[shadow520]

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.

Exactly. If the $60 bet is raised again, then the cards get turned when the $60 bettor has to act on that raise. At that point, everyone made their original bets with the same information, and the $60 bettor no longer has any information that no one else has.

[Nexttime]

Originally Posted by abby99

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.

He didn't take it well at all. I think he was more upset that he folded his pocket queens and they turned out to the be the best hand before and after the flop. I think it is fair to say that out of all the people who play that game regularly he is one of the ones who berates people for slow playing or loose calls fairly often. Think Phil H. without the skill. He can be up a lot or down a lot, not much in the middle for him. Final table or first few out in the tourney.

If anyone local is reading this post, they probably figured out who it was from the initial post. Anyways, he cashed out and left very quickly after they ran the board. Down about $100 if I recall correctly.

[smitty007]

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.

I think this situation sounds the best...

The $60 bettor made the bet without knowledge of All-in's hand, so everyone else behind should have to make their decision without that information as well. Had the $60 bettor known what the All-ins hand was before his turn, he wouldn't have bet the $60 in the first place...

So, action goes around the table, and when it gets back to the original $60 bettor, the cards are flipped and everyone is back to making their decision based on the same information.

Otherwise, everyone after the original $60 bettor is acting on information that he did not have when he made the bet = unfair advantage to everyone else. Also, it is not a disadvantage for anyone else at the table behind the $60 bettor because everyone at the table would have made their betting decision without the All-ins hand information. If someone was going to call the $60 bet, but then decided to fold or raise to $150 after seeing the All-ins hand, then that's not fair to the original $60 bettor, IMO.

[luckychick]

Originally Posted by Robert's Rules

6. Show one, show all. Players are entitled to receive equal access to information about the contents of another player’s hand. After a deal, if cards are shown to another player, every player at the table has a right to see those cards. During a deal, cards that were shown to an active player who might have a further wagering decision on that betting round must immediately be shown to all the other players. If the player who saw the cards is not involved in the deal, or cannot use the information in wagering, the information should be withheld until the betting is over, so it does not affect the normal outcome of the deal. Cards shown to a person who has no more wagering decisions on that betting round, but might use the information on a later betting round, should be shown to the other players at the conclusion of that betting round. If only a portion of the hand has been shown, there is no requirement to show any of the unseen cards. The shown cards are treated as given in the preceding part of this rule

I think if you read this carefully, the answer is clear (see bolded part). The action is closed to the re-raiser unless there is another re-raise. I think abby's original post is correct, no?

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if a floor decided to immediately flip over the cards.

I can't possibly see the hand being dead.

[jldecarlo]

Originally Posted by abby99

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.

I'm not sure if this is the precise rule or not, but I like it. It does indeed seem to be the least harm.

Also, I would never kill a hand for this infraction, even if it's a repeated offense. There might be other penalties, but not a dead hand.

However, when I first saw the discussion, my thought was to immediately expose the cards, so I don't think I would fault that ruling either. It just seems better to wait until the betting gets back around to the raiser, or until the round of betting ends.

L

[jtfjethro]

In a cash game its show one show all at that time. Tourney its an automatic dead hand. Still not proper etiquette but thats just my opinion.

[KingZilla]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

Oh - and in a tourney - don't ever rule the cards dead - that is the last thing you want to do. Penalty - sure - but don't rule the cards dead. I would also show them after action returned to the $60 raiser.

I played in a World Poker Tour sponsored event. It was made clear from the beginning of the tourney that if you exposed your cards to another player, your hand would be ruled dead.

[joepro]

Originally Posted by smitty007

I think this situation sounds the best...

The $60 bettor made the bet without knowledge of All-in's hand, so everyone else behind should have to make their decision without that information as well. Had the $60 bettor known what the All-ins hand was before his turn, he wouldn't have bet the $60 in the first place...

So, action goes around the table, and when it gets back to the original $60 bettor, the cards are flipped and everyone is back to making their decision based on the same information.

My dealer buddy in vegas confirmed this to be the correct ruling, common sense prevails, even tho i had it wrong the first time.

[PhilTheThrill14]

Originally Posted by KingZilla

I played in a World Poker Tour sponsored event. It was made clear from the beginning of the tourney that if you exposed your cards to another player, your hand would be ruled dead.

That is a horrible rule. They must have had some special reason for it though. But seriously, the last thing you want to do is rule the hand dead.

[smitty007]

Originally Posted by joepro

My dealer buddy in vegas confirmed this to be the correct ruling, common sense prevails, even tho i had it wrong the first time.

Sweet!!! It does definitely make the most sense, IMO.