Ruling a hand as dead, or not?

[Tony.T]

Some months ago I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
We have player A, B and C. This is a incident from a european casino. Game is PLO, 25/50 blinds.
On the river its 6800 in the pot and player A) have 9k B)9k C)2k


River action goes, pot, fold and for some reason now player A shows his hand face up. He have missed player C. Player A is a regular, a nice guy that always follows the rules. The rules for this certain casino is to give the pot to player C
because a hand shown before showdown is dead

1) Since everything is not black and white when it comes to poker rules, is there a better way to solve this?

Also, does their hands matter here?

2)If not, how much does player C win?


[/ QUOTE ]


I got some great responses:

[ QUOTE ]
Player C should be given a chance to act, but given that he knows A had the nuts, I assume he won't call, unless he was splitting. Player A should get the pot and a warning from the floor not to expose his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People should not lose huge pots because of trivial mistakes. And in this case, player A's mistake hurt nobody except himself. It was heads-up at that point and many casinos specifically allow cards to be shown when heads-up. And even when there's a rule against showing cards, the penalty should not be that the hand is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The only rational reason for such a rule is, (a)as Randy said in a tournament as an anti-collusion measure, or (b)to avoid taunting. It sounds like staff here can't be trusted to enforce an anti-taunting rule in "common sense" fashion, so the rule should simply be eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reply by RR struck me the most and got me thinking alot, [ QUOTE ]
Places that have nonstandard rules will have all kinds of problems because when the rules defy reason there is no way to find a resonable solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks to the discussion that took place I now understand that some rules I'm used to is far from standard worldwide. This specific rule to call out a hand as dead if the cards are exposed before showdown is something that is being debated in my old casino.

If a person are used to one thing and don't know any other way I think it's human nature to become narrow-minded regarding that subject. I belive in learning from others, hence this post. I post this to gather as much info as I can to fully understand every aspect of this rule, e.g not ruling the hand as dead

Questions,

1) Does it matter how many players are in the pot?

2) What if it happens earlier in the hand? Preflop? Turn?

3) What would happen if player C showed his hand?

4) If it's not allowed to show your hand to gain tells, do the player get a warning? How does that work?

5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

6) Is there any situation where the hand is dead if a player expose his hand/part of his hand before showdown? My thinking goes along the line of "as long as he does'nt gain anything by showing, hand plays", correct? Or is it more to this rule?

I have more questions but I'll start with this.

Many thanks
Tony

[Tony.T]

Anyone know anything?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Does it matter how many players are in the pot?

2) What if it happens earlier in the hand? Preflop? Turn?

3) What would happen if player C showed his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these things really matter.

[ QUOTE ]
4) If it's not allowed to show your hand to gain tells, do the player get a warning? How does that work?


[/ QUOTE ] If it is heads up it doesnt' really matter. In a multiway pot there can be issues. Example A bets, while B is thinking C shows their hand. This isn't really right because B has a lot more info that wasn't available to A. I would ask C not to do that in a multiway pot (assuming the players had an objection and called me over).

[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ] No. The penalty should fit the crime. In general I am against any rule killing a hand. Killing someone's hand is just not a fair penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Is there any situation where the hand is dead if a player expose his hand/part of his hand before showdown? My thinking goes along the line of "as long as he does'nt gain anything by showing, hand plays", correct? Or is it more to this rule?

[/ QUOTE ] If a player turns his hand up when facing a bet and players act behind him thinking he has folded I would rule his hand dead. He has an obligation to speak up if it appears the other players think he has folded and that was not his intent.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not sound because it doesn't make any sense. How does killing a players hand for exposing it maker people act in turn or focus on the game?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not sound because it doesn't make any sense. How does killing a players hand for exposing it maker people act in turn or focus on the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative reinforcement?

I say just cut off a finger, and let the hand play.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not sound because it doesn't make any sense. How does killing a players hand for exposing it maker people act in turn or focus on the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative reinforcement?

I say just cut off a finger, and let the hand play.

[/ QUOTE ]

But its not negative reinforcement of the bahvior you are trying to modify. If yousaid that you were going to kill the hand of anyone who acted out of turn, I would agree that such a rule would have the effect of encouraging people to not act out of turn (even though it would be a bad rule). In this case they are arguing that killing a hand for exposure makes people act in turn and its just not connected.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not sound because it doesn't make any sense. How does killing a players hand for exposing it maker people act in turn or focus on the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative reinforcement?

I say just cut off a finger, and let the hand play.

[/ QUOTE ]

But its not negative reinforcement of the bahvior you are trying to modify. If yousaid that you were going to kill the hand of anyone who acted out of turn, I would agree that such a rule would have the effect of encouraging people to not act out of turn (even though it would be a bad rule). In this case they are arguing that killing a hand for exposure makes people act in turn and its just not connected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah, I see. I just read the "etc." as being "not exposing cards". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Yes, they have to be consistent. Half a finger for acting out of turn, a full finger for exposing cards.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Does it matter how many players are in the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

It can matter. Intentionally exposed hands should be declared dead in a multiway pot because it can favor one player over another. If the exposed hand is the nut flush, the second nut flush might fold where he would otherwise have called. If a third player still in the hand has a boat, the first player has deprived the third player of the action from the second nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
2) What if it happens earlier in the hand? Preflop? Turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it makes much of a difference. If it's heads up when the infraction occurs, the hand is live. In a heads up pot, a player should be permitted to give as much or as little information as he chooses to his opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
3) What would happen if player C showed his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as the hand was heads up when he showed, there is no problem. Same rule applies.

[ QUOTE ]
4) If it's not allowed to show your hand to gain tells, do the player get a warning? How does that work?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a good reason. Unless you are playing online, people have tells regardless of whether cards are shown. If there is a silly rule for this reason, a player should get a warning and only intentional exposure should be penalized.

[ QUOTE ]
5) The main cause to keep this rule according to the people sympathizing with it is that it creates a game where people act in turn, focus more on the game etc etc. Is this a sound argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a dumb argument.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Is there any situation where the hand is dead if a player expose his hand/part of his hand before showdown? My thinking goes along the line of "as long as he does'nt gain anything by showing, hand plays", correct? Or is it more to this rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

That should have nothing to do with it. If it is heads up, a player should always be allowed to expose his cards. This is little different between exposing cards and trying to engage a player in conversation prior to calling. I have had cards exposed in order to get a tell and I have intentionally avoided looking at them. If you are afraid of giving a tell, close your eyes.

Once again, the only difference should be whether the pot is heads up or not. If it's not heads up, an intentionally exposed hand should be dead. If it is heads up, no problem.

[KipBond]

I've heard this rule applies in tournaments but not in cash games. Why is that? Multi-way pots should be considered the same in both, right?

[cpk]

Generally, you're much better off in giving a warning and eventually ejecting repeat offenders than ruling the hand dead. As RR said, the penalty does not fit the crime.