When are mucked cards live?

Hi guys, I play at the ALEA casino in Glasgow every week and one of my friends had the following scenario on Wednesday night.

He's at the final table after tourney started with about 80 players. He raises 'all-in' for about 68k chips after the flop and all players fold except one player who announces 'call'.

At this point the player who called announces what a great board for his AQ, but then looks down to see his cards have been mucked by the dealer as he had pushed them over the line.

He challenges the dealer who then asks him what cards he had. He answers AQ. The dealer then takes the mucked cards to another table, searches through them till he finds an A and Q and brings them back to the table and gives the player his cards back who went on to win the hand and knock out my friend!

To me, this seems to be, on a scale of 1-10 for ridiculous decisions, about a 20!

I've been playing poker for over 15 years and never heard of this rule. As far as I was concerned it is up to the player to protect his cards, if they are mucked then they are dead. Especially when he has pushed his cards over the line, accidental or not....Has anyone ever heard of this rule?

I have never heard of this rule. In live play they always told me to be careful of your cards because there have been incidents where a person didn't mean to muck but they did. Usually the player doesn't get a second chance but some places are different.I would be furious that dealer went to another table and searched for the cards. A player could say he had the winning hand, and if the cards are there then they win. Dumb rule, hope your friend does better.

Hand was dead. Your friend got ripped.

This is the whole reason people always insist on a card protector no matter what.

Something similar happened in the '08 WSOP main event, Estelle Denis moves all in on JC tran holding pocket aces (allegedly). When she shoves the dealer mucks her cards, and the floor manager looks at the top two cards and there not the one's she said. That must of really sucked for her, I would of lost it and pulled a hellmuth moment.

You know, true what has been said here, and a lot of places and times that hand would have been DEAD.

But I'd like to add one point: Everyone always says about using a card protector (and I agree and always do), but in the OP's scenario, the player put the cards face down OVER THE LINE....So I'm not sure even with a card protector, of you move your cards forward enough, over the line, even with a protector still on them, if that might not still be considered a muck?

Just curious.

as soon as the cards are in the muck pile they are dead you can't get them back. if they had been in the middle of the table not in the pile then you can retrieve and play them. your friend should have called the tournament director over as soon as the dealer gave the opponent his cards back he got ripped off.

that is more than ridiculous! how did you not file a protest? what came of it? taking a poker player at his word.... might as well have told the dealer that the dealer's wallet and car were his -the player's- too. obviously not the brightest bulb...

It was last year

YouTube - WSOP 2009 - Estelle Denis - Dealer Mistake - French Insults - (Domenech wife)

Honestly not sure how the being over the line with a card protector on would play out. I've never ran into that one.

Your friend got ripped off, once they are mucked they are mucked

I remember once at our tables there was a big pot and the dude beside mucked his hand and then realized he had won but it didnt matter, there was no relooking up cards and stuff, the dealer just told him, let the cards do the talking and let me decide what they say but once you muck them, they are mucked. Your friend should of at least got his buy in back or a freebee to another tourny. That is screwed up stuff your describing and Im surprised others let that fly

Sorry guys, but assuming a few conditions were met (and it sounds like they were) this was legit:

Robert's Rules of Poker, Section 3 - General Poker Rules (Dead Hands) (emphasis added)

2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

The other player announced call and the hand was mucked in error so I think it's reasonable and in the best interests of the game (though maybe not in the best interests of your friend) to retrieve the hand if at all possible.

Whether the hand was "clearly identifiable" or not is a bit of a point of contention - normally you'd expect the cards to be identified without turning them over, taking the entire muck to another table seems a little strange. Still, he announced he had AQ before he realised his cards were gone and the rules don't specify exactly what "clearly identifiable" means or the exact method for retrieving the hand so unless anyone doubts he had AQ or unless the suits didn't match and played a role, I don't think there's much grounds for complaint here.

Note that the Estelle Denis hand may have gone a different way if the cards the tournament director checked had've matched her claim: he was clearly open to a ruling along those lines, otherwise he wouldn't have even looked in the first place. We'll never know if she actually had aces or whether she was attempting a gargantuan angle shoot.

I don't know about this particular venue, but note that a lot of venues with "betting lines" don't actually use them as an enforceable device: they're more of a guideline.

Like so many other things in poker (forward motion vs released into the pot when deciding what constitutes a bet, for example) the ruling can change from room to room so if you're ever in any doubt make sure you check with the floor or tournament director at your venue.

True rules do change from poker room to poker room.

Checking with the floor is always a good idea to practice. I know I've told several people to always check on the bad beat rules because they are always different from place to place.

Never hurts to ask.

I know the rules don't specify what "clearly identifiable" means but I believe it to be like this... I bet and get called and player says straight and I muck then player turns over hand but doenst have a straight, now my cards are not mingled with the rest of the muck cards but close then my cards can be brought out. I can't think of any place that would take the mucked cards to another table and find 2 cards that the player says he had. If thats the case then players would let their cards get mucked and claim to have AA or KK or AK and take a chance that the other players mucked those cards. Like 1 player mucked K3 off and another mucked K5 off well there are 2 Kings in the muck so must the players cards that got mucked.

As for the Estelle Denie hand if you watch the dealer muck her cards they look at the wrong cards they look at the 2 cards on top when her cards actually went under those 2 cards.

Now I was watching the United States poker championship and a ruling came down that I thought was utterly stupid. Player is faced with a bet, his cards are right at the rail of the table he takes a stack of chips and counts out the bet just above his cards but no where near the line, and was told that since the chips went past his cards they had to go in the pot. Now by that ruling players taht have a giant amount of chips that go out say 8 inches from the rail would have to go in the pot when player looks at his cards since the chips are past his cards. I wish I could find video on it but can't.

*shrugs*

Obviously you're entitled to believe that, but the fact is that "clearly identifiable" isn't defined so the floor can make whatever judgement they like.

I agree that the potential for angle shooting is high, but I also note that in OP's case the action went "I have AQ wait where are my cards?!?", not "wait where are my cards, I totally had AQ!". The hand was declared before anyone noticed it had been mucked. Maybe OP can clarify, did anyone actually doubt that AQ was the villain's hand?