News1 min ago
Texas Hold em rules
A few of us were playing after hours in the local the other night as we do every week, except on this occasion a non regular stayed and played with us. We were playing cash games probably max pot of £80 to £100. Now on one hand there were 3 players left (including the non regular), flop, turn and river had been dealt, there was approx £85 in the pot, everyone checked after the river so it was showdown time. The non regular guy then announced that he had jacks, so the other 2 in the hand mucked their cards face down into the burnt and folded cards from other players before he showed and a split second after their cards hit the cards on the table, the non regular player also mucked his cards into the rest of the folded cards. WHO WINS.
There was one hell of an arguement at this point, but as we couldnt tell whose cards were whose as all the burnt cards and the folded cards from the other 5 players were all jumbled up in a pile we deceided to split the pot between the last 3 players.
Also when we checked all these cards there were no jacks anywhere, so we know the non regular guy was lying.
Did we do right splitting the pot or do the rules say something else?
There was one hell of an arguement at this point, but as we couldnt tell whose cards were whose as all the burnt cards and the folded cards from the other 5 players were all jumbled up in a pile we deceided to split the pot between the last 3 players.
Also when we checked all these cards there were no jacks anywhere, so we know the non regular guy was lying.
Did we do right splitting the pot or do the rules say something else?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by scoob101. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
No Helen there was no betting after the river, they all checked and then all mucked, but the guy who said he had jacks mucked a split second after the other two, like I said I have been playing poker for a while but never come across this situation before as on showdown you will allways get to see at least the best hand, thanks for the reply.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Redhelen is correct. The other players had abandoned their hopes of winning by mucking before the "2 jacks" guy without wishing to see his cards. Poker is a game of bluff. Only when the cards are shown at the end can the truth be known.
He should have won the full pot, as he outbluffed the other players.
Would you put a bet on a horse and let the bookie tell you that you didn't win, without wanting to check the results yourself? No and the same applies here.
I doubt the official rules cover stupidity of the players in a similar way as they won't cover what happens if a player gets naked, starts dancing on the table and knocks the chips and cards flying!
He should have won the full pot, as he outbluffed the other players.
Would you put a bet on a horse and let the bookie tell you that you didn't win, without wanting to check the results yourself? No and the same applies here.
I doubt the official rules cover stupidity of the players in a similar way as they won't cover what happens if a player gets naked, starts dancing on the table and knocks the chips and cards flying!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
'for the conclusion of a hand is when all but one player have folded and have thereby abandoned any claim to the pot, in which case the pot is awarded to the player who has not folded'
From Wiki - BUT this guy DID muck his hand!!!! he didnt show what he had! I agree if he had even shown a 2 7 offsuit he would have won because it would have been the only active hand. But this guy mucked his as well!!!!
From Wiki - BUT this guy DID muck his hand!!!! he didnt show what he had! I agree if he had even shown a 2 7 offsuit he would have won because it would have been the only active hand. But this guy mucked his as well!!!!
Believe me the 2 regular guys in the hand are very experienced players, like I said we are all mates in this game in our local and we were all a bit drunk, helen I will say it again no one bet on the river so paying to see doesnt come into it, yes they did muck their hands (foolishly) so should have lost BUT he also mucked and I was of the opinion that a winning hand had to show on the showdown to take the pot. I agree that bluffing is a big part of poker ( I ve been caught enough myself over the years I ve been playing) but my opinion of the rules is after the river was dealt and all 3 players left in the hand checked the hand is then over and the person with the best hand must show to collect the pot, or as sherminator said if someone had only showed 7 , 2 after the others had mucked 7 , 2 would win, but all 3 mucked and as none of the people at the table had ever seen that before we split it between the 3 remaining players.
I m not going to the casino for a few weeks, but when I go I will ask the poker room manager what the ruling is and post back on here unless someone can give me a definate ruling before then.
Thanks for all your replies.
I m not going to the casino for a few weeks, but when I go I will ask the poker room manager what the ruling is and post back on here unless someone can give me a definate ruling before then.
Thanks for all your replies.
