[MasterBrewer]

Originally Posted by abby99

In the interest of fairness, I too would have kept the cards face down until the $60 raise was answered by the remaining players. If another raise occurred (as it did), I would flip the cards face up when action returned to the original $60 raiser. This would give no remaining player an advantage over the others.

IMO, showing the cards to everybody when they were first exposed gives an unfair advantage to the players left to act.

Yeah, this was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP. This keeps the players left to act in the dark. If everyone would have just called the $60 then I would flip the cards over prior to the turn.

[StevenH72]

Originally Posted by abby99

In the interest of fairness, I too would have kept the cards face down until the $60 raise was answered by the remaining players. If another raise occurred (as it did), I would flip the cards face up when action returned to the original $60 raiser. This would give no remaining player an advantage over the others.

IMO, showing the cards to everybody when they were first exposed gives an unfair advantage to the players left to act.

But not showing the cards until people have acted gives an unfair advantage to the $60 raiser

[joepro]

Originally Posted by StevenH72

But not showing the cards until people have acted gives an unfair advantage to the $60 raiser

Exactly. I can't imagine this is correct. I'm seriously thinking the hand is declared dead and the cards are shown. Must consult my dealer buddy in vegas for this one.

[Nexttime]

Originally Posted by StevenH72

But not showing the cards until people have acted gives an unfair advantage to the $60 raiser

That's what my thought was. Well, to be more precise. Advantage doesn't matter for either end of the table. The rule is show one, show all. If one player sees them, everyone see them as soon as the one player saw them.

Who is the Robert's rules expert around here?

[PhilTheThrill14]

Originally Posted by StevenH72

But not showing the cards until people have acted gives an unfair advantage to the $60 raiser

What advantage? He's (the $60 raiser) already acted.

[joepro]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

What advantage? He's (the $60 raiser) already acted.

His hand is still live, so if his $60 is reraised, he can decide if he wants to raise, call, or fold, having extra information from the exposed cards. This is unfair to the players who have yet to act on the $60 raise.

[Nexttime]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

What advantage? He's (the $60 raiser) already acted.

Besides what I posted above. What if the $60 raiser saw AK and thinks that the reraise is on AK, doesn't he have the benefit of seeing AK in someone else's hand and that those outs are gone?

[Pinkie1212]

One idea is to not let anyone reraise him until the cards are shown and then let the action go crazy.

Originally Posted by Nexttime

Besides what I posted above. What if the $60 raiser saw AK and thinks that the reraise is on AK, doesn't he have the benefit of seeing AK in someone else's hand and that those outs are gone?

[PhilTheThrill14]

Originally Posted by joepro

His hand is still live, so if his $60 is reraised, he can decide if he wants to raise, call, or fold, having extra information from the exposed cards. This is unfair to the players who have yet to act on the $60 raise.

So then, the rule should be - cards are not shown unless a re-raise occurs and other players now have to act on that re-raise, prior to action getting back to the $60 raiser. In any case, once action returns to the $60 raiser, the cards are flipped.

I think we solved it.

Hmmm...what if there is a re-raise of the re-raise?

[abby99]

Robert's Rules isn't overly helpful here:

POKER ETIQUETTE The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:
Revealing the contents of a live hand in a multihanded pot before the betting is complete.

I understand the points made in favor of flipping the all-in player's cards immediately. Regardless of when the cards are shown to the entire table, somebody is going to be at a disadvantage, but not all disadvantages are equal. I still think that less harm is done by concealing the cards until action reaches the original $60 raiser than by exposing them to the players who have not yet acted. Unfortunately, the bell cannot be unrung. I favor the principle of doing the least harm.

BTW, I could not find "show one, show all" in Robert's Rules. However, I do know that this rule does not require that cards be shown immediately in all situations; in some cases the cards are held do the side and shown after the hand has been played.

Edit to add a thought: I hope the guy who left was angry at the player who exposed his cards and not at the person who made the ruling.