I don't play much live and maybe I'm missing something here but ...

For the next action did it matter if hero had seen the cards? It was villains turn to act. Why would you show him the cards at that time? Wouldn't it be more fair if only after he made his action but before hero could act again both players should have been shown UTG+2 cards.

Dealer could just state. Hero has possibly seen two cards. After your action you will both be shown those cards before anyone of you take any further action. Wouldn't this have been more 'in the spirit of the game'

This ruling seems to me to open up to cheating. Example: Let's say UTG+2 and villain were friends. He would on purpose show hero that he was folding an ace or any pair (or really any two cards), thus forcing dealer to show villain who could then possibly fold his own hand depending on what he has. I'm sure there are combinations of hands and betting sizes/effective stacks where this could be used as cheating.

Pretty rough beat there, OP.

Not much you can do in that spot. Tough to stop the dealer from flipping the cards over.

Calling the floor after the cards are flipped and before villain acts is a bad decision.

Calling the floor after villain makes his action is less bad but still not great.

When the floor shows up, you will explain what happened, get a faux sympathetic nod from the floor who will give a verbal warning to utg+2, and that will be that.


The best ruling is to allow the action for the round to conclude before revealing the cards (assuming there is no one left to act who has seen them). Unfortunately, this may not be the correct ruling per the house rules, and it's not possible to retroactively correct. All you can really do is try to minimize the damage.

If you were in our room and there was a reasonable belief that you saw UTG2 cards, they would be exposed to all the players. What did you think the correct ruling should be?


On the strategy issue, if the Villian views you "as quite nitty" and your "range to a cold 4bet in this spot is exclusively kk or aa" his shove with AK makes no sense or you have a much different table image in reality than in your mind.

I don't think there's any debate that the cards need to be revealed. The question is whether or not they get revealed immediately, or _after_ the villain acts on the pending action.
Ideally the floor should be called after the UTG+2 flashes the cards, but _before_ the dealer flips them over.

Bottom line here, Villain is likely shoving regardless of whether or not this happened.

vilain told me he was folding if he didn't see utg+2 cards. i'm guessing he thought my original range was AA,KK,QQ. And after he saw the cards, my range is more like KK,QQ, AK, JJ. which he's just a slight underdog against.

This is exactly how is should go. I was going to say "in my opinion", but I really can't see any reason why anyone could think differently.

To the OP, you should talk to the shift supervisor, explain the situation until he agrees with what sdrf wrote, and then ask him to explain it to his dealers.

I would at least agree that several KITNs are definitely in order here.

I see that exposing hands and generally acting the fool at the table is still quite en vogue.

He put you on a range of AA/KK/QQ, tanked with AK anyway, and was going to fold, but decided to shove after seeing that AJ, a hand that includes one of his outs in flip situations, was exposed?

It became more likely that you had JJ or AK after AJ was out of the deck?

Really makes little sense.

Also, he could have just been saying this to cool you down, people ramble bull all the time after hands about what "would have happened if X went down instead of Y"

Please no strategy derail.

9 months since the last ACjr KITN. Welcome back.

Yeah I've had stuff going on. Plus I'm making a lot of beer these days. Homebrewing kicks ass.

RROP says if the player who saw the card might have a wager decision to make on the betting round, its shown immediately. If they can't but can wager next round, its revealed between rounds.

Hero "might" have a decision as the villain is contemplating a raise/shove...card gets shown immediately. Action is in no way closed to the hero in this scenario. How is this any different than the UTG folding and exposing cards preflop....you don't hide the exposed cards from the table until everyone makes a decision to call the bb.

The second question is what stumps me as it asks what the ruling would be after cards are shown. The bell can't be unrung so I am wondering what type of ruling the poster thinks is "right" if caught after villain shoves.

I think the only reason for the strategy derail is the OP appears to be blaming the shove on the exposed cards. The shove is illogical given the poster's believed range and the exposed cards. The call of the shove is even more illogical given the exposed J and villains shove after the exposure....

yes ur right JJ, or AK are not more likely. Either way my point is, dealer should not have revealed anything until vilain makes his move since my 4bet was sort of a effective allin.