Who's wrong and who's right ?

I never played live poker so I don't know the exact rules,

YouTube - Tobias Reinkemeier vs Roland De Wolfe - Sick hand at EPT Barcelona 2009

Guy with Q6 is right. You must show 2 cards to win pot. He didn't, he showed a K and then mucked his cards. He's a fool for not just turning over his cards and a bigger fool for thinking he should win the pot after mucking.

Yep must show 2 cards to win a pot and as soon as his cards touched the muck they were dead

Once your cards touch the muck your hand is dead as far as i understand it.

So when Roland is seen pushing his cards into the muck, thats it, hand over and its as good as a fold i believe.

Thats why everyone has those card protectors on their cards, so the dealer knows not to touch them as they are still in the hand - live cards.

Roland was daft pushing his cards away like that and should of just waited to see the other players hand.

After flashing his K the only way he could loose the hand was if the other player had a better hand (he would have to show of course) or bizarrely push them into the muck without seeing his opponents cards.....doh!

what I don't understand is why the dealer faced up his cards even after that guy with the K had already mucked them and put them under the chips which looked like a clear muck to me

I think the dealer doing that messed everything up and made things a bit more confusing..

Yup - the guy is a dumbass for not showing both his cards. He already admitted it was a bluff so he wasn't gaining much by not showing the second card anyway. Once his cards hit the muck without being shown face up they were mucked and the other guy won the hand.

I dont understand how he called that though. Granted it was a bluff but how do you call that bet with just a Q high? I did however learn something new today. Thanx for the video and thanx for the info guys.

Alright as soon as Roland puts his cards in the muck the hand is over and the other guy doesn't even have to show his cards, he just did it to rub it in...but my question is about the dealer, why was he rushing to stab Rolands cards as he was mucking, and then flipped them over? If you show one you have to show both anyway I guess?

I think my German has just improved. Thank you.

lol this is halarious. I don;t even understand why he showed the king. Was he bragging that he had king high or something? Anyway he shoulda just straight up mucked or been a man and showed that he tried to bluff it. Anyway, gave me a good laugh.

You're right, but this is Roland De Wolfe we're talking about.

Though, he does have his funny moments.

YouTube - Roland De Wolfe makes a creative insult at the poker table

OMG wow. That was handled in the most awful way possible. Longish post follows, for those that can't be bothered though here's the Cliff Notes - I think de Wolfe is in the right and Reinkemeir is an angle shooting douchebag of the highest order.

Here's why. The relevant Tournament Director's Association rules:

1. Floor People

Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floor person’s decision is final.

29. Killing Winning Hand

Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled and was obviously the winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that an error is about to be made.

Robert's Rules give us a few more things to think about:

(from Dead Hands section) 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.

(from Showdown section) 1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

(from Showdown section) 2. Cards speak (cards read for themselves). The dealer assists in reading hands, but players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot.

(Emphasis added by me in all cases)

There's a couple of things to think about here. First of all, de Wolfe pushed his cards toward the burn cards, not the muck (which is in front of the dealer, not under the pot). Whether that makes a difference I don't know, but I think it's negated in either case by the second point, which is this:

The dealer STOPPED de Wolfe mucking the hand and then exposed both cards.

Under TDA Rule 26 cited above, I don't see how there's any way the pot can go to anyone but de Wolfe. The winning hand has been tabled (twice FWIW, considering he already showed a king) and the dealer can't kill it. de Wolfe tried to, but the dealer stopped him.

This is backed up by Robert's Rules. Dead Hands rule 2 indicates that the cards can be retrieved as long as they can be identified (and de Wolfe's definitely can) particularly in situations where the player was given incorrect information. And while we dan't hear what Reinkemeier is saying to de Wolfe after he shows the king, it can't have been anything other than incorrect information to make him muck the hand.

Both hands have been tabled, de Wolfe's is clearly the winner and why the pot was given to Reinkemeier is beyond me. Even if it's a slight technical breach of some rule, Rule 1 dictates that the floor person should consider fairness above everything else in their decisions. I don't see how you can take fairness and the rules into consideration and then still award the pot to the angle shooting douchebag. He's seen the king and he knows he can't win the hand. His hand should go into the muck right there. Yet he hangs onto his cards and tries to talk de Wolfe into mucking instead. This isn't a mistake, it's 100% angle shooting and if I were the tournament director I'd be penalising him, not de Wolfe.

As a postscript I can't believe de Wolfe, who's supposed to be a professional, fell for something as lame as that.

They've reached showdown, and at showdown Reinkemeier has to show his cards to claim any part of the pot - even if the other hand has been mucked - as per Robert's Rules above.

If it were me as the dealer, I'd be rushing to stop de Wolfe mucking his cards because I'm always very suspicious of a player who's seen the other hand (or at least enough of it to know whether he's won or lost), claims they have the winning hand and yet won't turn it over.

What boggles my mind is that once the dealer's done that and both hands are tabled, he still awards the pot to Reinkemeier...

On a side note, show one show all doesn't actually work in that manner. What it actually means is that everyone at the table is entitled to the same information. For example, you can't make a bet on the river, have your opponent fold, show your hand to the person next to you and then muck - the dealer is obliged to show the hand to the whole table once you've shown it to someone else.

This doesn't mean that if you show one card you have to show them both, though some games (particularly home games) have a separate rule to that effect. In this case, the whole table has seen the king, and if the hand really was mucked (say if Reinkemeier had shown a low pair and legitimately won the pot) there would be no reason for the dealer to expose de Wolfe's other card.

