You make the call

[grando]

[ QUOTE ]
so it IS an angle for A to reveal what the correct cards were, basically telling C to call, therefore losing any claim A had on the pot...

but it's NOT an angle to tell him the 'incorrect' hand info, hoping that C will muck the best hand and A can then take the pot that would rightfully be C's...

are your parents first cousins?

[/ QUOTE ]

C hasn't called yet

A can't just tell C B's real cards to get him to call or fold (affecting action he's not a part of) - are you kidding? however, he can falsify the cards he "thought" he saw to induce a fold from a better hand, as it affects A personally

how many times does someone "tell" someone else their cards live? all the time - are they all angleshooting? of course not. how is this any different? it isn't...

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
... however, he can falsify the cards he "thought" he saw to induce a fold from a better hand, as it affects A personally

[/ QUOTE ]

No - he can't. You cannot talk about a hand in progress when it is not heads up. Not your hand, not your opponent's hand, not the 3rd guy's hand. The floor/dealer need to protect the all-in player's action. What if A actually read the cards incorrectly and the all-in player actually has the nuts - then player A talks B out of calling or one of a dozen other scenarios. You simply can't table-talk 3-way.

[ QUOTE ]

how many times does someone "tell" someone else their cards live? all the time - are they all angleshooting? of course not. how is this any different? it isn't...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I would call it an "angle", but it's definitely against the rules. It is very different than the situation you describe because the pot is not heads-up. The 3rd player may be all-in, but his claim to the main pot is still affected by the decisions of the other players and his action must be protected. In this case player A may "know" the pot is never going to go to the all-in player, but you can't rule on his talk after the outcome shows this.

[PantsOnFire]

Player A broke the rule about talking during a live hand in a multiway pot. The "other player" broke the one to a hand rule.

Normally, these actions get a warning. Further violations can result in a timeout and finally expulsion. Sometime guys forget about a player in a hand and sometimes guys think the betting is over, etc. These are all innocent mistakes and should get a mild warning.

However, IMHO, both of these players breached these rules in probably the most egregious way possible. I would shove the pot to Player A since there's no rule that would take the pot away from him and send him and the other player to the curb for the day and put them in my black book.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I'd rule that everyone gets kicked in the nuts. Square.

The player who "confirmed" and the player who "claimed" the J6 both get an extra nut-kicking for being such morons, and for talking about the hand while action is pending.

The player who folded the best hand gets only a single nut-kicking, but he still gets one anyway for not properly protecting his hand (you NEVER take someone's word, you always want to see the hand).

Because of the unusual interference, the floor should probably award the pot to the 62, but I wouldn't count on this happening very often.

Both the players who opened their big mouths during the hand should probably receive (at the minimum) a 20 minute time-out in addition to their multiple nut-kickings.

It's just an ugly situation. There isn't a "best choice" for a solution. I'm wondering why the dealer felt sitting on his hands and saying nothing was the best choice here, another nut-kicking is probably in order there too.

[UbinTook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player A tells B: "you can fold, he has J-6" but does not muck his own 'losing' AT

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant...A called BEFORE the cards were exposed.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player A tells B: "you can fold, he has J-6" but does not muck his own 'losing' AT

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant...A called BEFORE the cards were exposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its irrelevant to the issue of who gets the pot and who gets thrown out, but the point the poster was making is two fold: This is a clue that the player was lying since if he was telling the truth he could have just tossed away his hand. Its also a clue that the player acted intentionally, and wasn't just mistaken.

[lmcjaho]

Okay - first off I am surprised that you are all so quick to jump on the players that said J6 versus J8 considering how similar the two hands can look at a glance...

Since the guy apparently covered the cards up quickly enough that the third guy never saw them I think it is also safe to assume that the 2 who "outed" his hand didn't get the best look at them either. Just because the player with A-T didn't muck his hand doesn't mean he didn't actually think he was beat - not everyone is an uptight nit who has a problem showing down top 2 pair despite the fact that it is beat you know?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because the player with A-T didn't muck his hand doesn't mean he didn't actually think he was beat - not everyone is an uptight nit who has a problem showing down top 2 pair despite the fact that it is beat you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it was a clue that that he was lying, not definitive evidence. But if I'm a player deciding what to do I definately am going to think to myself the following:

"Well he says the player had J-6 but he he is still holding onto his hand. That suggests two things either he can beat J-6 or he isn't telling the truth. If he can beat J-6 then he wouldn't tell me that the player had J-6 since that would possibly cost him a call from me, so therefore its likely that he is lying" Maybe he's not lying but I have to credit to the strong likelihood that he is.