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

[cardcounter0]

[ 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.

[RR]

[ 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.

[psandman]

[ 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.

[AKQJ10]

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.

[sirpupnyc]

[ 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.

[RegBarclay]

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.

[RR]

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).

[Siegmund]

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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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

[AKQJ10]

*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.