Would you

The Snapper

4 players and I flopped a set to my 66 last to act. 500 bet and called x 2 players I push utg calls next guy dwells for an age counting pot obviously on a flush draw. He then shows me his KQc and calls. club on the river and I'm gone. When I get home I remember that under the tourney rules an exposed hand is deemed dead. I did'nt think of it at the time but, How many of you would claim the pot in these circumstances Your thoughts please.

shoutman

Depends on the tournement, what stage it is etc.

Most of the time i'd probably not call him up on it in that circumstance as it was obvious he was going to call as he said it as soon as he showed them to you.

Ollieboy

call his hand dead, teach him a lession.

By showing the hand he got information from you in relation to your reaction, which is not nice play by him. Hand is dead and thats final and gl to him.

RoundTower

The way you put it sounds like there was no more action after he showed his hand and called? You would have to be an absolute dick to try to claim the pot here IMO.

Those of you who think you would declare his hand dead, do you want to keep his chips in the pot too?

Scotty #

emmmm go bust from tourney or double up because someone broke the rules?

I'd be doubling up. I wouldn't make a big fuss about it but rules are rules.

Brendan, I'm surprised you didn't cop this at the time and I'm certain if you did you'd claim the pot. Was it self deal?

Only four at table, so it was near bubble or were you already in the money?

cardshark202

Ollieboy wrote:

call his hand dead, teach him a lession.

By showing the hand he got information from you in relation to your reaction, which is not nice play by him. Hand is dead and thats final and gl to him.

wtf, brendan is all in so any reaction he gives is pretty worthless. If there's still betting then I'd probably call him up on it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Goodluck2me

cardshark202 wrote:

wtf, brendan is all in so any reaction he gives is pretty worthless.

ìf he thinks he is weak then he calls surely..

Goodluck2me

or even if he gets a reaction from the other guy who folded didnt he?

Ollieboy

cardshark202 wrote:

wtf, brendan is all in so any reaction he gives is pretty worthless. If there's still betting then I'd probably call him up on it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

omg what are you on? It doesn't matter that he's all in.

Its against the rules to show your cards, due to information that you can get from a player in any facial reactions. I loss a hand in the SE for this and won a big cash pot against a player you made the same move, its not nice and against the spirit of the game.

Ollieboy

goodluck2me wrote:

or even if he gets a reaction from the other guy who folded didnt he?

exactly, if he doesn't put Brendan on a flush draw, he can count to extra cards in his outs

The Snapper

This was early in the tourney, UTG had already called at this point and for the flush draw guy it really is an auto call given the odds he's getting. The only issue is if either I or UTG are chasing the nut flush and then he's drawing dead. It was for a decent pot and my tournament life but I really don't know what I'd do.

bohsman

This has happened in the Fitz and the ruling given was the hand is live.

I would have as little to do with people who try to twist rules in their favour like this.

Shortstack

One of the rules in my tournaments are that if a hand is exposed deliberately then the hand is dead regardless of whether a player is all in or not. He/She then play the board. I have to be 100% certain that it is deliberate to enforce it. If the player is still in the tournement after the hand he will recieve a 20 minute time penalty also. A repeat offence and they are disqualified and their chips blinded off.

If it is accidental then the player can only call or check for the rest of the hand, a repeat offence will lead to a time penalty.

Had I been called for a ruling I would have no hesitation im applying the penalty.

If I was in Brendan's position and I was certain the player in question was trying to get information from me or another player I would have no hesitation in calling for a ruling. Rules are there for a reason and this case is not 'angle shooting' or twisting the rules by Brendan.

All players should try and win 100% but within the rules of the tournament.

RoundTower

Ollie,
would you want his chips to stay in the pot here? Would you ask for his hand to be killed if he showed he had, say, bottom pair and no draw?

And how can it "not matter that he's all in?" If there were players still to act then a player exposing his cards is completely different than if there is no more action to take place.

Also, Mike, if you were TD and were called over and the situation was described as the Snapper put it, would you kill the hand here, and if so, would you keep his chips in the pot?

Ollieboy

RoundTower wrote:

Ollie,
would you want his chips to stay in the pot here? Would you ask for his hand to be killed if he showed he had, say, bottom pair and no draw?

And how can it "not matter that he's all in?" If there were players still to act then a player exposing his cards is completely different than if there is no more action to take place.

Also, Mike, if you were TD and were called over and the situation was described as the Snapper put it, would you kill the hand here, and if so, would you keep his chips in the pot?

Listsn, I know what your getting at and it depends on the mood on the table and the tourney itself. If this guys was newbie, I would tell him he broke the rule and explain it to him and let him away with it and that would be sporting conducted.

