I am NOT the host in this game. I'm always ready with a rules explanation when I know it, but only offer my advice when it's wanted. I'm careful not to be the passive-agressive controller of a game, just an asset to have around...

nlhe 6-handed. 4 to the flop (I folded preflop). On the flop, CO bets, BTN says "dude, I can see your cards!" to the cutoff. BTN then raises.

A brief discussion ensues, and I explain that everyone in the hand is entitled to the same information, so BTN has to tell everyone what he saw. I have enough cred that even though nobody really agrees with that, BTN calls out the hand and CO (very frustrated) tables it. Everyone folds to the BTN raise.

After the hand, people were pretty sure I was wrong after thinking/discussing some more. I did text pfapfap for backup, which helped quell the grumbling. (I got a lot more pushback afterwards for simple things like who gets the extra chip in a split pot . This definitely cost me some rules-nit authority in the short term.)

Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? If BTN had folded, I would have been ok with BTN not telling, at least until the hand ended.

"During a deal, cards that were shown to an active player who might have a further wagering decision on that betting round must immediately be shown to all the other players. "

So, that.

Hmmm, not what I would have thought. Does give players a reason to protect their hands even more.

This is pretty easy to resolve. If they disagree with you ask if it's ok next hand for you to show your hand to the guy next to you while you are both still in the hand without showing the hand to anyone else at the table. I doubt too many players will be happy about that situation.

I tried that argument. They said "that's different if you do it on purpose, this was an accident".

The reason that there is a lot of grumbling about this is that it is very problematic. Instinctively even players who know nothing about the rules see there are issues. Suppose after you raise I announce to the table that I saw your cards (but I didn't see them).

Now what happens. I say I saw AK you don;t have AK. What happens? Do you have to expose your cards to prove it? Do you have to say I don;t have AK? Do you have to say you have one of the cards?

Yes SOSA all applies .... but the rule creates all kinds of issues. So to a c ertain degree players want to simply pretend that cards accidentally exposed weren't so that they don;t have to think about the harder issues.....

Thats a good point. You end up saying you don t have AK, then A or a K come on the flop and the other players know you don t have top pair

I would not say anything as it simply causes problems. If someone can t protect their hand then so be it

^^ +1

I accidentally see player's hands due to incompetent peeking technique so often that i just STFU and keep the info to myself. Sure, it's unfair to the other players, but I don't see any good coming out of announcing to the table "he's 3betting with 82."

Yeah, another sentiment that came up was "I've never seen that in a casino". I said it would be extremely rare for for a casino player to say anything. Dirty casino players

I believe this rule applies to an inactive player showing his cards to an active player.

If you think about it, it hurts BTN a LOT more if his hand is shown to everyone than it helps the one player who knows it. BTN was at fault for the exposure and now has given up a large edge to the player he showed his cards to. Why give him a further KITN?

The other players without this knowledge at least can read the action to see what may be going on.

I believe most floors would invoke SOSA after the hand is over if at all.

I've seen this live many times. When it happens to me, I tell the guy after the hand to be more careful. I've seen another player do this same thing repeatedly to a guy who was fairly drunk. The drunk still kept being sloppy. Do you think the drunk's hands should have been played face up for the entire session?

by that rule, I think we should get to take turns in your seat, though.

also open to the problem of me pretending to be drunk so I can hold my cards up where my partner can see them.

this guy does have a habit of holding his cards up making it easy to see them. I think it was good to make an issue out of it. he was actaully more careful for 10 minutes or so

FWIW, when you texted me, I asked another dealer with more experience than I do what she thought of it. I didn't give my opinion. With a pained expression, she said we have to expose the cards.

I know dealers can't be trusted, but that's gotta at least count for something, at least compared to a bunch of drunken and stoned home game players who barely ever set foot in a casino. (Not y'all; I mean the game gedanken was playing.)

Assume it's not an accident.

Assume my buddy on my right is showing me his hand on purpose.

Of course we show them to the rest of the table.

...not sure why accidental or on purpose would matter.

Cards exposed to one player should be exposed to all players.

Yes, it sucks.

Stop exposing cards and the problem goes away.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying here. And I also know that a shown hand to an active player needs to shown to everyone immediately so that everybody knows which two cards are not in the stub.

This case however is about showing an active player's hand. I'm not really sure of the rule but I can't imagine a case where a player would be forced to turn over his hand while he still has action (and basically, that's what is being argued here).

If it's a multiplayer pot (which is the only situation where this would really matter) it would be a case of being forced to do something you are not otherwise allowed to do.

And we're not even really examining the can of worms this would cause. What if the player who saw the hand didn't want to say what it is? What if he lied about what he saw? What if the glance was so fast he misinterpreted what he saw?

I haven't heard any good arguments why it would not be better just to carry on and perhaps hold the hand for exposure after the end of showdown.

Edit: I now recall a situation like this in a tourney I was playing at The Venetian. A player had a tough decision and showed his hand to his neighbor. The problem was he forgot his neighbor was also still in the hand. The ruling was the hand played out, was exposed at the end of action and was given a warning for exposing a live hand. Now that was intentional which is likely what warranted the warning. I would presume a penalty would be the next step.

I can't see how the first two parts of that ruling wouldn't apply equally for an accidental exposure.

BTN has a HUGE advantage over the other players in the hand. It may not be obvious, but it's not a subtle mathematical advantage -- I'd say it's significant.

I don't know what to do if someone is claiming to see a hand where we're not sure if he really did. In this case, when BTN says something, CO's hand is clearly, plainly, unquestionably exposed to BTN.