1-2 NL

Clueless villain: When second ace hits on turn, it is obvious we both have a pocket ace. I have 9 kicker, so do not go crazy with it. About $100 pot by showdown. AQxAT board.

Clueless villain: cleverly shows only his ace.
Hero: Shows both Ace and nine. "I have Ace Nine." It is a likely split since my kicker does not play.
Dealer looks at villain expectantly.
Clueless villain: just sits there.
Table looks expectantly.
Clueless villain: Mucks his cards, facedown.
Hero: "Ship it here."
Dealer: Ships
Hero: Quickly mixes pot with my chips.
Table: giggles and smiles
Hero: quietly says to neighbor "What he does not know..."
Other Player: "As long as he never knows..."
Hero: Tips well
A few hands later
Hero: Tips well again "I appreciate you following procedures."
Dealer smiles.

----------------
Was this an ethical play? I caused no deception. The rules were followed. Everyone at the table simply declined to give him $50 worth of information: "Show that other card, and it will be a split."

Comments?

I hope I don't drop my wallet near you.

OP...

[x] followed the rules
[ ] was ethical

Kharmalized.

Exit polls are leaning heavily in one direction here!

So, who's duty is it to tell him. Mine, an observer, the dealer?

-------------

If in a totally different hand we got a hundred dollar pot and the board was:

AAKAA

and I made a pot sized bet on river, is anyone obligated to point out that a call is safe and it will be a split pot?

no ethical. small pot just split with him hell donate back at some point you want to keep players like this in the game.


man, people can be jerks for 50$

I would say "flip your other card" but thats just me.



the second questions, absolulty not, and if someone did say that it woul dbe unethical. Just like when there is a royal flush on the board, no one is suposed to say anything in case someone does not realize.

but in the first situation, you clearly saw it was a split. He showed his card, and u waited for him to muck them.

Wow, interesting situation.

As a player, since he did not table his entire hand, it's not my place to speak up. Cards speak but you need two cards for the conversation.

And while the OP didn't break any rules not saying something, I would have if I was the OP.




The second situation the OP has proposed is very easy, play is still in session and OPTAH. As a player not in the hand, I have no right to speak up and "give advice" while the hand is play.

Totally different situation.

Either you understand this or you don't.

I like having a pool of people to ask questions like this of. It has been surprising to me how many little situations like this show up over hours and hours in a card room.

I tend to be silent and let the dealer do his thing when in a hand. I am absolutely silent when not in a hand. I don't even like it when neighbors show me their hand.

Had I not noticed that it was a likely split, would that have mattered?

As it happened (but not as told), I did not notice until someone whispered 'split' or 'does not play' (but I did notice at some point before the pot was shipped).

I personally hate it when people only show one card when they think they have a winner, it just slows down the game. This factored into my silence.

It would have made a big difference. In a case where a split/winning hand is apparent, should the dealer be instructing the player to table both cards?

Players not in the hand should not be commenting on the hand while it is still ongoing.

People get really twitchy about who is allowed to say or do what at showdown.

Now this is the kind of thing that would make for a much more interesting college course in Ethics!

Summary:

What I hear from Rednick is:

The person that whispered "split" broke the Code. I do not know if I would have noticed were it not for this whisper.

What I hear from everyone else is:

Once I had that knowledge, I broke the Code.

Everyone else at the table did the right thing by being silent- they did not have a dog in this fight.

No one has said it, but I suspect the Dealer was just following procedure. This was neutral

I think the dealer could have said "Sir, to contest the pot, you need to show both cards." This would have been helpful and neutral, though it would have modified the outcome it is within procedure to state rules as they become relevant.

If the dealer would have said "Show the other card and I will split the pot, otherwise it all ships to Hero." I would have considered that interfering with the game.

Thanks all, I like being able to get honest, unfiltered opinions.
Doug

The general consensus in 2+2 is that the best hand should win the pot (or in this case, the best two hands should split). If you knew that the villian would have split, then it would have been good sportsmanship to call that out.

Now, if he flips AJ, we feel pretty lousy.

Pardon my newness, but since villain showed his ace and hero's kicker did not apply, wouldn't the dealer be obliged to call a chop regardless?

I posed this question in an earlier post, and I think that the dealer should have made a point to do this.

some people are so affraid to show their cards at showdown because they're either gona be embarrassed for playing such a low ace, or are affraid to "give information" to players better than they are.

So for not tabling your complete hand mr. villian, you lose!

You sure did, and I apologize for not catching it.

I'd do the same thing based solely on the fact that I hate people that only show one of their cards at showdown. You're supposed to show both, douchebag!


However, I would not have said "ship it here" or quickly mixed the pot in with my chips or giggled and whispered something to my neighbor, because that's just being a douche for no reason.



I dunno about the whole "ethics" of the situation. Villain made critical mistakes in/following the hand, so whatever. I don't feel "obligated" to point out that he made a mistake just to give him a pass.

You have to show both cards for your hand to qualify.

No apology necessary, I was just reiterating the point. There are some dealers that post here who will have better insight into this. Welcome to the forums!

It is unethical to know something is wrong and to do/say nothing about it. It is not a rule that you have to say something, but I ethics, specifically, are in question.

Once the player exposes one card, I think it is obvious that villian is, at the very least, entitled to half the pot. I believe the dealer should have made him show the second card.

i hate it when it comes to showdown in live poker:
"i will show you one, is it good? what do you have? you also have top pair, what kicker? etc" There are rules, just stick to them.

I would say right after hand: "Do you know that showing just one card cost you 50$?"

Saying "ship it" is enormously douchy and much worse than anything else in this thread.

Hero/Dealer: "Sir do not muck your hand please, you are entitled to half the pot."


That's what you wanted?

Yeah, and on a AKQJTr board, it's pretty obvious that all of the players in the hand are entitled to their portion of the pot too, but it's still within reason for them to make the mistake of aborting that equity. I really don't see how it's unethical to allow your opponent to mistake in a competitive environment.


Seems like it's pretty easy to allow everyone to follow showdown protocol, and if they don't, they don't deserve their share of whatever they were vying for.