Floor call - twice this happened tonight.....

[juanez]

On the river: 1st to act checks, second to act bets and third to act calls. First player tables his cards without calling. Both other players table their cards instantly after 1st to act does (presumably because they thought 1st to act actually called). Dealer reaches to muck 1st players cards, but he protests.....FLOOOOOOOR!

Does "1st to act" have a dead hand?

[Photoc]

Other players didn't pay attention to the action and exposed their cards. I'd say show one show all rule would apply here. Player 1 can only call or fold, no raising would be my assumption.

Doesn't seem like player 1 actually mucked, just turned them up, am I correct on that? Or did he table them by throwing them towards the dealer? If that's the case, the forward motion without a call would be considered a fold IMO.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Other players didn't pay attention to the action and exposed their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first thought.

[ QUOTE ]
did he table them by throwing them towards the dealer? If that's the case, the forward motion without a call would be considered a fold IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a complete nit, but almost any tabling of cards has a foward motion - do you ever table cards by turing them backwards toward you? Yeah, it's a technicality...I mean does 1 millimeter constitute a muck? I usually defer to the "best intererst of the game" rule of thumb.

I ruled that "1st player to act" cards are dead.....he should have declared "time" or made some indication that he was thinking about his decision before inducing others to act by tabling his cards as if he had called, thereby giving him information that he is not entitled to. Maybe it was a bad call. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

So far I've got 50/50 opinions on this call from people I've discused it with. I'm assuming Al would have kicked all 3 in the nuts. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[psandman]

There is no reason for a hand to be called dead for being exposed.

If you say it was dead because it was mucked, then you should rule it dead for that reason regardless of whether the other players exposed their hands or not.

As for any exposing of cards always having forward motion that is bS. First cards could be exposed by being flipped left to right. Second I often see players expose their cards and not release them at all.hey keep their fingers on them so that there is no confusion as to whether they are folding or not (there still may be confusion as to if they called)

[Dave D]

I always thought a player kills his hand by flipping it up. There are some places that say it's ok to show heads up, but that's not even always the rule everywhere (you CANNOT do this in the WSOP for example, I was watching the FT last night for fun and Gold does it and the announcers talked about how that's against the rules, and its only one card).

this hand is 3 way. Every example I've ever seen on this forum was that you can't show your hand 3 way.

It's clear he flipped it up intentionally, without calling. He's showing his fold IMO.

The other night I was watching the WSOP and I remember seeing this basically happen all the time. It was just understood when he flipped them over that he was folding.

This is pretty easy IMO, unless the flipper had the nuts or something.

[daryn]

dave d,

tourney != cash game

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought a player kills his hand by flipping it up. There are some places that say it's ok to show heads up, but that's not even always the rule everywhere (you CANNOT do this in the WSOP for example, I was watching the FT last night for fun and Gold does it and the announcers talked about how that's against the rules, and its only one card).

this hand is 3 way. Every example I've ever seen on this forum was that you can't show your hand 3 way.

It's clear he flipped it up intentionally, without calling. He's showing his fold IMO.

The other night I was watching the WSOP and I remember seeing this basically happen all the time. It was just understood when he flipped them over that he was folding.

This is pretty easy IMO, unless the flipper had the nuts or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the WSOP had no rule against exposing your hand in this situation in Ring games. Only in tournament play and then your hand wouldn't be dead you would just be subject to a penalty.

The fact that it was three handed is irrelevant here (unless for some stupid reason this player wanted to raise after showing his hand). One the player who exposed his hand decides to call or fold there is no further action. If there was still action behind him he is not permitted to expose his hand, but it still should not be ruled dead.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
As for any exposing of cards always having forward motion that is bS. First cards could be exposed by being flipped left to right. Second I often see players expose their cards and not release them at all.hey keep their fingers on them so that there is no confusion as to whether they are folding or not (there still may be confusion as to if they called)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this wasn't written in response to my two posts so far (written after you posted this), but I want to make it clear that I don't always see "a little bit of forward motion".

