U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

This one comes from a fixed buy 5/10 blind NL game in a Los Angeles card club.

The pot contains about $250 with four players active. On the flop Seat 2 bets $300 “all-in”. Seat 3 calls $300 and has about $600 more to play. Seat 5 ($600 deep) goes into a short tank. Seat 7 (covers all opponents) is last to act and waiting.

While waiting for Seat 5 the player in Seat 2 shows the player in Seat 3 his hand and Seat 3 reciprocates (they do this in an open and friendly manner) while Seat 7 watches intently. After a few more seconds Seat 5 folds. Seat 7 decides that although he could keep quiet and play the hand knowing Seat 3 has knowledge of Seat 2’s hand (this could be the best strategy but isn’t the point of this thread) he decides he wants a ruling now.

Seat 7 asks the dealer to call the floor. When the floor comes Seat 7 explains the facts and Seat 2 and Seat 3 admit their error and apologize. Seat 7 accepts the apology but points out that Seat 3 has complete knowledge of the all-in hand while he doesn’t; meanwhile there is substantial money yet to be bet. Seat 7 asks the floor to freeze the action after he acts and before the turn card is dealt so the floor can make some sort of remedy

The floor agrees and asks Seat 7 to act. Before he acts Seat 7 asks the floor, “Your decision has a bearing on my action. Can I see Seat 2’s cards now? If not, what will be your decision if I just call and what will be your decision if I push all-in?

You are the floor. How do you respond and/or what is your decision?

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

I would let seat 7 see seat 2's cards so that both he and seat 3 have the same knowledge. Seat 2 may be penalized a bit because of this since he may get one extra caller that could bust him but he initiated the problem by showing his hand during play. Seat 3 showing his hand to seat 2 had no bearing on things.

The floor man could tell seat 7 that if he pushes all in then it won't matter what he rules. Seat 2's money is already in the pot.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

I think that since seat 3 acted before seeing the cards, seat 7 should have to as well. After he acts, he can then see seat2's cards and the hand can play out from there.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

It took me a sec, but now I see the problem. If seat 7 pushes, seat 3 will have extra information to decide whether or not he wants to call the significant sidebet.

However, in theory this shouldn't have a big impact on how seat 3 acts, since there are only a few rare instances where knowledge of seat 2's card will have an impact on seat 3's decision to call all-in or not. Even in the worst-case scenario, the extra info should only be worth a small fraction of the sidepot.

Since seat 3 never really did anything wrong (its not his fault somebody exposed cards to him), it would suck to punish him.

However, in the end, my gut tells me its easiest to just say that if somebody exposes their cards to somebody involved in a hand, those cards immediately ought to be exposed to every player at the table. I'd like to make room for exceptions, but I generally don't trust floorpeople to have enough knowledge of the games to make the right subjective calls.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

I do not see why both hands are not dead. They acted in a collusive manner, violated the one hand to a player rule, and shared information not known to other players with action still pending. Since seat 5 mucked, ship the pot to seat 7, and everyone should keep their cards to themselves on the next hand.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

From Robert's Rules of Poker:[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Going strictly by the rules, seat 2's cards should be tabled now.

However, this would give seat 7 an unfair advantage since he gets to see the cards prior to making the decision.

Forcing seat 7 to act and then tabling the cards would give seat 3 an advantage if seat 7 moves all-in.

My decision:

If seat 7 wants to play the hand, he must first put in the $300 needed to call, he then gets to see seat 2's cards and may decide to move all-in.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

It has a huge impact. If seat 2 showed seat 3 the nuts, he now knows that he is only playing for the additional money in a potential sidepot.

If he knows he has seat 2 beat, he is playing for all the main and side pot.

Even if they are both on the draw, seat 2 could have shown seat 3 some of his outs, and if he didn't show him some outs, there are now 2 less unknown cards he is trying to draw.

From the way the story was presented, it sounds like he was a willing partner to seeing the cards. Both hands dead, two players you won't have to worry about exposing hands in the future.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

The cards should be shown before seat 7 acts. THe is an arguement for seat 7 to act before the cards are exposed because seat 3 acted in this round before seeing the hand, but seat 7 might push all-in. If seat 7 raises seat 3 gets to act on that bet with information seat 7 did not have when he made the bet so the hand should be shown immediately. If this was a situation where the action was not open (if seat 7 had already acted and was deciding between calling a short all-in and folding it would be proper to wait until after the betting round is complete to show the hand).

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

RegBarclay's solution is probably the one that most strictly restores equity. Do we think the "right" answer also includes any punishment?

I would tend to rule the all-in hand is immediately faced since it was shown to an active player. I wouldn't be surprised or offended to hear a room had a stricter rule that seat 3 was dead. I don't think there is a basis for seat 2 being dead since he was already all-in before showing or seeing.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see why both hands are not dead. They acted in a collusive manner, violated the one hand to a player rule, and shared information not known to other players with action still pending. Since seat 5 mucked, ship the pot to seat 7, and everyone should keep their cards to themselves on the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what the problem is in poker, if your solution is "kill his hand" you are most likely wrong. There would be a few exceptions, but those would be obvious (too many cards etc).

