Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

So my friends and I take poker seriously but play a 'gentleman's game' and try to be proffessional, practical and friendly about how we play...

The OFFICIAL ruling on this one is fairly obvious...but I'm curious how you 2+2ers out there in similar non-cuthroat home tourneys amongst friends handle this one:

After seeing a flop of Kd Jd 10c I push all-in on a shortish stack from the big blind. (I had Qx but that is mostly irrelevant.) A couple limpers fold around to the button. The button makes no motion for his chips, says nothing out loud and flips over his cards on the table:
(A h Q h)and THEN states - 'I flopped the straight.' I tell him that he exposed his cards and should be counted as a fold...There is some murmuring at the table...because everyone knows that while technically I am right...NO ONE at the table (or reading this) can doubt his intention to do anything other than call...but it IS technically a fold since he exposed his cards unnecessarily.

What made it especially tough is that everyone usually leaves the tough decisions up to me - and it was my tournament life on the ruling.

Everyone kinda looked at everyone not knowing what to rule...fair vs. right.

So I have two questions:
1) What would your home game rule here?
2) **IF** its a tough borderline decision...HOW would you make the official ruling. (Its usually left up to me - but my tournament life is on the line.)

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

It is my understanding through many many posts here on 2+2 that exposed cards in a tourney are NOT ruled dead, but a penalty may be assesed to the exposer. You'd have to look up robert's rules of poker for the exact ruling however.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

It's heads up. He flopped the nuts, he clearly meant to call. You lost. Who cares what the rules are, it's so obvious what is intended and even you know it, AND it's a friendly game. The end.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Exposing cards is not a fold in a tournament. The hand is still live. He can call.

You can impose a penalty if you want. I would not personally cause this is a home game.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

What everyone else said...the hand is not dead, so he can call. Even if it was "dead", if you ruled it that way then you were probably being selfish and unecessarily jerk-like :P

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

I ruled it a call. Just curious what everyone else thought

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Was he last to act. Because in a tournament, you are allowed to expose your cards if no more bets can be made. This would be the case since your all-in and he is last to act. However, even if his hand is really dead, he has the nuts, your just being an [censored] if you make him fold this.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

No offense but you're completely wrong here Shnarf. While you are right, the ruling is obvious, the ruling you think is obviously correct is actually wrong. In every tourney I've ever played in, and according to any official tourney rules I've read, when the pot is headsus a player may expose his/her hand at any time. Since it was folded around, this player may show his cards before calling.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Oh yeah to the second question in your poll you should add the response "The tournament director, but only is he/she is knowledgable about the rules of tournament poker."

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
No offense but you're completely wrong here Shnarf. While you are right, the ruling is obvious, the ruling you think is obviously correct is actually wrong. In every tourney I've ever played in, and according to any official tourney rules I've read, when the pot is headsus a player may expose his/her hand at any time. Since it was folded around, this player may show his cards before calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you have never read the TDA rules. Under TDA rules even heads up with no further action to come from another player, a player may not expose his cards. However under TDA rules the hand would not be dead, exposing the hand MAY result in a penalty (time away from the table) but not a dead hand.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Yeah - I though the exposed hand would be 'officially' dead...but I see your points about penalizing instead of declaring it dead....

Isn't the whole point point of not allowing you to show so that no one can get reads on people from showing?
...but with no more action to come and him holding the nuts --- now I think that this would be declared a call in any game anywhere.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

the point is that you don't affect OTHER people's actions...with no one left to act, thats obviously not a problem [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

I see your point Traz - but I still contend that he shouldn't be able to flip over bottom two pair to get a reaction from me - if I'm surprised he's considereing calling or folding it.

Could you link the tourney rules you've read you refered to earlier? I think we've read different stuff.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can impose a penalty if you want. I would not personally cause this is a home game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would definately impose a penalty -- probably something like, he has to run to the fridge and get me a beer the next time he can do so without holding up the game.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

The ban isn't about getting reads on opponents.

The reason for not allowing showing in a tournament is that every player whether in the hand or not has an interest in the hand and the outcome. I agree that WHEN THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION TO COME A PLAYER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXPOSE THEIR HAND SINCE IT CAN'T AFFECT THE ACTION (that being said I truly believe that the vast majority of people who pull this stunt are in capable of getting a read on their opponent anyway - but they think it makes them look cool).

I was just pointing out that The TDA rules which are among the most widely accepted written rules of tournament poker do not allow this practice. Personally if I was making the rules this would be permitted in these circumstances (however the player would be subject to ridicule).