I'm in favor of allowing a reasonable degree of gamesmanship in poker; that helps make it fun. But I'm also in favor of protecting the newcomers and the unwary, and this practice tends to rate high on the former and very low on the latter.

That said, if the cards are turned over sideways without forward motion and protected with a finger (perhaps with calling time as the OP noted in a later post), perhaps the rules can be written and information on the practice spread in such a way that the new and inexperienced players are protected within reason.

~ Rick

[RR]

The rules should not be changed to kill a hand for turning it up. It is pretty common for a player to become ocnfused and not realized he was raised or whatever and to turn their hand up to make a claim for the pot thinking they have reached the showdown. I have no problem with asking someone to leave if they make a habit of doing this to get people to show their cards.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other players didn't pay attention to the action and exposed their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first thought.

[ QUOTE ]
did he table them by throwing them towards the dealer? If that's the case, the forward motion without a call would be considered a fold IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a complete nit, but almost any tabling of cards has a foward motion - do you ever table cards by turing them backwards toward you? Yeah, it's a technicality...I mean does 1 millimeter constitute a muck? I usually defer to the "best intererst of the game" rule of thumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of the reason why I believe the rules need to be changed so an exposed hand, when facing a bet, is clearly dead OR, if not dead is exposed in such a way that there is no ambiguity that he has not yet folded or called. I'm hoping we get more feedback; meanwhile here's my reasoning - version 1: [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The TDA Tournament Rules already have this model of ambiguity:

"36. A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty, but will not have his hand killed.

I confess I'm not completely up to speed on TDA Tournament Rules, but it seems they are moving toward discouraging this practice. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the new player base coming into poker are coming in through tournaments. When tournament rules don't conflict with live games rules I believe some of the tournament rules should be applied to live action games (although I do dislike the all too frequent use of the word "may" in the tournament rules).

Regarding live game rules, currently the Hollywood Park, Commerce, and I think The Bike (my copy is misplaced) rule book reads:

5. Your hand is declared dead if:
a. The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game.
b. You fold or announce that you are folding when facing a bet or a raise.
c. You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you.
d. Any part of the hand hits the discard pile and the cards cannot be retrieved.
e. In stud, you turn your upcards facedown or mix your upcards and downcards together when facing a bet, and by doing so, create action.

Look at b. and c. above. The player in your example was facing a bet and a call. He turns his hand face up. Usually (as you noted) this is in fact accompanied by a degree of forward motion, and often this forward motion is specifically used to confuse others so he can get a tell of sorts from the remaining opponent(s). Is this "causing other players to act behind you" as noted in b.? I think it is in fact unclear, which is why I believe the rules need to be clarified, modified, or perhaps tightened up.



[ QUOTE ]
I ruled that "1st player to act" cards are dead.....he should have declared "time" or made some indication that he was thinking about his decision before inducing others to act by tabling his cards as if he had called, thereby giving him information that he is not entitled to. Maybe it was a bad call. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been posting on this board for a while and I'm [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] too. I like your thinking. But if we agree that the practice should be allowed (because its fun and encourages a degree of gamesmanship) perhaps we should adopt your suggestion that a player must make his intentions clear in some way. Perhaps calling "time" before turning over his cards would be enough. OTOH, there may be a case for ruling against the practice altogether.

I've never done this as a player and know enough not to react when it is done to me; but I've seen dozens of instances where a savvy player (when facing a bet) turns his cards up (with "a little" forward motion) and takes advantage of a less experienced player who clearly thinks his opponent has folded and acts accordingly. The result is that the savvy player has taken advantage of his opponents inexperience to make a perfect decision. I've seen it result in hard feelings and the loss of a new player who in fact felt cheated.

As an aside, I can hardly remember this in limit and since I never played NL until about four years ago my thinking might be biased.

~ Rick