Difference Between Hold’em and Regular Poker
I was playing in a 4-8 holdem game the other day and it was at the showdown where the action was check… check between 2 players. The second player turned his hand over and said,” pair of queens.” The other player threw his hand in face down. A different player asked,” what is that hand?” Yet another player grabs the two facedown cards and turns them up before the dealer can grab and muck them. In this casino there is a retrievable rule (best hand must win). The mucked hand was a loser in this case but what if had actually been able to beat a pair of queens? Can this be a winning hand? The hand never hit the muck so is it live?
Answer 1:
Even though this is a situation involving equal action (check and check) on the river, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “retrievable rule (best hand must win).” Do you mean that the local rule allows a player to retrieve his hand after he has thrown it away face-down? Or that he can retrieve it even if it has touched the muck? Or that he can retrieve it (by rummaging through the muck) even if it has become mixed with the muck? Or that the dealer may retrieve a hand that has been thrown away face-down? Or that the dealer may retrieve a hand that has been thrown away face-down and has touched the muck? Or that the dealer may retrieve a hand that has become mixed with the muck? Or that any other player at the table (either in the hand or not in the hand) may retrieve a hand that has been thrown away face-down? etc., etc., etc. Or that a floor man may……etc., etc., etc. or that a railbird may……etc., etc., etc.
I cannot conclusively answer your question until you explain what the local “retrievable rule” is. Generally, the only persons who might be entitled to retrieve a hand under this rule are the player himself and the dealer.
Note: the concept of the dealer acting on behalf of a player is anathema to most systems of rules. Generally, the dealer may expose a hand where there has been equal action only upon the request of a player who was in the hand, and then only after the hand has been killed. Generally, if any other player at the table (either in the hand or not in the hand) turns the discarded hand face-up, it is a violation of the “one player to a hand” rule, and such conduct is prohibited. That is, unless this occurred at Carson’s casual catch-as-catch-can card room, in which case the offender would be immediately hired as a shift supervisor.
Answer 2:
If I were the floor called to decide this, I would invoke the 1 player to a hand rule and declare the hand dead (i assume that “threw his hand in face down” meant with the appearance of intending to muck). I would also tell the offending player that he will have to leave if he again interferes with another player’s hand. Messy enough that it is better if it never happens. While it had not hit the
muck, I would enforce the spirit of the rules.
Answer 3:
If the face-down hand did not touch the muck (at the river), then the apparent winning hand may ask to see it and it plays. Players not involved at the river must stay out. Thus, the pair-of-queens had the right to ask to see the hand, but apparently didn’t ask. If the winning hand asked to see the hand, then it plays (it may win, lose, or split the pot depending on card speak). Live losing hands that showdown at the river may also ask to see mucked hands, but those mucked hands do not resurrect. Resurrection of mucked hands only occurs when the winner(s) ask to see them and only when it reasonably possible to retrieve the mucked hands. Asking to see mucked hands is generally considered poor etiquette, and should only be done, IMHO, when there is suspicion of collusion (better to advise a floor man and let him look privately at the mucked hands).