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.

[Andy B]

It would be inappropriate for the floor to suggest a line of play to seat 7.

Seat 2's hand is turned up immediately.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that since seat 3 acted before seeing the cards, seat 7 should have to as well. After he acts, he can then see seat2's cards and the hand can play out from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my original thought but after reading some of the other responses I'm not so sure this is right.

~ Rick

PS Sorry I couldn't post more in this thread. The forum slowdown problems were really severe at my end the two hours after I put up the OP.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
From the way the story was presented, it sounds like he was a willing partner to seeing the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is essentially correct; Seat 3 was in fact happy to see Seat 2's cards even though there was pending action. Unfortunately I doubt this part of the story could be made clear to the floor so I don't think it realistically should enter into the decision.

Note that in LA at this limit showing cards, softplay, group decisions, acting out of turn and other miscellaneous deeds impacting game integrity in a negative way are so common they hardly get noticed. But business is good so little is done in any club.


[ QUOTE ]
Both hands dead, two players you won't have to worry about exposing hands in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little harsh IMO. OTOH, if widely applied I might be the only poker player in town with a living hand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[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.

[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 Seat 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 would be benefitting 7 vis a vis 5.

[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.