Thanks for the explanation Oz.

Thanks for the explanation Ozexorcist, did you get that info from a website ?

If so link please ?

No problems

www.pokertda.com is the site for the TDA rules (you may have to sign up to access them though - I downloaded my copy before they put that in place) and you can find a copy of Robert's Rules at http://www.homepokertourney.com/robe...s-of-poker.htm

I guess the guy who called with Q high was wrong just for calling that and even showing the hand. "Roland" declared his hand and showed the king so technically the other guy should have showed or mucked his hand instantly.

Thanks Oz but I'm baffled by an extra bit. Roland hadn't actually released his hand. The dealer grabbed it out of his hand before he let go of it or anything. It looked like Roland was reluctant to relenquish the hand though leaning towards that move, but it's beyond me what right the dealer has to force someone's cards out of their hands.

I mean really, if you have to let go of your chips for the action to count(similar to taking your hand off a piece in chess), shouldn't your hand be completely free of the cards as well?

Seriously though I thought I'd side against Roland prior to watching simply because he can come across as kind of a jerk at times, funny but still kind of a jerk. Only I think Roland's in the right here.

The officials are just lucky it was Roland and not Phil Hellmuth, or Serena Williams, or some other sassy black mama. Okay Phil's not technically a sassy black mama, but sometimes his walk and talk makes him come across in a sassy black mama-esque way. All's I'm saying is they'd have got an earful, with some eye rollin' and neck poppin' to boot.

Thanks for the link, bookmarked it, wow didn't know there were so much rules and etiquette.

I think you are wrong. If he showed the king and left cards sitting next to his chips then maybe he would of won. But he did not and mucked his cards in to the pot...

You're right, it's not normal for a dealer to do that. I think what he was trying to do was stop de Wolfe mucking his hand because like I said above, any dealer should get suspicious when one player is claiming to have won the pot at showdown but isn't turning their hand over. I'd probably do the same thing in that situation to ensure neither player's hands were mucked or fouled prematurely.

It's just the part after that where they still award the pot to Reinkemeir that baffles me.

Yet to me it looks like the dealer forces Roland's cards the rest of the way down onto the table and pulls them out of his hand. But he had shown the K which should mean that Roland still won.

There are only 2 ways I can think of in which Tobias wins the pot without having to show. The first way is if Tobias raises and Roland folds, but that way's very obvious. The second is if Roland very obviously throws his hand away and verbalizes defeat. I believe there's an instance between Jean Robert Bellande and Phil Hellmuth where Jean Robert calls and Phil says something like "you have it" before mucking but trying to force Jean Robert to show his cards. Jean Robert refused, and apparently it was within his rights, but it still seemed kinda douchey.

As for "show one show all", it's possible they changed the rules for tournaments because Daniel Negreanu often shows just one card at the table on PAD prior to bitching about how he can't believe they want to stop people from being able to do that.

But as far as I know you can show just one card to win or after an opponent folds. I like that aspect for a couple of reasons. Reason 1, you can keep your kicker hidden and thus keep your opponents guessing. Reason 2, you can mess with their heads by showing just the lo after they fold.

I still think Roland won. On top of that he was trying to get the officials to watch video of the incident. Why would he do that if he was in the wrong himself? Since it was being taped, would it have killed the officials to actually watch the video, possibly vote on it, and come to a conclusion that at least looks impartial?

Nup - the showdown rule above says you have to reveal your whole hand in order to claim any part of the pot at showdown. Which is why Reinkemeir turned his hand up when he thought de Wolfe's was mucked.

Also, I'm pretty sure Negreanu's specific complaint is about not being able to show one card during a hand.

I don't think there's any controversy about showing one card when the hand is over - pretty much all tournaments and cash games will let you do that, unless you've been called on the river and you have to show both to claim the pot (as discussed above). But if you bet and your opponent folds, you can choose to show both, one or none. And that's fair, because everyone played the hand with the same information and everyone has the same information after it too.

What tournaments typically won't let you do (but cash games typically will if it's heads up) is show a card while the hand is still in play, even when the hand is down to two players. That's something Negreanu has been vocal about getting changed. I suppose the rule's there because for every pro like Negreanu who understands the reasons for waiting until it's heads up to show a card there'll be a hundred donkeys who won't and who'll show one card as they're folding preflop - which is a very different thing, and can have a major effect on the outcome of the hand.

Thanks for clarifying even more.

What had me confused about Daniel's complaint is actually that he's always heads up when it happens. It seems most are willing to show just one card in that situation. I just don't get why it's a problem with only two players in the hand. I was under the impression that you can pretty much say or do anything shy of cheating to win once it's heads up.

The standard counter argument is that you're giving that player information during the play of the hand that the other players didn't have and if they had've had that information they may have acted differently - so tournament directors treat it kinda like collusion or soft playing. Whether they're right or wrong about that is another issue entirely.

Plus like I said above, for every smart player who understands the "not until heads up" bit there'll be a dozen donkeys who don't get it and show a card whenever they feel like it which would be super bad for the game. So a "never show anything until the hand is over" rule is both easier to understand and easier to enforce.

IMO just not folding was giving false information to have dewolfe fold his hand. and they should make every effort to retrieve it. but the show one show all rule. where I play if a play decides to show one card you can ask the dealer to see the other one. it is considered rude to ask though. but what player do is flip one card into the muck then show the one card.

I thought the ask to see the second card thing was to be reserved for when you suspect a player of cheating. Can't remember where I read it though.