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

For this he called, it was clear what he was doing. He should know better then flipping and he should be reminded not to do it. It causes problems. Had he flipped say a KX, then I would of called it a fold. Your not allowed to expose cards untill all betting is completed. I was at a tournement at a casino and they have the following rule.
If in heads up play, all cards deaqlt and player a goes all in and player B flips up his cards to get a read on player A. Then player A would have to sit out of the game for 30 minutes while still paying the blinds. The second time time it happens, he is thrown out of the tournement.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

I can remember Howard Lederer saying in a no limit kansas city lowball: If you flip your cards, the hand is ruled dead. One of the other players asked if he could flip his cards to get a read on his opponent. Lederer answered like there was no question about it.
Since you're playing a home game, the rules can be altered. He intended to call, that is obviously, but in WSOP the hand would be dead.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
but in WSOP the hand would be dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's wrong. The WSOP rules specifically say a penalty may be incurred, but the hand will NOT be killed. Read rule 37.

http://www.harrahs.com/wsop/rules.html

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

People here need to stop giving incorrect information. The hand is NOT dead in a tournament. It would also NOT be dead if this was a cash game because the play is Heads Up. There is no way anyone's action can be affected by the button flipping up his cards. In a cash game, an exposed hand MAY be ruled dead, and should be if it is being used as an angle shoot, unless the action is heads up.

In a tournament, as in this case, the hand is NOT dead, but it is NOT allowed and the button may be assessed a time penalty.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

out of curiosity, I was playing at a cash game the other day and someone went all-in against me, when we were heads up. As I was thinking, he flipped over 1 of his cards and just left it there. I was curious if this was allowed?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

If you are the one usually making decisions, you should make the call here. And you should probably consider it a call, but make it perfectly clear that from now on any exposed hands are dead.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

What are the rules on this? In Supersystem, DB talks about if he has A-A and a player is betting into him, he will show the A-A and try to get a read. I assume DB was talking about a cash game, not a tournament, and was heads up.

I have used the trick myself, like when I had an Ax with x being a low kicker. Why you would show with the nuts is beyond me, maybe he was flustered/excited. It was a big hand.


I would really like to know the rules, officially. Have they changed since Supersystem? If so, why? Collusion?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the rules on this? In Supersystem, DB talks about if he has A-A and a player is betting into him, he will show the A-A and try to get a read. I assume DB was talking about a cash game, not a tournament, and was heads up.

I have used the trick myself, like when I had an Ax with x being a low kicker. Why you would show with the nuts is beyond me, maybe he was flustered/excited. It was a big hand.


I would really like to know the rules, officially. Have they changed since Supersystem? If so, why? Collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, people, how hard is it to google the rules or even read the thread and see the answers of people who have read the rules.

Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]


Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

One note- this generally is limited to heads-up play, where exposing the hand cannot affect future betting sequences, I believe?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

One note- this generally is limited to heads-up play, where exposing the hand cannot affect future betting sequences, I believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...didja see the linkies? I even put in the relevant sections to read.

The answer is no, its not limited to heads up. Showing your hand does not kill it even multi-way, even if one player has acted and there are players behind the flasher.

I think that may be where the penalties MAY be accessed comes in, when it affects the action, penalties are very appropriate. But not killing the hand.

--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are the rules on this? In Supersystem, DB talks about if he has A-A and a player is betting into him, he will show the A-A and try to get a read. I assume DB was talking about a cash game, not a tournament, and was heads up.

I have used the trick myself, like when I had an Ax with x being a low kicker. Why you would show with the nuts is beyond me, maybe he was flustered/excited. It was a big hand.


I would really like to know the rules, officially. Have they changed since Supersystem? If so, why? Collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, people, how hard is it to google the rules or even read the thread and see the answers of people who have read the rules.

Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Zetack, I did read through the threads and I saw different answers. Is the Tournament Director's official, or just one set of rules out of several?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
(that being said I truly believe that the vast majority of people who pull this stunt are in capable of getting a read on their opponent anyway - but they think it makes them look cool).


