cash game, NL holdem, all regulars, pass-the-deal. Pretty casual about rules, but try to do things right enough to avoid conflicts. Pots are often claimed by showing only one card, although I generally advocate for two cards being tabled to claim a pot unless the other player mucks. Also worth noting that there is no "host" after moving to a new location, owned by a relative of a guy we used to play with. Group has always been good about accepting mutual decisions.

Here's the hand in question: "Jack", open-raises in middle position, only "Queenie" calls, from a blind.

Flop comes JJ4, and Queenie takes the lead in betting. Turn is a blank, river is a 4. Queenie bets strong on the river, and Jack sighs heavily, but calls reluctantly.

Queenie shows Q4 for a rivered full house. Jack says something like "that's what I get for slowplaying", and shows one card to Queenie and tosses the other towards the muck.

I'm dealing and catch the discarded card, and also the shown card as he puts it face down on the table. For a couple reasons I flip the cards face up.

Jack was showing a jack. His jacks full beats 4s full, so after a little discussion, I ship him the pot. Everyone is cool with this, including Queenie, but one uninvolved player says he thinks Jack's hand should be dead but he'll stay out of it. The prevailing logic was that Jack called Queenie and then showed Queenie the winner, so his pot.

OK, so I feel perfectly justified flipping the jack up under show one, show all, and there's no stress among anyone, but I'm curious if awarding the pot to him afterward was a good call. Thinking back, I wish I'd held jack's cards face down and asked him first if he wanted to muck or table his hand.

Any different if he shows the jack to an uninvolved player, instead of the opponent in the hand?

[All the same, I'm flipping the exposed card up under SOSA. There's a special standing rule involving Jack, actually, that allows any of us to flip his cards up after a hand, so both cards are going to get revealed no matter what.]

I think its a nice thing trying to teach this guy how to play. But your friend is right if he doesnt have poker knowledge of what beats what someone should tell him to read a book or practice online then play. When it gets all nicey nicey friendly haha like that queenie might think your costing them money for his stupidity. If it were to happen at my game exactly i would ship the hand to queenie then tell the player why he lost the pot with the best hand.

I don't like you flipping his other card up. What are the "couple of reasons" you flip them up?

As a player, if it goes to showdown then any player can request to see all the cards, right? Or is that tournies only?

Yikes.

This is part of why I feel attitudes should change to keep all hands live at showdown. That doesn't mean expose all hands by default, just that until it's mixed deep in the muck, any hand can still make a claim, no matter who does what with it. That would avoid all these situations of "yes, we all know you have the best hand, but there's procedure to follow".

That said, current procedure has this hand as dead. One player to a hand. Queenie wins.

This is also why I don't sweat SOSA in this kind of situation. It's their hand, they put up the money to showdown, they can show each other their cards. Otherwise you risk this kind of problem. If I really really must know, I prefer mixing up the muck and then asking them both what he had. I really really really don't like to flip up someone else's cards, especially not at showdown.

lol, nobody's learning how to play here. Jack just forgot there were TWO jacks on the flop.

"couple reasons": Biggest and best is "show one, show all". People can't reveal cards to other players, even those not in the hand, without revealing them to everyone at the table. The rule there to prevent softplaying and make it a tiny bit tougher to collude with a partner. Bigger problem in a casino setting, for sure, but not a bad rule. We enforce it consistently.

Another reason is simply I read him for exactly what he had -- I couldn't think of what card was interesting to show that wasn't a jack. If he's showing a jack to Queenie, he deserves the pot.

besides (reason #3), Jack has the special rule allowing us to look at any of his hands. We're going to need to clarify that this rule doesn't keep the hand alive.

no you're right, that's a cash game rule called "I want to see that hand", or IWTSTH. very controversial, and we don't use it at our game (other than for Jack). Do a search for IWTSTH for intense and thorough discussion.

eminently reasonable, as usual. You don't like my logic that this is essentially a struggle between Queenie and Jack, and since Jack showed Queenie the winner, Jack should get the pot?

even Queenie accepted that one .

