[BassVillan]

what I'm wondering is who in the hell reraises a min raiser with pocket tens? I suppose there may be a time for doing so amongst players who have spent many many hours at the table together but.....

[luckychick]

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.

This is unusual... however I think that after Jamie Gold's WSOP ME win, where he showed one card often, there was a lot of talk about rules and penalties for exposing hands and there was some waffling about - now generally the rule is that a hand can't be declared dead simply by being exposed. When was this?


From the Tournament Director's Association:
31
Exposing Cards
A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand.
Rules

I *think* the WSOP uses the TDA rules, I don't know what the WPT uses. I actually think that the clause "but will not have a dead hand" is a new one from previous versions.

Also, it could very well be that local rules apply, even in a sponsored event. Lord knows that my local casinos have a bunch of "unorthodox" rules; things contrary to Robert's Rules and/or Vegas standards. It is always a good idea to know what things your local room does differently.

[StevenH72]

Originally Posted by luckychick

This is unusual... however I think that after Jamie Gold's WSOP ME win, where he showed one card often, there was a lot of talk about rules and penalties for exposing hands and there was some waffling about - now generally the rule is that a hand can't be declared dead simply by being exposed. When was this?


From the Tournament Director's Association:
31
Exposing Cards
A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand.
Rules

I *think* the WSOP uses the TDA rules, I don't know what the WPT uses. I actually think that the clause "but will not have a dead hand" is a new one from previous versions.

Also, it could very well be that local rules apply, even in a sponsored event. Lord knows that my local casinos have a bunch of "unorthodox" rules; things contrary to Robert's Rules and/or Vegas standards. It is always a good idea to know what things your local room does differently.

Im just curious, but what other penalties could be incurred other than deeming a hand dead?

[luckychick]

Originally Posted by StevenH72

Im just curious, but what other penalties could be incurred other than deeming a hand dead?

Typically it's a time penalty. E.g., you have to sit out for 10 minutes. Obviously effective in tournaments, but not cash games.

[jldecarlo]

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.

I agree that this is a stupid rule, but is it really any worse than killing a hand for answering a cell phone? That rule is a common tournament rule in my experience and every bit as stupid.

L

[legwand]

what i think..........

its a cash game, if only 1 person saw this guys cards, if he feels the need to tell everybody else then thats his decision. if he doesn't then shame on everybody else at the table.

pretty much in every cash game i have ever played all rules are thrown out the door. private or public games. if i want to flash my cards to get a read on somebody i make sure i can before the game even starts. now if this was cleared up beforehand then yes he must show, if there was nothing letting him know that type of sh1z doesn't fly, then more power to him. it might be greazy but its a cash game where people can fake muck, call out a hand they don't have and pretty much do whatever they want.

i myself do not play that way and would never try something as sleazy as what this person did. i have had it happen to me a few times. i just sit there and stare at the center of the table trying to not give of any look or tell and wait till the cards are picked up. some peoples kids are pieces of sh1t.

[Nexttime]

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.

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.

I understand where you are going. I am not sure why one would start going down that line of reasoning, though.

I am not sure why the show one, show all rule wouldn't kick in immediately. For example, when the dealer is dealing out the hole cards and a card flips over the dealer says "card exposed, it was the X of Y" and shows it to the table, then continues to deal. He doesn't pick up the card immediately and turn it face down again real quick in case one or two of the people at the table didn't see it. The idea here is that even if you the player weren't looking at that card when it flipped over someone might have seen it, so the dealer implements the show one show all rule.

Same thing when a player exposes a card to another player. One player saw it, so immediately at that point all the players should see it. Advantages shouldn't even enter into it. I'm sure this point will be brought up at the next game. Should be interesting.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.



.

[smitty007]

Originally Posted by Nexttime

I understand where you are going. I am not sure why one would start going down that line of reasoning, though.

I'm confused...Are you saying you don't know why I would go down my line of reasoning? Here's why I did: This line of reasoning seems the most common sense to me...The guy who raised originally has no advantage over anyone at the table at this point, so why should everyone else get an advantage to call the original raise? He made the original raise without the information everyone else got to call or re-raise him with...That's an advantage the casino gave to everyone else at the table except him, and I think it should definitely come in to play here.

I am not sure why the show one, show all rule wouldn't kick in immediately. For example, when the dealer is dealing out the hole cards and a card flips over the dealer says "card exposed, it was the X of Y" and shows it to the table, then continues to deal. He doesn't pick up the card immediately and turn it face down again real quick in case one or two of the people at the table didn't see it. The idea here is that even if you the player weren't looking at that card when it flipped over someone might have seen it, so the dealer implements the show one show all rule.

Same thing when a player exposes a card to another player. One player saw it, so immediately at that point all the players should see it. Advantages shouldn't even enter into it. I'm sure this point will be brought up at the next game. Should be interesting.

This wasn't a situation where the cards were being dealt and no one had bet yet and a card gets flipped over during dealing. At that point, everyone left to act (everyone at the table) should have the same information. So, if I'm dealing out the cards and one flips over, it makes perfect sense for everyone to see the card before they make their play.

This isn't that situation...someone already made a play at the pot, without extra information...Now, you're going to give everyone at the table behind the original raiser more information than he had when he raised...That is an Advantage for everyone else IMHO. Common sense tells me that this is not a fair way to handle the situation. It makes way more sense to wait until everyone has made their decision about the bet at hand, with the same information as the original raiser. Then, before a re-raise by the original raiser or before the next card is turned, everyone gets to see the cards that were flashed so that going in to the next round of betting, again everyone has the same information to go off of.

Here's the thing...someone above said why would pocket 10's re-raise an original raise. Well, I think seeing All-ins cards aided in the decision to re-raise, which isn't fair to the original raiser. Here's what I'm thinking if I have pocket 10's in that situation, "There's a good side pot available here, if I bet a bunch people might think that I have a good enough hand to potentially take out the trips that All-in has as well. Since everyone knows All-in has trips, they probably would not expect someone who knows they are beat to make a re-raise."

Not that it is the correct move with pocket 10's and one raise with two callers and a re-raise on top of that ahead of you. However, I can understand what pocket 10's might have been thinking based on the situation, which I think would have been less likely to happen had pocket 10's not seen All-ins hand.

IMO of course!

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Thanks for bringing this situation up...I had never really thought about it until this post, and I'm sure it will help during home games in the future!

[beekeeper]

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.

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.

This sounds like the fairest ruling to me, too. It doesn't make sense to be a stickler about the "show one show all rule" and show immediately if you're not also going to be a stickler about ruling the exposed hand dead.

[jamby]

I was playing recently in a public card room where this very thing happened in a cash game and the dealer ruled that there was to be no 'show one show all' as it would give an unfair advantage to those players left to act. The dealer said basically that 'show one show all' is only pertinent after the action is completed on the hand.

Originally Posted by abby99

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