Ruling

pokerkingsni

At a recent game, the TD was talking about a ruling.

Two players are in a pot, player one, on the flop, declares he has a certain hand, say kings or something. Player two says nothing, the turn and river are dealt. In the end both players turn over their hands, player one, who declared kings hasn't got kings, but he still has the winning hand. The guy running this tourney said that player two is awarded the pot despite having the losing hand because player 1 declared he had kings and didnt. I and a few others thought that the cards speak, and player one wins. But the guy was adament that in this situation player one loses.

????

jacQues

pokerkingsni wrote:

At a recent game, the TD was talking about a ruling.

Two players are in a pot, player one, on the flop, declares he has a certain hand, say kings or something. Player two says nothing, the turn and river are dealt. In the end both players turn over their hands, player one, who declared kings hasn't got kings, but he still has the winning hand. The guy running this tourney said that player two is awarded the pot despite having the losing hand because player 1 declared he had kings and didnt. I and a few others thought that the cards speak, and player one wins. But the guy was adament that in this situation player one loses.

????

:eek: :eek:

First of all; cards speak. No matter what. So the TD was wrong.

Secondly, a player isn't allowed to declare his/her true hand when there's still action. So declaring the exact hand you have could in theory result in the TD taking action against you (only done if collusion though). Lying about your hand is fine.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

pokerkingsni

Thanks, i knew he was wrong. But he was sooooo flippin adamant he was right i doubted myself.

super_furry

That's a shocking decision. Where was it made?

pokerkingsni

It wasn't actually made in the game, just a discussion he was involved in. I was kinda shocked that someone running a tourney was sayin it.

But then a couple of weeks later i was in a game he was running. 4 players in the hand, i was last to act. In the end there was no betting, just 4 big blinds, and when i was about to put in a small bet after the river was checked to me, 2 guys folded and one guy showed his cards....with me still to act. When this "TD" was called over he stood there and told me i could still bet? 2 guys have mucked and the other is showing a pair of twos in his hand, and this guy is saying i can still bet? needless to say i've not been back.

bohsman

The second ruling is correct, pocket twos shouldnt have shown and the other two shouldnt have mucked, they should have been following the action.

pokerkingsni

bohsman wrote:

The second ruling is correct, pocket twos shouldnt have shown and the other two shouldnt have mucked, they should have been following the action.

Yeah but surely the three hands are now dead? im still to act and they have mucked or shown, so their hands are dead. Why would i bet, surely the pot is mine?

Ace2007

no, u still have the option of checkin/raising, afaik if u raised then the player with pocket 2's can only called (i.e he cannot raise)

bohsman

pokerkingsni wrote:

Yeah but surely the three hands are now dead? im still to act and they have mucked or shown, so their hands are dead. Why would i bet, surely the pot is mine?

Ace2007 is correct, when a player shows accidentially he can only call or check throughoutthe rest of the hand, often happens when a player thinks its all in and on their backs. Killing all hands would lead to people hiding their hands so they could claim they hadnt acted.

pokerkingsni

bohsman wrote:

Ace2007 is correct, when a player shows accidentially he can only call or check throughoutthe rest of the hand, often happens when a player thinks its all in and on their backs. Killing all hands would lead to people hiding their hands so they could claim they hadnt acted.

So is this just when a player shows accidently? If they show on purpose to get a reaction is the hand dead then?

Ace2007

u can't prove when a player shows his hand - but ur missing the points, when he shows - he only has the option of calling/checking - he can't do anything with a reaction(i.e, can't reraise you)

pokerkingsni

No i understand what you're sayin, dont get me wrong, im new enough and still learning the rules. I had just been told that if a player shows his/her hand with action pending ,the hand was dead. just need to know the rules to stop me looking like an ass lol.

5starpool

pokerkingsni wrote:

No i understand what you're sayin, dont get me wrong, im new enough and still learning the rules. I had just been told that if a player shows his/her hand with action pending ,the hand was dead. just need to know the rules to stop me looking like an ass lol.

It depends where this is to be honest. Different places have different rules on this, and can even be enforced differently within places at times depending on who is giving the ruling. This is the problem with no uniform set of rules in the game.

bohsman

In the case of showing your hand on purpose, very few tds would kill the hand first time out, a warning would be given and if the same player does it again would be killed.

Tar.Aldarion

pokerkingsni wrote:

At a recent game, the TD was talking about a ruling.

Two players are in a pot, player one, on the flop, declares he has a certain hand, say kings or something. Player two says nothing, the turn and river are dealt. In the end both players turn over their hands, player one, who declared kings hasn't got kings, but he still has the winning hand. The guy running this tourney said that player two is awarded the pot despite having the losing hand because player 1 declared he had kings and didnt. I and a few others thought that the cards speak, and player one wins. But the guy was adament that in this situation player one loses.

????

That's a bit shocking for somebody running a tournament to be doing.