As a host, I always instituted the "Table all cards" to win a pot (or part of the pot).

The SOSA Rule doesn't really apply here, nor does the IWTSTH Rule. SOSA means if you show your cards to a player at the table, everyone at the table is entitled to see the hand. It doesn't mean that if you show one card to the table you have to show both. To be awarded the pot, you have to show both cards, though.


Technically, Jack didn't show the winner, OP did. Only the winner of the pot can invoke the IWTSTH which brings a hand back from the dead. Since the winner of the hand (Queenie) didn't ask to see the losing hand (Jack), Queenie gets the pot.

Ship Queenie the chips, but tell Jack to just flip his cards and smile if he gets a pot.

to be clear:

Jack showed a card to Queenie before he tossed his cards face down.

sosa is not being invoked to see the 2nd card, but to show the entire table a card that was exposed to one player.

there is precedent at this table for one card being enough to win a pot.

I think it's completely reasonable, and in my ideal world, Queenie wins the pot without a discussion. Most people disagree with my views on this, so I gave my interpretation of a strict ruling. Queenie didn't ask it to be exposed, and you can't help another player table his hand. Queenie also didn't voluntarily concede the pot. One player to a hand. You're playing both their hands for them.

I think it's ridiculous that we can't just accept all hands as live, but I'm not with the mainstream on this one.

Wow, let's take a look at this in list form:

1. ITWSTH can be invoked but it doesn't bring a mucked hand back to life, even if it's the winning hand. There is one exception to this and that's if the pot winner requests to see the mucked hand.

2. The SOSA rule also does not bring a mucked hand back to life.

3. Jack mucked his hand. It can only be brought back to life by management for the "integrity of the game". In a casino setting, I'm fairly sure Jack's hand would stay mucked. At a friendly home game, the players are usually the "management" so it's a local decision.

4. I'm not sure why you would expose his down card. I'm not even sure why SOSA is needed here. Jack mucked and flashed one card to Queenie. Ship the pot to Queenie and move on.

5. I'm not sure what your deal is with Jack and getting to see his cards. Perhaps you should make a clear rule as to what happens if you expose mucked cards. Hopefully Jack doesn't muck winners too often.

Okay, did all of you "hand is dead" people miss the fact that the winning hand was exposed? Or are we nitting about either
a) tabling the card face up, rather than showing it or
b) both cards weren't exposed, so the hand is dead on a technicality?

Are we saying that, even though the best hand was displayed, it doesn't win the pot? That would seem to contradict the stand a few of you *cough pfap* have taken in the past.

One, as others have said, SOSA isn't what is going on here. "Show both cards to claim the pot" would be the closest rule to what you meant.

Second, why do you have special exposure rules for one player?

You'll note that my feeling on what should be is kept separate from my view of what is. I agree, I think Jack should win. But according to the rules, he doesn't. I think these are bad rules, but I didn't write them. In B&M you'll find some very passionate defenders of the rules as they stand.

Jack wasn't making any claim. He had conceded. He didn't show the table, he showed one person. gedanken was curious, so he looked.

Also, Welcome back, PantsOnFire! How's the wife?

We're both doing well, although I'm not sure I'm back or just cruising.

Jack exposed his card to one player. I'm exposing it so everyone can see it, under SOSA, if for no better reason.


I'm not sure that's not my reason. I was pretty confident Jack had a jack before he even showed it to Queenie. Am I protecting the integrity of the game by awarding the pot to the best hand?

At the time of the showing (not tabling), it was still live, after all.


Jack has a douchey streak. He got caught several times looking at other player's mucked hands; the last time it was our at-the-time host's folded hand that he peeked. In the discussion that ensued, he made bold statements about not minding if anyone looked at his cards, so the rule is anyone can flip his cards up after the hand. It's part justification on his part, part revenge on the other player's part. I'm kinda sorry I mentioned it, as it's not entirely relevant in this case -- if that was the only reason I'd looked, the hand should be dead.

thanks, LL

I know it sounds like I'm defending myself here, but I just want to be convinced one way or another. I've got the message loud and clear that a casino would have killed the hand without any discussion.