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what the problem is in poker, if your solution is "kill his hand" you are most likely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that is why you can hardly play a session anymore without some goober trying to pull some angle shot.
Kill some hands, cost someone a $600+ pot, and I bet the BS stops quick.

On a tangent, kicking a couple asses out of the room (oh my, lose some bad customers!) would probably improve manners among the other 500+ quickly.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what the problem is in poker, if your solution is "kill his hand" you are most likely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that is why you can hardly play a session anymore without some goober trying to pull some angle shot.
Kill some hands, cost someone a $600+ pot, and I bet the BS stops quick.

On a tangent, kicking a couple asses out of the room (oh my, lose some bad customers!) would probably improve manners among the other 500+ quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the years I have put quite a few people out of public cards rooms (some of them you would have heard of), this is a much less severe penalty than killing their hand.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kill some hands, cost someone a $600+ pot, and I bet the BS stops quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you just turn the angle shooting into a contest of who can get another players hand killed on a technicality.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

It would be inappropriate for the floor to suggest a line of play to seat 7.

Seat 2's hand is turned up immediately.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that since seat 3 acted before seeing the cards, seat 7 should have to as well. After he acts, he can then see seat2's cards and the hand can play out from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my original thought but after reading some of the other responses I'm not so sure this is right.

~ Rick

PS Sorry I couldn't post more in this thread. The forum slowdown problems were really severe at my end the two hours after I put up the OP.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
From the way the story was presented, it sounds like he was a willing partner to seeing the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is essentially correct; Seat 3 was in fact happy to see Seat 2's cards even though there was pending action. Unfortunately I doubt this part of the story could be made clear to the floor so I don't think it realistically should enter into the decision.

Note that in LA at this limit showing cards, softplay, group decisions, acting out of turn and other miscellaneous deeds impacting game integrity in a negative way are so common they hardly get noticed. But business is good so little is done in any club.


[ QUOTE ]
Both hands dead, two players you won't have to worry about exposing hands in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little harsh IMO. OTOH, if widely applied I might be the only poker player in town with a living hand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
The cards should be shown before seat 7 acts. THe is an arguement for seat 7 to act before the cards are exposed because seat 3 acted in this round before seeing the hand, but seat 7 might push all-in. If seat 7 raises seat 3 gets to act on that bet with information seat 7 did not have when he made the bet so the hand should be shown immediately. If this was a situation where the action was not open (if seat 7 had already acted and was deciding between calling a short all-in and folding it would be proper to wait until after the betting round is complete to show the hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

I think you have the BINGO answer here. My original thinking was that seat 7 must act one time and only gets to see Seat 2's hand if he has further action that round or (more likely) on the next.

I may not be able to post more tonight in this thread, the forum software slowdown is driving me crazy.

~ Rick

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

*grunch*

Wait for the action to get back to Seat 3. This could be at the end of the round or because there's a raise by Seat 7.

Now, under SOSA, everyone's entitled to the same information as Seat 3, so Seat 2 tables his all-in hand.

I suppose a very strict SOSA interpretation would be to show the hand immediately, but common sense says that Seats 3 and 5 acted on the $300 without that knowledge. Since 3 is the offender -- possibly an unwitting offender -- I have no problem with letting 7 act on more information than 3. But 5 should have been entitled to this information too, so my only concern with showing the hand immediately (instead of when the action comes back around) is that it would be benefitting 7 vis a vis 5.

BTW, it sounds very innocent -- I used to forget that all-in hands aren't shown if there are still multiple players with chips.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

*grunch*

Wait for the action to get back to Seat 3. This could be at the end of the round or because there's a raise by Seat 7.

Now, under SOSA, everyone's entitled to the same information as Seat 3, so Seat 2 tables his all-in hand.

I suppose a very strict SOSA interpretation would be to show the hand immediately, but common sense says that Seat 5 acted on the $300 without that knowledge. Since 3 is the offender -- possibly an unwitting offender -- I have no problem with letting 7 act on more information than 3. But 5 should have been entitled to this information too, so my only concern would be benefitting 7 vis a vis 5.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

Sorry, after reading cardcounter0's opinion I've changed my answer:

Seat 3: Death by lethal injection
Seat 2: Life in prison without parole, assuming he cooperates and testifies against 3.

It might be a little extreme for a poker rules violation, but it would be the last time anyone would make a mistake in that room! It might be the last poker hand in that room, too.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seat 3: Death by lethal injection
Seat 2: Life in prison without parole, assuming he cooperates and testifies against 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have that backwards, don't you? 2 seeing 3's cards doesn't affect anything, because 2's money is already in and he can't do anything with the knowledge. But it sounds like 2 is responsible for the whole mess by showing 3 his cards.

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

My thinking was that 3 was benefitting in the hand, but you make a good point. You've sold me -- death for both of them! OPPH violations must be eradicated at any cost. The only criterion for judging an approach to this issue is its effectiveness at removing the scourge!

Re: U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t
 

I say nuke the entire room from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.