[ky70]

Originally Posted by RTBrandy

Well, if you can't expose your hand in a tourney, does that mean that if you do, your hand is ruled dead immediately?

In some Casinos they will rule your hand dead...others may give you a warning and threaten a penalty if this action persists.

In my home game, I don't care what you do with your hand when the hand only has 2 players left in it...at that point, the card shower is the only one possibly being injured (IMO).

[kaiser10]

In a tournament, you are not allowed to show your hand even if there are only two people left in the pot (unless it's heads-up the rest of the way). This is because the other people in the tournament have a vested interest in the outcome. By showing the cards, it could prevent someone from calling an all-in, thus preventing the other players from moving up in the money or getting closer to it (along with several other outcomes). Everyone has invested money (i.e. a buy-in) to obtain the same goal of accumulating all the chips in play. So by showing cards to get a read, it affects all the players which is why it's not allowed. In a cash game, however, the goal is different and cards can be shown heads-up with others at the table.

[RTBrandy]

Originally Posted by kaiser10

In a tournament, you are not allowed to show your hand even if there are only two people left in the pot (unless it's heads-up the rest of the way). This is because the other people in the tournament have a vested interest in the outcome. By showing the cards, it could prevent someone from calling an all-in, thus preventing the other players from moving up in the money or getting closer to it (along with several other outcomes). Everyone has invested money (i.e. a buy-in) to obtain the same goal of accumulating all the chips in play. So by showing cards to get a read, it affects all the players which is why it's not allowed. In a cash game, however, the goal is different and cards can be shown heads-up with others at the table.

That logic is faulty and circular.....the show-er also has money invested, so his goal is the same as everyone at the table. Unless you're eluding to collusion, in which case, that's a pretty silly way to collude....

[kaiser10]

Everyone left in a tournament has money invested through their buy-in, so they are indirectly involved in the pot. Say you are at the WSOP and it's down to the money bubble. Everyone is waiting for the bubble-boy to bust out. Player A with the better hand is all-in and player B is comtemplating a call for all his chips. He's thinking about making the call, but decides to turn his cards over to get a read. He flips, gets a read that player A isn't bluffing, and folds when he would have called. Well you would have benefitted from player B's calling by placing in the money along with everyone else left in the tournament. So you have a vested interest in the outcome of the hand even though it's heads-up in that pot, which is why showing cards in a tournament is not allowed.

I don't know how it's faulty; it's not something I'm trying to make up. Cardplayer had a good article on the ruling awhile back, and I'm sure it explains a lot better why it's in place than I can. I'm just trying to pass on the info from what I can best remember.

[RTBrandy]

Originally Posted by kaiser10

Everyone left in a tournament has money invested through their buy-in, so they are indirectly involved in the pot. Say you are at the WSOP and it's down to the money bubble. Everyone is waiting for the bubble-boy to bust out. Player A with the better hand is all-in and player B is comtemplating a call for all his chips. He's thinking about making the call, but decides to turn his cards over to get a read. He flips, gets a read that player A isn't bluffing, and folds when he would have called. Well you would have benefitted from player B's calling by placing in the money along with everyone else left in the tournament. So you have a vested interest in the outcome of the hand even though it's heads-up in that pot, which is why showing cards in a tournament is not allowed.

I don't know how it's faulty; it's not something I'm trying to make up. Cardplayer had a good article on the ruling awhile back, and I'm sure it explains a lot better why it's in place than I can. I'm just trying to pass on the info from what I can best remember.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rip on you...I just don't understand the reasoning...I'll look at the article....

My point is, though, Everyone wants someone to bust out...even the guy showing the hand.....nobody else is any MORE vested than he is....so everyone is trying to attain the same goal....jsut my point of view...

[Excelsior]

Originally Posted by kaiser10

Everyone left in a tournament has money invested through their buy-in, so they are indirectly involved in the pot. Say you are at the WSOP and it's down to the money bubble. Everyone is waiting for the bubble-boy to bust out. Player A with the better hand is all-in and player B is comtemplating a call for all his chips. He's thinking about making the call, but decides to turn his cards over to get a read. He flips, gets a read that player A isn't bluffing, and folds when he would have called. Well you would have benefitted from player B's calling by placing in the money along with everyone else left in the tournament. So you have a vested interest in the outcome of the hand even though it's heads-up in that pot, which is why showing cards in a tournament is not allowed.

I don't know how it's faulty; it's not something I'm trying to make up. Cardplayer had a good article on the ruling awhile back, and I'm sure it explains a lot better why it's in place than I can. I'm just trying to pass on the info from what I can best remember.

Your thought on the original question is completely opposite. I was speaking of the person who is forcing the decider all-in would show their card(s) to the decider.

[kaiser10]

The same could still apply. Say the decider was thinking about calling but after seeing the all-in person's cards, he folds. That could prevent the rest of the people from getting into the money, moving up in the money, etc. I don't want to beat a dead horse; I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the ruling. Just stating what I can remember from the article.

[dad604]

Originally Posted by kaiser10

The same could still apply. Say the decider was thinking about calling but after seeing the all-in person's cards, he folds. That could prevent the rest of the people from getting into the money, moving up in the money, etc. I don't want to beat a dead horse; I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the ruling. Just stating what I can remember from the article.

I agree with you on this. At the local B&M, the rule is that any player exposing their card will have their hand declare dead. That goes both for cash games and tournaments.

I think a player should ask what the house rules are on this ruling before trying it as it seem to differ at differen places.

[Oldcycles]

Cash game yes
Tourney no

[RTBrandy]

BTW.........

Negraneu's (sp?) article in this month's Card Player talked about this exact issue.