But if it was the pokerevents 500 etc, I would have called for a ruling. In the Cork 1000 last December, a french player was move from a table to my table, he put his chips into his pocket and than sat down beside meand took his chips out of his pocket, nobody saw him put these chips into his pocket. Now, I didnt know what chips he had at the last table and where is chips came from and he had friends, you could have passed him chips as he was the chip leader in this case, I called for a ruling and told the TD that he has to be disqualified, the whole table agreed, but the TD didnt want to make a harsh decision which I also agreed with and gave him a warning, this player start to pretend he couldn't speak English to make matters worse. The player knock me out a few rounds later and went on to win the event. I was correct in calling for a ruling and I accept the ruling and thats poker.

In this case, the chips that this player as in the pot stay there and his hand is declared dead. If he show a worse hand, I would be expecting him to be showing to show what he passed, not to show and call. If I was making a bluff on the pot and he showed 2nd pair and I made a comment and than he called, would you be happy with this?

Remember, the rules are different for a cash game.

Juan Pablo

Intersting. I was actually the third player in this (if its the hand from Tuesday night Snapper, correct me if I am wrong). I had led for 500 and got called by the calling station on my left and the gambler, then Brendan pushed. I made a terrible call thinking it was 1425 in total making it 925 more to me. It was infact 1425 more to me. I was kicking myself for the call with only top pair and a middle pin and put in the extra 500 when the gambler asks for a count of whats in the pot, then procedes to show his cards to Brendan. By this stage I am 99% certain he is on a flush draw and when he moves in I need to call 1500 more again. A fine mess I've gotten into here. I call, the gambler hits his flush to scoop both pots leaving me down to about 2k and in trouble and sending Brendan to the rail. It didn't dawn on me at the time the error this player had made in showing the cards to Brendan, but in hindsight had a ruling been given whereby the players hand was declared dead, I would have accepted the sidepot in this paticular instance. There were players there who would not have know better and a warning would have been just, however the player in question here should have known better and was, as far as I could see, trying to gain extra information by his actions.

Shortstack

RoundTower wrote:

Ollie,
would you want his chips to stay in the pot here? Would you ask for his hand to be killed if he showed he had, say, bottom pair and no draw?

And how can it "not matter that he's all in?" If there were players still to act then a player exposing his cards is completely different than if there is no more action to take place.

Also, Mike, if you were TD and were called over and the situation was described as the Snapper put it, would you kill the hand here, and if so, would you keep his chips in the pot?

Firstly I would get a description of what happened from the dealer, Brendan and the other player. If I can be 100% sure that the exposure was deliberate then I would declare his hand dead, his chips stay in the pot. If he has called by the time I am called his chips stay in the pot and he plays the board. If he has not called his chips that he has committed so far to the pot stay in the pot but he plays no further part in the pot.

This would happen whether he was a newbie or not. It may seem harsh but I am not going to be in a situation where I have to make a different ruling if the same thing is done by a more 'experienced' player.

I am very surprised that experienced dealers are for being lax with the rules. It is either a breach of the rules or not.

Shortstack

Furthermore after reading Juan Pablo's post, there is still action to come from another player so there is no way that I not ruling his hand dead here if deliberate which it seems to clearly be.

ianmc38

What if he showed one card?

Also, what if it was a cash game?

Ollieboy

ianmc38 wrote:

What if he showed one card?

Also, what if it was a cash game?

the rule is the same for showing one cards, but Mike can confirm this.

In a cash game, you can turn over your cards, once all the action is over and your last to act. I had an interesting hand in Vegas last September when a guy did this to me when I put a hugh raise in after the river card, he turn over his 2 cards and I miss read his hand and thought he won it, I said nice call and than I realised he didnt call, he than called for me to flip over the pair of Kings, he went mad, but I just gave him some misinformation by accident and got 2k for it. Best poker moment ever, as he was a total muppet.

Shortstack

ianmc38 wrote:

What if he showed one card?

Also, what if it was a cash game?

Exposing one card is the same as exposing two. Cash game rules vary and it is more common for this to be allowed in a cash game rather than a tournament.

ianmc38

Ollieboy wrote:

I had an interesting hand in Vegas last September when a guy did this to me when I put a hugh raise in after the river card, he turn over his 2 cards and I miss read his hand and thought he won it, I said nice call and than I realised he didnt call, he than called for me to flip over the pair of Kings, he went mad, but I just gave him some misinformation by accident and got 2k for it. Best poker moment ever, as he was a total muppet.

Lol. WP.

RoundTower

Shortstack wrote:

If I can be 100% sure that the exposure was deliberate then I would declare his hand dead, his chips stay in the pot.

Ollieboy wrote:

In this case, the chips that this player as in the pot stay there and his hand is declared dead.

