What Would Your Ruling Be?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Exposing your hand may be stupid, but having it be an automatic dead hand (whether heads up or otherwise) is pure stupidity. Anyone who claims they've played coast to coast and that's the standard, well, they're an idiot. You got screwed by the ruling, but if I'm in the one seat, I won't get caught claiming I don't know what's going on when the ten seat bets. So you got screwed but you also screwed yourself. KITN for you, the bettor, the out of turn folder, the dealer, the floor, and the moron who had a flush and bet $2. And another KITN for you for not knowing what was going on when you just rivered a king high flush.





Al

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bet had been bigger, would the fold behind Felix's check have been considered "signifnicant action"? If so, technically Felix's hand should have been killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[frommagio]

I vote "other" because your description didn't fully hang together. The reason for the DQ was very unclear, as was the timing of when LP folded.

I could change my mind if you could explain it clearly, or if I was there. But I agree with the floor's statement - sounds like he was trying to establish the facts as well.

In any case, you need to know what the action when it comes to you - pay attention. And the dealer is a screwup also. Usually these situations involve several mistakes; always protect yourself.

Too much left to the imagination here, however, to be 100% sure.

[andyfox]

The dealer's verbal "show me" was what caused you to expose your hand. Your action of "check" should not have been allowed because you cannot check after there's been a bet; you can only call, raise or fold. The pot should have been awarded to you because common sense should tell the floorman that had the dealer done his job and told you there was a bet, you would surely have called.

If you violated the rule by exposing your hand, so did the other guy, and he did it before you, so his hand should have been disqualified first, leaving you the winner of the pot.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
In the future if I don't like the ruling I will appeal to 'Larry'. I don't trust the judgement of the guy that made that ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't have ruled you out of the pot for a puny bet, in this situation.

So feel free to appeal to me as needed :P

[Felix_Nietzsche]

The LP players hand was thrown in the middle, then dragged into the muck, and THEN the dealer said 'show me a winner'...

Another player I spoke with said he had complaints about that guy's rulings on himself the previous week.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
If you violated the rule by exposing your hand, so did the other guy, and he did it before you, so his hand should have been disqualified first, leaving you the winner of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brilliant! I never thought to say this.
That fool's application of the exposed hand rule only in cases of heads-up would have meant the LP player that mucked his cards was the winner. My god.....that floorman was a complete ass....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
And another KITN for you for not knowing what was going on when you just rivered a king high flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously did not read my post. I never said I rivered a flush. I had my flush on the flop and I bet it like crazy. Hence the reason for a $120 pot by the end of the turn. I only checked the river because the board paired with the top-pair and I feared a possible boat in a 3-way pot. I don't know what KITN is but I suspect it is suppose to be some type of wittism....

[Poseidon65]

Dealer is fired.

[TexRef]

My only question -- why aren't YOU betting the river?