Dealer contributes to confusion... Floor please!

[EWillers]

So with a board of 9 9 8 8 2 at a three way showdown, a player holding 22 vs. two players who each hold 98 should say he lost with the 2nd nuts?

Again, I know this is pretty much a semantics thing and in the end really doesn't matter but I just feel the current popular usage is so inaccurate.

[ptartaglio]

They should make an official rule in most rooms to not show down your cards until the dealer announces "showdown please". I understand the dealer announced check, but if the last player wouldn't have just flipped over his cards, when the dealer was saying showdown the mp would have had a chance. I would have had to seen the situation, but it seems like the last to act was not protecting his hand. Dealer confusion is going to happen all of the time, usually its the players not caring how the game is being run and not the dealer.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
They should make an official rule in most rooms to not show down your cards until the dealer announces "showdown please". I understand the dealer announced check, but if the last player wouldn't have just flipped over his cards, when the dealer was saying showdown the mp would have had a chance. I would have had to seen the situation, but it seems like the last to act was not protecting his hand. Dealer confusion is going to happen all of the time, usually its the players not caring how the game is being run and not the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but think of it from the point of view of UTG with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Once he thinks the hand is over when dealer says "check" or even if he heard "check" from MP, you know he wants to showdown the hand quickly. He's obviously scared of the river, and once he gets the slightest clue the hand could be over, he flips his card to attempt to prevent the bet. It's almost like an angle, but not quite here. He does not want to wait for a "showdown please" signal by nature.

If you watch the NFL, I have an analogy: Suppose NFL football team A scores a controversial touchdown maybe because there's a question whether the wide receiver's two feet were inbounds when he caught the ball. Then the offense tries to quickly get the point after guys out there ASAP to seal the touchdown because they are trying to prevent team B from throwing the red flag for instant replay review.

Garland

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
So with a board of 9 9 8 8 2 at a three way showdown, a player holding 22 vs. two players who each hold 98 should say he lost with the 2nd nuts?

Again, I know this is pretty much a semantics thing and in the end really doesn't matter but I just feel the current popular usage is so inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all know not to be results-oriented. This is a situation that is relative for each player. From the point of view of 22, he has the fifth nuts (since it's possible for four players each to have the remaining 9s and 8s). From the point of view of the 98s, they know they have at least half the first nut. And I know a guy with one nut. I think Einstein covered most of this.

At showdown, however, when all players are in the same time and space, 22 knows he's the third nuts (tie for first).

BTW, this may all be completely wrong, but within my own little construct, it makes total sense.