How can you POSSIBLY want to have his chips stay in the pot here? If he turns over his hand first and then calls, then if you are going to kill his hand you should consider it dead at the point when he turns it over. You can't say the hand is live just long enough for him to put the chips in the pot.

I've seen enough people try to twist the rules in their favour like this, and I have no time for them. Trying to take advantage of a player like this is just being an angle shooting wanker, there's no two ways about it.

Shortstack

RoundTower wrote:

I've seen enough people try to twist the rules in their favour like this, and I have no time for them. Trying to take advantage of a player like this is just being an angle shooting wanker, there's no two ways about it.

And deliberately flouting the rules to gain a read/extra info with other players still to act is not?

If his chips are in the pot before a ruling is called for then they stay in the pot if his hand is declared dead. It is quite simple - play fair in the first place.

Shortstack

Roundtower are you suggesting that rulings should never be called for? What is the point of having rules if you do not apply them?

Is anybody who calls for a ruling an angle shooter? I think not.

bohsman

RoundTower wrote:

I've seen enough people try to twist the rules in their favour like this, and I have no time for them. Trying to take advantage of a player like this is just being an angle shooting wanker, there's no two ways about it.

Agree completely, I have never seen someone string bet on purpose yet any new player that does it is pounced upon by someone looking to get a free card.

Should players also be using the disconnect protect to their advantage? Slowrolling should also be used to your advantage.

If a player gets disconnected when you are headsup in a tournament do you steal as many blinds as possible or do you wait for the player to reconnect?
Nothing in the rules about waiting but Id still do it.

Shortstack

bohsman wrote:

Agree completely, I have never seen someone string bet on purpose yet any new player that does it is pounced upon by someone looking to get a free card.

Should players also be using the disconnect protect to their advantage? Slowrolling should also be used to your advantage.

If a player gets disconnected when you are headsup in a tournament do you steal as many blinds as possible or do you wait for the player to reconnect?
Nothing in the rules about waiting but Id still do it.

This is a lot different Oscar and you know it full well. We are talking about deliberately breaking the rules to gain an advantage and expecting not to be punished.

bohsman

Shortstack wrote:

Roundtower are you suggesting that rulings should never be called for? What is the point of having rules if you do not apply them?

Is anybody who calls for a ruling an angle shooter? I think not.

There are far more people angle shooting than there are people breaking rules on purpose. 99% of people that break a rule wont do it again if its explained to them.

In Brendans case I think it depends on when the ruling is called for - if it is called for instantly yes kill the hand but if someone waited for him to call and then call for a ruling after he hits his hand tough.

RoundTower

Shortstack wrote:

And deliberately flouting the rules to gain a read/extra info with other players still to act is not?

If his chips are in the pot before a ruling is called for then they stay in the pot if his hand is declared dead. It is quite simple - play fair in the first place.

This is terrible in principle, either the hand is dead or it is not. If you are going to do this, you might as well let Brendan see the turn and the river and then decide whether he wants the hand killed or not.

Ollieboy

RoundTower wrote:

This is terrible in principle, either the hand is dead or it is not. If you are going to do this, you might as well let Brendan see the turn and the river and then decide whether he wants the hand killed or not.

Roundtower, I dont know where you coming from in relation to this, you've already mention in an earlier post that if action is to follow after this player showed his hand the hand is dead. This case is very simple, the player showed the cards to get information, hence he cheated. Hand dead and the pot goes to the next best hand. The chips that he's currently put into the pot stay there, not any chips that he adds after showing his cards.

I totally agree in relation to people using the rules to there advantage, but if you read my earlier post I already mention this in relation to the event your playing in. I think Oscar point about the string bet about a new player making that mistake is fair and once someone is told the rule once they will not break it again. But rules are rules, you cant drive a car on a footpath and say you didnt know the rules of the road, but once the rules are administrated fairly, nobody can complain.

RoundTower

Ollieboy wrote:

Roundtower, I dont know where you coming from in relation to this, you've already mention in an earlier post that if action is to follow after this player showed his hand the hand is dead. This case is very simple, the player showed the cards to get information, hence he cheated. Hand dead and the pot goes to the next best hand. The chips that he's currently put into the pot stay there, not any chips that he adds after showing his cards.

If the player maliciously exposed his hand to players who were left to act, then kill his hand and he can't continue to bet once his hand has been killed (unlike what Mike thinks). In this case it is not unsporting to ask for a ruling, provided of course you would call for the same ruling if he showed you top pair and was drawing dead. You would, wouldn't you?

JP brought some new information to the discussion, so now we are really discussing a different situation where there was a player left to act, but the offending player only showed his cards to a different player, who could no longer act in the hand. Which is allowed.

