fairest way to handle situation?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]

The CO's hand is not dead. In a tournament, you would give him a time penalty, but in a cash game, all you can do is give him a warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a tournament you could give him a time penalty; this situation is by no means automatic. I most likely would not give a penalty in this spot. He exposed his hand when he shouldn't have, but he did not gain from it (he helped another player at the expense of a third player). The experience of this play needs to be considered and his conduct before and after. Since this was a life game most likely I would do nothing other than tell him to make sure the action is complete before exposing his hand. If his conduct before or after showign his hand seemed to indicate he did it to hurt the small blind than he would most likely have to leave the casino.

[psandman]

The hand isn't dead,

but I have a question -- did this appear to be a mistake (CO thought action was over)? Did it appear that CO did this to benefit the button? Or is CO just a prick who doesn't care and does whatever he wants?

If its either of the latter 2 then CO goes out the door.

[KenProspero]

fslex -- I think you're asking the wrong question.

You've asked what the floor should do. Well, this situation isn't all that uncommon, and IMO, the ONLY way for the floor to handle it is to call it consistently each time.

Now where we're going is what should the rule be. For this purpose, let's assume that CO screwed up and didn't do it deliberately.

What we have is a situation where Button received information he wasn't entitled to (and which SB didn't have) because CO screwed up.
I suppose you could call CO's hand dead, let the second best hand get the windfall of the entire pot. This is the rule in many NL tourneys, but I've never seen it in a ring game.

I suppose you could say it's 'fair' to let SB take back some or all of his bet. However, I don't think I've ever seen this in any poker game.

The other situation is to warn CO and sympathize with SB. I think this is what MOST casinos would do.

[Percula]

Wow! I can not beleive all of these people that think the hand should be dead. I guess it just goes to show how baddly so many rooms are ran these days.

The ONLY time a hand is dead for sure in a cash game is when it is fauled, e.g. put in the muck and can not be fished out.

CO should get a warning and if he repeats the offense, shown the door. SB's action stands.

[BrooklynPoker]

not saying it is the rule...I know it is Not the rule...what i'm saying is it SHOULD be the rule...
as the post above stated consistency would be teh most vital part of this...
If it was ALWAYS ruled dead then people would stop doing it

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
not saying it is the rule...I know it is Not the rule...what i'm saying is it SHOULD be the rule...
as the post above stated consistency would be teh most vital part of this...
If it was ALWAYS ruled dead then people would stop doing it

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are after consistency what is wrong with how it is now: the best hand wins and if you prove you cannot conduct yourself as a lady or gentleman you have to leave the room.

[lmcjaho]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you are after consistency what is wrong with how it is now: the best hand wins and if you prove you cannot conduct yourself as a lady or gentleman you have to leave the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that not only should the SB be penalized (loss of chance to take the side pot) outright by the CO's actions but you also advocate that the SB should lose his chance to recoup his losses from the CO by kicking CO out with SB's money in hand?

Personally, my thoughts on the fairest course of action is to deal out the rest of the hand and if SB would have held up against the flush draw then he should get the money CO cost him out of the main pot, CO takes the rest... This of course will not happen but it is the best logical response and should also help to impart the necessity of proper behaviour to the CO.

[LVinocur]

As poker continues to grow, you will run into many people that do not know the rules of casino poker, namely online players used to having everything done for them. The winning hand should be awarded the pot, CO should have the rule and its importance explained, and SB can receive some empathy. If CO continues to expose hands after that, then he can be shown the door. You can talk about EV all you want, but think big picture. Let's assume he is new to casino poker. He's had a pot which he should have won taken away from him and then he's asked to leave. Confused, he leaves upset, never to play in a casino again. Now everyone has lost.

[BrooklynPoker]

As well as protecting the other possible caller whom could be his friend...
In response to youtalkfunny...i was teasing about saying he must have tried it as I have seen so many of his posts and he always seems to be on the side of fairness...

As for the others that think it is unfairly harsh...it would quickly solve this type of issue. It seems unfair to reward the player for bad behavior...asking him to leave afterwards doesn't help the players who may have been cost money by his lack of etiquette

[fslexcduck]

the ruling was just that he gets a warning and the play stands. i was SB, obviously, and i was pretty outraged at the rule... i think giving warnings to crap like this that can cost someone else a whole lot of money is not enough of a disincentive. i think that's what brooklyn poker was getting at... i see this crap all the time and if there were harsher consequences it just wouldn't happen.