[/ QUOTE ]
I had a buddy do this in our home game at the final table of 18 people. Flop was K 10 3 - I was holding KK, I reraised him all-in. He expsosed his A10 while staring at me, I began to laugh at loud (that he would consider a call) he thought I was full of BS and called and busted out on the hand. A classic moment...
AcesKracked

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

players in my regualr home game do this once in a while and I and a few others I play with dislike it. exposing your hole cards to gage a reaction is angle shooting, in a casino the hand would be dead. I'm not sure this is what your opponent was up to though, given he had the nuts.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

didnt Chan flip his cards over before he said call durring the last hand of the 88 wsop?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
didnt Chan flip his cards over before he said call durring the last hand of the 88 wsop?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, he began to push his stack into the middle before he flipped his cards.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

I think we can safely hold back the flames on misunderstandings the rules here.....I've read SEVERAL rules in detail and to the best of my knowledge until this past week with this thread - exposed hands were dead. I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

(though I still would have declared the example this thread is about as a call in a friendly home game.)

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because it can be used to get a read on someone? Isn't that part of poker? Its a nit rule.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are the rules on this? In Supersystem, DB talks about if he has A-A and a player is betting into him, he will show the A-A and try to get a read. I assume DB was talking about a cash game, not a tournament, and was heads up.

I have used the trick myself, like when I had an Ax with x being a low kicker. Why you would show with the nuts is beyond me, maybe he was flustered/excited. It was a big hand.


I would really like to know the rules, officially. Have they changed since Supersystem? If so, why? Collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, people, how hard is it to google the rules or even read the thread and see the answers of people who have read the rules.

Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Zetack, I did read through the threads and I saw different answers. Is the Tournament Director's official, or just one set of rules out of several?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately there are no official rules. The TDA rules are the Tournament Directors Association rules. They are as close to a defining standard as we have for tournaments. That said, any tourney or tourney director is free to change the rules in whatever way they see fit.

Roberts Rules of Poker is a standard work and an often cited authority. However, it is not the "official" rules of poker, because there is no such thing.

However, in combination, these are as authoritative a set of rules as you will find anywhere.

--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can safely hold back the flames on misunderstandings the rules here.....I've read SEVERAL rules in detail and to the best of my knowledge until this past week with this thread - exposed hands were dead. I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

(though I still would have declared the example this thread is about as a call in a friendly home game.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read very many sets of rules, because I consider the TDA and Robert's rules to be fairly authoritative, so you may very well be correct that house rules tend toward another interpretation.

I would note, though, that the WSOP uses the TDA rules with some minor modifications. See WSOP main event rules Look at rule 37 which is identical to the TDA rules and states that an exposed hand may be subject to penalty but is not dead.

However, it looks like in circuit events they may allow house rules to modify the TDA. I can't find any rules specific to any circuit events except of the Jeff Gordon Foundation Charity event, that does have this rule:

A Participant may not show any cards during a hand. If a Participant shows a card to induce action, the hand may be ruled dead. [Emphasis mine] link.

I'm not sure if I can only find this one because the regular ciruit events follow the main event rules, or because they are a bunch of slack-asses. In any case, all this "may" stuff doesn't provide as much guidance as the TDA rule so I'm not wild about it.

--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Personally I would consider you a cheat and angle shooter and anal retentive and never play with you again if you objected for any longer than 9 seconds about this in a low limit home game tournament

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is what your opponent was up to though, given he had the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're NOT SURE [this is what he was up to] ?

- Way to not go out on a limb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

If he was last to act with the nuts and flipped before calling an allin bet I'm not sure even a cardroom would cry foul (though it's conceivable they would - they allow alot less discretion in these matters)

If there were others to left to act and he flipped the nuts prior to calling he should be given a discount on all future buyins as he is obviously not even trying to win.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I would consider you a cheat and angle shooter and anal retentive and never play with you again if you objected for any longer than 9 seconds about this in a low limit home game tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Damnit.... I think I waited 9.5.....but somewhere around 6 seconds my girlfriend smiled at me and I got distracted thinking about sex.....Am I still cool?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

If you were cool before the hand came up you are still cool, albeit a cool angle shooter. If she gave you head during the argument you are now cool even if you hadnt been before the start of the hand [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank god, your not writing rules then.
Care to quote the author of the rules you've read where that's a dead hand in this case?

By you contending that, I'm gonna contend that your being a nit, and looking for a reason to keep the best hand from winning, you know damn well it was a call, after all he didnt throw em face down in the muck did he? Don't be a nit, because you pushed into the nuts. Man up.

I've just got done watching the wsop from the 70's and 80's, quite frequently people would show their hands before calling a bet.. this was common, The guy had the nutz do you really think he was looking to gauge a reaction? Come on, this is a silly. If you were to pull that protest crap on me, I'd never even consider playing with you again.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
didnt Chan flip his cards over before he said call durring the last hand of the 88 wsop?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, he began to push his stack into the middle before he flipped his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative. I just watched it. He turned his cards over THEN pushed.