Still, I'm not the guy who takes "that's the way it's done" as the final argument.

Part of me is still clinging to this idea: the hand was contested by two players. Those players are wagering between each other as to who has the best hand. They're not wagering me, or anyone else at the table. When Jack shows his jack, he's showing it specifically to the one player who counts, and he hasn't mucked anything yet.

The rest of us are just bystanders -- 3rd party observers. Showing us is just a formality so we can confirm the result. Which we did, after correcting a misinterpretation.


see, I guess I don't understand sosa, then. Jack showed a card to Queenie, (only Queenie could see it), so under sosa, do I not show that card to the rest of the table? I can see the argument that sosa might not make the hand live, but I still think I can reveal it under sosa.

...reading the rule in robert's, it does seem to address cards exposed during the hand, but doesn't have a lot to say about cards exposed after the hand is over.

"Show one, show all" is more about passing cards to a neighbor to peek at, or flashing your cards to your neighbor before folding.

Flashing cards to your opponent at showdown, which others not in the showdown can't see, isn't a reason to invoke SOSA.


However, I might have to revise my "best hand shown" comment above. Are you saying that YOU didn't see the hook, shown by Jack, when JackDouce flashed it to Queenie? You only saw it when you mistakenly turned over his mucked cards and you knew which one was the flashed card?

If so, then KITN to you and yes, the hand would be dead. Queenie should have the ethical integrity to let Jacks know that he had hooks full, but that's neither here nor there.

One, that's bad justification for a special rule. You might not like what Pandora shows you, down the road.

Two, where is the hammer on this? NO ONE gets to look at mucked cards, unless the player involved gives permission... and THEN someone could invoke SOSA if they chose, so everyone could see. That usually cuts down on this.

Now, much like overusing IWTSTH, demanding to see these hands should be rare and intended for something, other than being a putz.

Nope- if JackDouche has a special rule he lives by, then the dealer shouldn't be looking at his cards. The dealer should be TABLING the cards, so he has no special insights into JD's play.... and then the hand is live.

The first time that this dumb dealer action snatches a pot away from someone else, I'll bet Jack's "special rule" gets trashed.

Okay, is this about good news or bad news? I must have missed the post regarding your hiatus... ?


And lol and the "I'm not sure if"- you're BACK, baby!

I surprised at you Larry for not noticing this. However, since the dealer is a player in the game, he can invoke, IWTSTH or SOSA (which is really just a sub-definition of IWTSTH). SOSA is an acceptable IWTSTH because the player voluntarily gave away information. (Apparently you finally notice as I typing a reply. My apologies.)

However, the dealer should NOT have turned both cards up as only one was shown. Only the Jack should have been turned up (assuming he showed the Jack) under SOSA.



Yes, I like this in a B&M but you should be a like more lenient in a friendly home game especially with a newbie. Friendly home games are meant to as much social and learning as winning money.



SOSA was invoked by the dealer but incorrectly exposed both cards making it a IWTSTH situation.



pfapfap is correct, there are several posts in B&M regarding this kind of situation (is the muck magical? type questions/posts). If Jack or Queenie invoked IWTSTH, Jack hand is live. Anyone else at the table invoking IWTSTH means Jack's hand is dead and he learns a lesson in tabling his hand at showdown.

Nothing to apologize for- I get the same treatment as everyone else! I realized that the OP confused me a little as to what the trigger for exposing might have been.

I agree with the "only the exposed card" comment... but I disagree about the dealer being able to invoke either exposure rule.

The players in the hand saw the cards. If players out of the hand wanted to see the card, they could have... unless OP wasn't clear enough about HOW the card was flashed to Queenie. There might be a slight case for invoking SOSA.... but definitely not on IWTSTH.

JackDouche displayed the card to Queenie, at least, and therefore there is no reason to need to see anything else. Also, since Queenie saw the card, no one ELSE has a good reason to see it, at least not enough to invoke STH, just because IW.


