Answers to Let's Play Floorperson – Part II

Writing for Card Player over the years has been fun for me. As a result of my column, I have been able to help people better learn rules, I have had the opportunity to meet new people, and I have gotten a kick out of the responses I have received via e-mail.

In my April column, I presented four scenarios containing what I thought were difficult decisions, and asked readers to send me their decisions on each situation. When I started to write my most recent column, I had received a handful of e-mails. Since that time, I have received more than 200 e-mails with decisions on the four scenarios. It makes me happy to know that there are so many people out there who take decision-making at a poker table seriously.

In my last column, I gave my decision on situation No. 1, which involved an overbet in a pot-limit hold'em game. I was not surprised that the large majority of the e-mails I had received up to that point decided to back up the action. I was surprised, however, to see those numbers even out by the end. The final totals were 55 percent for backing up the action and 45 percent for letting the overbet stand because of "substantial action."

There was not a single person who would have made the decision to back up the action and start the whole betting round over. Everyone who wanted to back up the action wanted to allow the actual "action" to stand, but reduce the amount of each bet. This decision isn't one that I would dispute, as I believe there is some merit to it.

My decision still stands, and I would allow all of the action to stand because of the possible information that could have been gained or given away. This ruling would fall in line with the "substantial action rule."

Situation No. 2 was described as follows:

The Game: $20-$40 Hold'em

The situation: Player A raises preflop from the button, and only Player B in the small blind calls. Player A bets the flop and turn, with Player B calling. On the river, Player B checks, Player A checks, and Player A states, "You got it," and releases his hand toward the middle of the table. Player B turns his hand over, showing a pair of fives. Player A reaches for his hand (the dealer had just begun to grab the hand to put it in the muck), grabbing it from the dealer's hand, and turns over a pair of eights.

Your job: Decide who gets the pot, and why.

This situation happened in a game in which I was playing many years ago. The floorman was called over for a ruling. He asked Player A if he did indeed say, "You got it." Player A agreed that he did, and Player B was awarded the pot by the floorman.

I think the floorman made the wrong decision in this case. Although Player A did say, "You got it," his hand never touched the muck and is a live hand. Many of the e-mails I received commented, "Verbal declarations are binding," and that Player A conceded the pot by announcing, "You got it." Verbal declarations are binding when used in the context of action. In this case, both players had checked on the river, thus ending the action. In a showdown situation, the cards speak, and the best hand wins the pot.

As the floorman, I would have warned Player A about his actions, and advised him that next time, he was not going to have a chance to retrieve his hand, because the dealer was going to have put his cards in the muck.

Keep in mind that my decisions are based on what I think is fair, and what is best for poker rules in general. In the scenario described above, a poker room will sometimes use a rule that makes Player A's hand automatically dead. I don't agree with such a rule, but in that poker room, the ruling would be different.

Editor's note: Michael O'Malley can usually be found playing online at partypoker.com as Rzitup. To learn more about him, go to www.rzitup.com.