Large main pot, medium side pot.

Player who is only in main prematurely shows the nuts.

Player 2, slides his cards face down (he's in seat 6 or 7 and muck is on the other side of the table). Dealer instead of picking up his cards says other players show hands for the side. Player 2 retrieves his cards and shows 88 which beats Player 3's missed garbage.

Player 3 goes insane and the entire table and floor let him know he lost the side because cards were retrievable. No brainer and player 3 is a jerk most of the time so I can't feel bad for him. But, how inappropriate are the dealer's actions here potentially influencing action instead of sweeping the folded hand into the muck?

totally appropriate. would be inappropriate if he didn't tell players that sidepot is first. he did it exactly right. only thing he might have done better is preemptively told main pot player to hold his cards, sidepot first.

floor should take player 3 aside and let them know (kindly) what the procedure is at showdown, especially when there are side pots, and why he is wrong.

Yup, dealer should do their best to control the order than hands are tabled here, but they can't stop the main pot player from tabling. Absolutely no issue with emphasizing to P2 that a the side pot needs to be decided.

It isn't specified whether this is cash or tournament. If the latter, rule 16 is pretty clear:

Assuming this is a cash game.... I think it matters if Player 2 mucked his hand before or after player 3 showed his cards.

The way I'm reading it Main pot player showed the nuts then Player 2 slides his hand forward basically mucking it then the dealer tells player 2 there is a side pot. Not clear when Player 3 turns his cards over but if it is after Player 2 pushed his hand forward I think the dealer did the right thing.

If player 3 shows his cards and then player 2 mucks his hand then the dealer should take the mucked hand and put it in the muck pile. But it seems here that it didn't happen that way.

We don't know what the dealer was gonna do once the side pot was determined, especially since she didn't touch them (from what it sounds like). Yes, this is why dealers always warn players at showdown who shows first to avoid these situations. I would't blame the dealer too much besides not warning the players before hand.

Player 3 never showed.

Order was player 1 tabled the nuts. Player 2 pushed his cards forward face down. Dealer said side pot show your cards. Player 2 retrieved them and showed. Player 3 raised a stink. And it is a cash game.

Totally fine. Tell seat three to shut the **** up.

Thanks for the detailed response.

I think the dealer did exactly the right thing.

Player 3 is way out of line in my opinion.

Originally felt fine with dealer actions. After follow-up post, I am more convinced dealer was completely fine.

The only thing the dealer did wrong was not calling for the two side players to show before the short stack. I don't even let P1 show their cards until the side pots are determined.

P3 is wrong.

FWIW, I'm with Reducto. (I only deal bar-poker and home-game type events, so there's that.)

It usually goes pretty well. Sometimes I have to push cards back because people expose before I'm ready, but generally it goes ok. My experience not doing that is people don't just turn over their hands in front of them; they toss them toward the middle, where there's the risk of hands getting confused.

For example, the other night, we had a four-way all-in, so main and multiple sides.

I don't want eight cards out there on the table to manage, so I said "X and Y for this side first." Adjudicate that hand, muck the loser, "Ok, now Z for the next side."

Agree that the dealer did it right by not mucking the hand. One proactive thing I like to do when there's an all-in is to announce to the other players, "You and you are in the side pot" before I put out the rest of the board. Or if all-in action happens after I've put out the river, I'm going to be aggressive about announcing "There is a side pot. Don't muck your hand unless you're giving up on the side pot."

If a dealer announces showdown but not that there is a side pot, they absolutely shouldn’t kill the side pot hands without announcing it. If the player mucks it in such a way that it’s unretrievable, it sucks but there’s nothing you can do and player 3 wins it. However with it being retrievable the mistake can be made up simply by not mucking the hand and giving them another opportunity to show.

One of those 'it depends' spots IMO.

What does the Dealer do if Player 2 acts in the same manner WITHOUT Player 1 doing anything? Dealers aren't supposed to be in the mind reading business and prevent a faux pas from occurring.

In this case, as described, I'm totally fine with the Dealer speaking out about the Side Pot and not snap mucking Player 2's holding based on a reaction to Player 1's exact hand being tabled 'early'.

However, had the Dealer mucked the hand then Player 2 is out of luck and the pot gets pushed to the last live hand.

Is this skirting the rules? Perhaps, but the Dealer didn't instruct Player 2 to table their hand, only that the Side Pot was going to be decided first. GL

Player 3 got what he deserved

I think you are pointing out the nuance perfectly. The dealer isn't playing anyone's hand, isn't telling anyone about the bkard or thr action. They are simply describing procedure by saying the side pot is decided first.

Players can infer what they want from that, and maybe it helps some of them by reminding the players that there is a side pot, but the dealer is just following procedure. It is no different than a dealer announcing a raise helps players realize they cannot blindly limp.

Dealer would have been slightly out of line if her communicated directly with player 2 to table his hand. But informing the table that there was still a side pot to be claimed is 100% correct.

And as always, it should be noted that a player does not much a hand(usually), a player can discard a hand, but it is not mucked until it is mixed unidentafiably with the muck. And a player cannot fold a hand when not facing action. So there is no interpretation of the rules that I am aware of that would render P2's hand dead.

In short, P2's hand is not dead, and dealer did the right thing in managing the game by informing the players that a sidepot needed to be claimed, without givbing direct instructions to any player.