Additionally, the dealer REALLY should avoid invoking SOSAIWTSTH (an Indian word, meaning "I can't read the clues, so I'll be a ****"), for the integrity image considerations.

Was playing the other day and a guy Folded to a bet after the Flop. Before mucking he flashed his cards to his buddy (not in the hand) sitting next to him.

The Dealer said: "Woah. SOSA"

Guy said: "You're right. Put them aside and you can show the rest of the table after the hand is over."

And that is what the Dealer did.

Of course this would never affect the Live Status of the hand, but let's apply this to the Jack & Queenie situation.

I know pfapfap is a long-standing advocate that the best hand needs to take the pot, and if that happens under any circumstances it isn't a bad thing. I very respectfully disagree. When a player concedes the pot without tabling his hand and CLEARLY intends to muck - his hand needs to be dead at that point. Otherwise we start finding these grey areas where a dead hand takes the pot because it gets "revived" by some silly action.

When Jack showed the card to Queenie, anybody who was dealt into the hand can request to have that card exposed under SOSA. If you were dealer but had a hand, then you can flip over the card yourself.

I noted earlier that there are two distinct levels of SOSA. The first and most important one is where a player mucks and shows his cards to an active player in the hand. This must invoke SOSA at all times because it is patently unfair for a player to know mucked cards when he has a live hand. A similar situation is when dealing a card that is a flyer and somebody sees it. You have to expose that card to the table.

The second SOSA is when a player shows another player mucked card(s) to a player not in the hand. This happens between friends a lot. For example, UTG raises, UTG+1 reraises, buddy1 folds, buddy2 shows buddy1 his 99 and folds. Here, it's pretty nitty to invoke SOSA since it doesn't affect much (and the cards are shown after the hand is over). Note though that if buddy2 showed buddy3 who has yet to act, and buddy3 calls, then you need to expose that hand to the table immediately. And if buddy3 folds you warn buddy2 not to show mucked cards to live players.

Another good example is at showdown, player1 bets and player2 folds. Player2 might flash his fold to somebody (like player1). Again, it is fairly nitty for anyone to invoke SOSA here. Of course, that's my opinion and it depends on a lot of factors like one guy continously showing one other guy or two (who don't appear to be friends). But then again, if they are friends, they will likely get irritated and simply muck and silently tell each other in the future so you aren't gaining anything other than animosity.

In you OP, it might have been best just to scoop the cards and move on. It really depends on how friendly your game is.

OP, since you have a special rule for Jack I assume you would have flipped up his hand regardless of him showing queenie a card.

Assuming you did this AND he did not show the card what would you have ruled.

Why take out him showing the hand to one player? Because showing to one player is not tabling the hand, therefore it invokes no special consideration. I look at it as a non-event and immaterial to this discussion.

So If you rule that once Jack tosses his hand away it's dead then it's dead and flipping it up doesnn't change the fact. Even if it proves to be a better hand.

If you rule his hand is still live you better be very careful in the future as this gives Jack plenty of ammunition for slow rolls as players turn up his hand to reveal a winner. Or will you create a new special rule for the first special rule?

My opinion is his hand is dead. Ship pot to Queenie. Revoke the special rule. It's petty and immature. Stop being so nitty about SOSA.

I take it by your description of the game that you don't expect cheating and colluding to be problem so why hide behind that as an excuse. As long as it's always an option for a player to invoke SOSA it serves it's purpose. Then, your "casual" about other rules. I say become consistent in how you enforce all rules, whichever way you decide.

Not too mention the fact that a player would have to be a total idiot to cheat, in some fashion, and then show his buddy his hand knowing it will get turned up and be discovered, so your goal of using SOSA as an enforcement / deterrent cannot possibly work.

Good Luck

I'm not sure I like this use, or definition, of SOSA. I guess it depends on the manner in which it is done (as I've mentioned earlier)

Larry, your views intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

To be clear, your view is that SOSA is for when cards are revealed during play to those still in the hand? Am I reading it right?

I think I like this.

Do you have any historical evidence to back this up?