I would still rule the same way I would rule for other situations where a player exposes their hand. Some house rules kill that hand, others don't. I don't see why there should be a difference based on the spot on the table and the fact that somebody might think it is a muck.

Rawrs does "Dead Hands - (b)" clarify whether you are throwing face down, or exposing and throwing face up? I think it makes a difference.

I've seen (very) old dudes on river expose their hand forgetting they were first to act, I guess they thought they were checking behind in position and then showing. Their hand wasn't killed as a muck.

Just saying because it went Expose-Expose with no declaration by dealer of anything, seems to me best tabled hand wins, and a possible penalty (whatever that is in cash games if any) for exposing cards prematurely. In tourny's he might have to sit out an orbit.

I was wrong.

It doesn't clarify. Which is strange for RRoP as it's usually pretty detailed.

Unless the room has a specific rule that exposing ones hand with action pending kills it, which is a bad rule everywhere that does have it, the hand is face up, easily identified and thus live. The floor seems to have made the correct ruling in my opinion. AINEC

as a player, I give a knowing nod, put a chip on my cards like I am tipping, and act like other player folded. I would wait for dealer to muck it then take the pot, or if something else happens or V objects, play on accordingly, probably betting.

As a dealer, this looks like an open fold. I wait a beat, then muck the hand. If he objects, I call the floor over.

As the floor called over, I ask the player what he was trying to do when he tossed his cards in face up. If he says anything reasonable, I return his cards to him face up and tell him action is on him.

As played, best tabled hand wins, absent some room convention about face up cards being a muck.

Generally, in a cash game heads up it is not against the rules to expose your hand. It may be considered poor etiquette but not against the rules.

Where it is against the rules in a cash game the penalty is often to kill the hand which makes it a horribad rule. I would not object to a cash game rule against exposinging your hand, but the penalty should be less than killing your hand.

Did the dealer start pushing the pot or muck the hand or just sit there like an idiot??? If dealer is awarding the pot then the player didn't protect his action... if dealer sat there like an idiot then get a new dealer and the player gets to act. Most rooms exposing cards doesn't kill the hand so it can't really be dead just from the exposing part or more angling opportunities occur

Dealer didn't do anything....other than calling the floor once the dispute was created.

I think I'm pretty much leaning towards this in all 4 cases.

Not sure the application here, but I've heard the expression 'action excepted' mainly when it comes to certain spots when the amount of the bet may be in dispute. Can we have that analogy here and simply say that Player B 'accepted' Player A 'jumping' to showdown out of turn? Once we say that then it's real easy to say that the best exposed hand wins.

They both pre-exposed their hands before the dealer could do anything about it ... So both hands are dead in 'that' type of room? Thus the best hand should win in that scenario as well. I really don't like Player A spouting off that he would've called any bet by Player B once he found out he was in a pickle.

Although a Floor should treat each ruling as neutral, it's been stated that these are regs who should know the rules of the room as far as exposed hands. Certainly in 'reg' games or bigger games some of these rules aren't enforced fully which can create spots like this more often.

I like the fact that the $400 was 'returned' but I don't think it should solely have been because of the previous act of kindness, although it certainly didn't hurt the situation. Player A had a moment of weakness and got away with it. For the benefit of 'next time' between regs I think it was very wise to return the $400, if not half the pot, and eliminate the dealer and floor from being called into this type of spot to make a ruling when this type of thing may happen at times. GL

What do we do if Player B insists that Player A mucked (before he shows his hand) and then the floor rules it's just an exposed hand? Player B is now the one shooting the small angle knowing he can't win the pot. I think there is even more dust when Player B throws out a bet and Player A insta-calls (as he said he would) and Player B shows down or mucks his trash.

We want to keep the game civil, especially among regs, but the rules still need to be enforced ... even in a 'friendly' game. GL

Same as in other situations where the floor rules against a player. 'Sorry, bro'. If he wants to keep insisting, he can talk to the poker room manager.
From the context I assume you mean 'accepted' not 'expected'?
The moment the first hand is exposed on therefore 'dead', the hand is over and the other player can do whatever he wants with his cards, including tabling, mucking or trying to eat them.

This, in about 90% of the rooms I play(ed) in

Really?!? I've probably seen this hundreds of times, oftentimes as an angle but as OP said it could be a retroactive attempt to not fold as well.

This was actually the first angle that was ever pulled on me.

