Fishy villain might have mucked the best hand, and it might be my fault

Most regs are awful for the game 🤣 I think you did the right thing ethically speaking given the guy was new to the game and truly seemed to think you were conceding the pot. Giving him half the pot would of probably been a good enough gesture of good faith and a lesson learned for him.

I've said things similar to you before, although probably not quite in this situation. (Usually when I'm sure they have pair + and I have nothing) Never had anyone muck.

The negative posts in this thread are kinda insane. Outrage culture I guess. 99% of players are going to understand you aren't ceding the pot and just strongly convinced you don't have the best hand.

And why would you post the thread if you angled him on purpose, makes no sense.

That is a totally different rule, usually referred to as IWTSTH, or I Want to See That Hand. In rooms that still allow it (many do not any more), the hand requested to see is dead, unless the person requesting it is the winner.

There is almost certainly no rule (other than rule 1) allowing the floor to root through the muck looking for villains hand to pull out and make live. If the hand was “mucked” by the dealer but is still somehow identifiable and retrievable, then (1) it is live and can vie for the pot, (2) the dealer needs retraining on how to muck a hand.

What would have happened if also Hero mucked? Pot still there, no cards.

As Dinesh points out, this rule you bring up is completely different one. But a couple of points I wish to reiterate. First, the rule says nothing about pulling the dead hand from the muck. IWTSTH is invoked BEFORE the hand is in the pot. Who can invoke this rule, where it is still a rule, varies some. Some places it is any play (very few places), some it is any player dealt in (most common in my experience), some it is only players with cards at showdown (more recent form in lieu of totally getting rid of the rule but that is my assumption).

The other point is really a question. That is how would the floor pull a hand from the muck anyway? A properly mucked hand is intentionally pushed into the 'middle' of the muck specifically so it is no longer identifiable. In fact, until the hand is not clearly identifiable, it isn't really dead. Under some circumstances, this identifiable hand can be returned to the owner and tabled.

If dealer was properly protecting the muck, at least one hand would still be alive.

Highly technically and pedantic, a play should not be able to "muck" his hand. Similarly at showdown a hand can not be "folded" as you can only "fold" facing action and action is over at showdown.

What player can do is discard. This then allows the dealer to muck the cards. But dealer is supposed to be protecting the muck. This is most critical in a tournament when there is at least one all in at showdown and all hands remaining at showdown are supposed to be tabled.

But as noted this is a hyper pedantic and hyper technical view

If you knew you might have the best hand, why would you tell villain that he won?

You wouldn't have had to show your hand if you hadn't said anything. Either villain shows his hand and he wins, or he mucks his hand and you win. You basically talked him into mucking his hand.

Maybe you didn't intend to get a better hand to fold with table talk, but 99% chance that's what you did.

I can just barely believe that you might not be a douchebag up to this point in the story. But after you tabled your hand to claim the pot, you're definitely a douchebag whether you planned it this way or not.

If somehow I was in the same spot as you, I definitely give villain the entire pot. Although some rooms might not allow that. Really after I saw he mucked his hand, I muck my hand too and reiterate that he won the hand.

Edit: alright, you redeemed yourself, but only because in your OP you didn't say that you thought you actually had the best hand when he mucked his. That would be a very unusual thing to think, and in this circumstance your opponent is likely to have had the best hand about 99% of the time. So you made a big error in judgement there, but since you reconsidered and did the right thing I overrule my initial judgement of your douchebagitude.

I am never giving any % of the pot away if the floor ruled that I am awarded the pot.

Without the "I give up, you win." I push the pot to the last player that mucked.

With the concession I call the floor and let him decide.

Only in a tournament.

Live, if you want to fold to no bet or out of turn,
I'll muck you hand and give you a warning.

I'm not pushing the hand back to you so someone
can lose to a hand that you were trying to muck.

Majority if time i agree. But swindling someone to get the pot makes that an exception.

And where did I even suggest they you should return a hand? Protecting the muck while less critical than a tournament is still something the dealer should be doing. That does not mean returning cards.It does mean, like YOU EVEN SAY, YOU muck the hand not the player. That you then give a warning is great but a different issue.

Yes and no. V never showed, we're not 100% sure he has H beat.

It’s an angle, but V should know he has to turn over first, and the dealer should’ve immediately said “turn ‘em over, Ahmad, you’re first to act” after the check check, rather than the usual “lets see ‘em, guys” or “who wins?”.

It’s been my long experience that Middle Eastern players abhor turning over their cards in unclear situations more than any other demographic; it also makes them vulnerable to stuff like this as well as outright shoots, and I’ve seen it cost them dearly.

I don't think that the dealer should be choosing his wording or violating policy based on his assessment of whether a player is Middle Eastern.

One player to a hand please.

"You're first, show em or muck em." would be better.

Your sarcasm meter may need a new fan belt.

99% sure.

As noted by someone else above, in some rooms hero is supposed to show first, as he was the last player who made an aggressive action.

But H already said that in the room it happened, it was V who had to show first according to their rules.

I’ve never heard of that before but OK.

Sure but I think it's wrong to say that he should have known the rules when they vary by room.

As noted, I do not think it is a good rule. But since I saw the rule/procedure in the actual "hand book" that at least one casino filed with the state gaming commision, I know it is true there.

Even more, I have seen dealers, either with this training in the past or just a misinterpretation, adamantly insist last aggression, even on prior streets, means that player shows.

But let's not allow this to distract from this particular situation since a) it is NOT what happened, b) doesn't matter so long as someone has tabled a hand (or has a hand to table) and c) for this casino (MS iirc) per OP, they use the more correct 'river check/check rule' which goes by position relative to button. (Which I definitely believe is the better rule/procedure, but not universal and not universally enforced as such.)

I believe you, Fore. I’m just telling that I’m almost 60 and I’ve never heard or read anything about it before.

You guys are being really harsh on the "you win" comment. Weirdly harsh.

Most players just use this expression as conceding they have a very weak hand and don't want to show it, not that they're giving up the pot. I play for a living and can't even count the number of times someone has told me that I win, I tabled my hand, and I did not win. Like it literally happens all the time. It's slightly tilting, but it is what it is. It's almost never meant to be an angle, and only people who never play would ever actually muck their cards upon being told "you win".

I never say "you win" unless I have close to the nut low, but in a hypothetical if I did say it with J high and someone mucked I'd just assume they really had the nut nut low, I'd scoop the pot without showing and it would be onto the next hand.

"I give up, you win." twice... is a bit different than "you win"
and was enough to convince villain he was conceding.

Or he saw he was beat and took the opportunity to angle back.