my
hand was dead due to an illegal number of cards.

What a terrible decision. As you hadn't acted, the flop was illegal,
not your hand. The flop should have been shuffled back and you given
the chance to complete your action.

The point being that the floor can do anything they want. Not that that's
always fair, but that that's the way it is.

tvp


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bottom two pair - how to play OOP?
    ... So 6 see the flop of Q83, ... flush draw being out there somewhere. ... The pot is quite small. ... There are enough bad players out there ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: NL a brilliant call - BAHH
    ... time you win the big pot, and LOL the 90% of the time you lose the big ... As the players get better, ... Based on the flop and his ... now is to open the betting with substantial raises preflop so that I can ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Strange Night At The Commerce.
    ... The stud game is all about game selection. ... then lost a pot with QQ. ... Flop comes Kxx and I bet out $200. ... Seven players call the straddle bet, I see 88 and would normally raise ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Tourney Theory "GCA"
    ... the pot with 10-15 blinds. ... Imagine six people calling and the flop ... If there are 6 or 7 players in the pot when the flop comes, ... with pocket pairs or because they hit the flop. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Sklansky concept: not raising with pot equity edge
    ... it every time with 98s from the BB when the pot is multiway like this? ... unlikely low straight draw is simply not very playable after the flop. ... If you have players who are seeing 50-60% of flops, ... If you raised preflop, the pot is such that their loose play is ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)