Shortstack

RoundTower wrote:

If the player maliciously exposed his hand to players who were left to act, then kill his hand and he can't continue to bet once his hand has been killed (unlike what Mike thinks). In this case it is not unsporting to ask for a ruling, provided of course you would call for the same ruling if he showed you top pair and was drawing dead. You would, wouldn't you?

JP brought some new information to the discussion, so now we are really discussing a different situation where there was a player left to act, but the offending player only showed his cards to a different player, who could no longer act in the hand. Which is allowed.

I never said he can continue to bet/call after his hand has been killed. It would depend on when the ruling was called for. The ruling cannot be called for after JP has acted but it can before, either by JP / Brendan / The dealer or anyone else at the table for that matter.

Bottom line is the player cheated and other players should not be afraid to speak up for fear of being called an angle shooter.

RoundTower

Shortstack wrote:

I never said he can continue to bet/call after his hand has been killed. It would depend on when the ruling was called for. The ruling cannot be called for after JP has acted but it can before, either by JP / Brendan / The dealer or anyone else at the table for that matter.

Bottom line is the player cheated and other players should not be afraid to speak up for fear of being called an angle shooter.

You said the player's chips should be dead in the pot, so you are ruling that his hand is dead because he turns it over, but he is still able to call after he turns it over.

Having the rules enforced doesn't make you an angle shooter. Selectively having them enforced, to try and get a result that is in your favour when it goes against the natural result of the hand, does.

cardshark202

Ollie, as RT has asked you, would you call for a ruling if he should you an underpair or a hand that was drawing dead?

5starpool

Unless someones cards came out of the muck I would never ask for a players hand to be declared dead. If someone can get a reaction out of me by showing me their cards before they have acted then fair play to them.

Scotty #

5starpool wrote:

If someone can get a reaction out of me by showing me their cards before they have acted then fair play to them.

What if they show their cards and get a reaction out of someone else - while your still in the hand?

The fact is....at a Green Joker Poker event it is against the rules to reveal live cards to anyone including people who's cards are already dead and including people not at the table (as Devore pointed out at the game on Sunday.) In this particular instance the player revealed his hand before all action had completed therefor the hand and what ever money was in the pot was dead. The dealer should have spotted this really but when he didn't it comes down to the individual palyers opinion on the matter. Personally if the revealer had the absolute nuts (in which case he's not trying to get info) and he was the last one to act (therfor not telling his mate next to him to fold) then I wouldn't say anything as he's obviosly going to call. Otherwise, if it means my survival in the tourney, I'm declaring his hand dead. If playing by the rules of the tourney is being a "dick" as someone said earlier then so be it.

Ollieboy

cardshark202 wrote:

Ollie, as RT has asked you, would you call for a ruling if he should you an underpair or a hand that was drawing dead?

I agree with RT here, if he show a hand and it was a hand that couldn't improve enough to win, which is a very unlikely situation, I would still want to inforce the same ruling, but I agree with RT, not all players would do this. But if a player is going to call with a hand this bad he must be a new player and we would hopefully be playing lower limits, so I would advice him to his mistake and let him make the decision. But were all adults here and we play poker to win money and some for ego, so rules do get broken by players and use to some players advantage, but I like to play poker the way I play golf, correctly and honestly, if the same situation happen in a friendly golf game, I would let him finish the hole and than advice him to his mistake, so he'll know in future.

RoundTower

Ollieboy wrote:

I agree with RT here, if he show a hand and it was a hand that couldn't improve enough to win, which is a very unlikely situation, I would still want to inforce the same ruling, but I agree with RT, not all players would do this. But if a player is going to call with a hand this bad he must be a new player and we would hopefully be playing lower limits, so I would advice him to his mistake and let him make the decision.

It's hardly unlikely, or characteristic of smaller games. People get their stack in with top pair all the time, even successful tournament players in big events, even when they are drawing dead against a set.

If the rule in the tourney is that you cannot show your hand to anybody, including a spectator (English rules, and what crap rules they are) then yes your hand should be dead if you do this. I have never seen anyone try to get a player's hand declared dead when they knew they were drawing dead, only when they didn't want them to call.

Scotty # wrote:

Personally if the revealer had the absolute nuts (in which case he's not trying to get info) and he was the last one to act (therfor not telling his mate next to him to fold) then I wouldn't say anything as he's obviosly going to call. Otherwise, if it means my survival in the tourney, I'm declaring his hand dead. If playing by the rules of the tourney is being a "dick" as someone said earlier then so be it.

Enforcing the letter of the law only when it is in your interest and turning a blind eye otherwise? Yes, this makes you a dick.

The Snapper

Juan Pablo wrote:

Intersting. I was actually the third player in this (if its the hand from Tuesday night Snapper, correct me if I am wrong).

Thats the hand alright JP. And he was'nt a novice by any stretch. I do tend to agree with you and suspect he was looking for info by showing.