Also, I don't understand how anyone can play more than 100 hours of live poker and still just auto-expose their hands in situations like this. FFS every single one of these "angles" posted would be avoided if hero would wait 5 second for dealer to muck villains hand or for villain to release chips over the line etc. None of this "how far were the cards from the muck" or "how pointy was his elbow" JUST WAIT 5 SECONDS and if nothing happens calmly look at the dealer and say "is that a call/fold/raise?"

I guess the bigger question is-if you find yourself in a situation where you have inadvertently been given an unfair advantage, do you take it? While technically the player did not kill his hand, his intent was clear. How many of you guys would insist on scooping the pot?

While no one would argue that angling is ethical, is it ethical to take advantage of another players mistake?

To me, this is a muck. In deciding whether a player has surrendered, I think it is reasonable to take into account all of the circumstances. The comment on the turn, the tossing of the cards towards the muck, the exposing of the hand with live action behind, and the fact that this is Omaha (where there are greatly increased odds that an opponent has one of the 8 cards that complete a straight -- with four parts of that straight already on the board -- thereby all but eliminating any value to a set of jacks) all point in my view to a conclusion that Player's A action was intended as a fold.

IMHO, a contrary ruling is merely a technical application of the rules. Player B could have, and should have, been more careful, but Player A's conduct induced Player B's action. I think the integrity of the game demands that the pot be awarded to Player B.

That's not how Omaha works though. TTTT or 5555 does not make you a straight.

This is great and all, but B hasn't acted, so clearly A didn't cause him to act.

Even though this is most likely 100% true, it doesn't change this...
Floor ruling was correct IMO. I would've made the same. I would've hated Player A for it and he would become one of those scummy douches on my list, but he still gets this pot.
Guess the only idiots here were the 2 players after all

Having followed your responses to countless threads, I've always found them helpful and insightful from a floor's perspective. Thus, I'm curious about your reasoning in this case.

Given that you believe that Player A intended to surrender and that he deserves to be put on a "deplorables" list, why rule in his favor? I guess stated differently, if as a floor you've concluded that all the evidence points to a fold, why not enforce the fold?

Couldn't this be treated kind of like the football instant replay rule where, if there is clear and convincing evidence that something wrong happened, then the injustice is corrected?

Lets assume the turn raise was all-in and the same thing happens on the river. Would you still give the pot to player B or would you give it to player A because he tabled the best hand at showdown?

Because the rules protect him from that. Can I prove he was intending to fold here? He was not facing a bet. He was in fact first to act and had not acted yet. All he really did was expose his hand. Just because I believe he thought he was beat doesn't give me cause to kill his hand. Which leads us to your next point...

This is a slippery slope. We can go against the rules in certain instances depending on what happened, but 99% of the time that is not the correct thing to do.

Carnivore nailed it when he said something like Player A wasn't angling, but when B exposed his hand and A saw that he had the winner he saw an opportunity to win the pot. We cannot just take that opportunity away from him because we believe he thought he was beat in the beginning. This was player B's mistake ultimately. I don't have to like what A did to get there and if I thought it was intentional it might be a different outcome. Emphasis on "might" and that is where we find that 1% of the time where we go against the rule to protect a player.

I get the argument of pushing the pot to the best hand. Just feel like A's clear intention here is to muck and he's just taking an opportunity to angle.



This is some serious moving of the goal posts. "Let's assume one major detail has changed....". IMO there's a big difference between something like this occurring at showdown and occurring at any other time.

I can do the same; Let's assume A's hand was face down? Would you still give the pot to B? (See how silly it sounds?)

I doubt anyone who thinks player B should get the pot would change their mind if A's hand was face down.

I would give the pot to Player A under those circumstances, which I view as materially different from the OP situation. In the hypothetical, Player A's action on the river would be considered tabling his hand because he's already all in. There is no further action possible. Once someone tables a hand, the other player needs to show a winner to claim the pot.

In OP situation, however, action was still possible. A player facing a live player behind does not typically expose his hand. Were this the only factor, I probably would not regard it as an intention to fold. However, I think there were other important factors that corroborate the intent to fold with near certainty, including as noted Player A's comment on the turn, the toss towards the muck, and the value of his hand vs. the board texture on the river.

I don't think the action changed the way the hand was going to be played out. Whether the hands were exposed or not Player B was last to act, and I would surmise he would be betting this river regardless if player A checked. It is the only way player B can win the pot at this point and there are so many combination of hands that now beat player A. Therefore, I don't think player B would be taking advantage of anything by now betting the river when player A's hand is exposed.

BTW, I highly doubt Player A was going to call any bet on this river. He only said that to try to justify his argument about not trying to fold. He was already giving up without a bet even happening yet, so what would lead anyone to think he was going to call a river bet?