Was playing at my local casino last night and witnessed a ruling from the room supervisor on a hand I wasn't involved with that I didn't agree with.

It's a $5/$5 game. UTG+1 raises to $20, cut-off calls, Button goes all in for $125, UTG+1 re-raises to $260(has $1600 behind), cut-off has around $500 left and turns his cards over while he makes his decision. I didn't say anything since I wasn't in the hand - but the guy UTG+1 asked the dealer if he's allowed to expose his cards since it multiway. Dealer wasn't sure since the 3rd guy in the pot was all in. He called his supervisor over for a ruling. Supervisor said since there was only 2 guys left with chips and the 3rd guy has no further action that heads up rule applied that you could expose your cards.

The guy who exposed his cards ended up folding. But isn't the ruling wrong? By him exposing his cards it impacts the outcome of the hand which in turn impacts the 3rd player who is all in. Lets say he ended up calling or re-raised it impacts how the UTG+1 player plays the hand and which it impacts the 3rd player.

If a tournament, hand plays out but he gets a one-round banishment. What's the penalty in a cash game? You don't kill his hand.

Yes, you're right, it could influence the hand.

That said, I've very rarely seen someone expose his hand with chips left to bet and not fold. Because... well, just think about that for a moment. He was folding the moment he decided to expose. He was just grandstanding and showing off his big laydown.

Occasionally you'll get some drunk fishy action player who is oblivious to why it's incredibly stupid (or who just doesn't care), and in that case the benefits of keeping him in the game outweigh whatever mild harm he's probably not inflicting anyway, so why piss him off?

I knew as soon as he exposed his cards that he would fold - but was curious what the correct ruling on that is

I don't agree with the ruling.

If the Floor said that his hand would've been declared dead if it was multiway, then the same should apply here, imo. Just because there's someone who's all in and doesn't have chips left in front of him, is not the same as a fold. The player who's all in has vested money in this pot(actually, he has ALL his money vested), so to say that this should've been treated as if it were heads up action thus allowing the guy to expose his cards, is wrong. Maybe one of the players in the hand gives off some sort of tell after seeing the cards, maybe the all in player has a notable tell and does the same. Who knows?

I disagree with Phap in which he says that it was obvious that he was gonna fold anyway and was just grandstanding. So, he was grandstanding for this long? Think about it, his cards were still in front of him after one of the players questioned the dealer, the dealer calls for the Floor, and when the Floor comes over the guy still has his cards in front of him? That's a loooong time to be grandstanding. Yeah, I've seen players do the 'quick show and then wind up mucking anyway act', but they never sit there and wait for a Floor to come over before doing so. It's a quick show/muck and that's it. And, in that 1 or 2 minutes(maybe longer) that he had his cards exposed, could've wind up helping his cause in an unfair way. Certainly isn't going to hurt.

He does have $500 behind and the raise is only for $240 more.

The floor should tell him he can only call or fold and not raise. Calling would leave him in a ~$650 pot with $260 behind and the other player knowing his cards. I do think that would hurt him..

Pretty standard ruling for a cash game from what I have seen IME and on these boards.

Whether you disagree is irrelevant. You're not going to change a standard ruling even if everyone (including the floorman) thinks the standard ruling sucks monkey balls.

I've seen it plenty. Not every day, but a few times a year. Maybe grandstanding was the wrong word. I think sometimes people just haven't yet put together all the pieces, or maybe they honestly don't realize that this is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Maybe they think they're getting one over on the psychological battle, and their brains haven't caught up with them. Who knows.

So yeah, sometimes it DOES take that long, and inside my head I'm as incredulous as you are here.

wrong to do but you have to let it go as you cant really penalize him for it.

but he will learn fast as in many rooms if you are facing a bet and you intentionally turn your hand face up it is considered a fold.

While you can't really penalize him for this instance .... If the floor would get it right and tell him its not acceptable behavior you might stop him from doing it again. Unfortunately this floor has guaranteed it will happen again.

yea floor should have said the right thing. but if its acceptable to show hands and slow the game talking then there isnt much you can do about it in that casino.

i would like to see the floor tell him that a hand turned up in that spot might be called that it has been folded. so beware in the future.

So based on this floor ruling can the button also expose his hand?

Curious...how did rest of hand play out? I ask because I am wondering if UTG+1 asked for ruling to kill a superior hand, or if he asked for ruling knowing the house rule and was trying to induce a call/raise from inferior hand.

in the heat of battle just like poker players, floor people also make some bad rulings. most of them are ones that need to be thought through before speaking out.

Literally just witnessed a similar hand.

3 players to the flop. P1 goes allin and is called by P2 and P3. Turn card comes and P2 goes "Wanna check it down?" and turns over his hand. Floor is called, rules P2's hand dead.

With action still pending, I think this is really poor etiquette by the CO. If both players had gone all-in, sure, show if you want to. You're closing the action and exposing your hand won't change anything. Now it could. Killing his hand is harsh but it's really the only thing that would stop crap like this.

This.

I was just called to a table the other day for the exact same thing. It was after the hand was finished and the player just was questioning if it was allowed. The player that showed his hand in my case was the player that made the bet after another player was allin. He showed one card and his opponent ended up calling. I simply told them all that no, it is not allowed and to please refrain from doing it again as it will be grounds for a temp ban. Heads up is only heads up if there are 2 players in the hand when we are talking about showing your hand.

As far as OP is concerned you didn't give us enough info. In the room in question, is a hand dead if you show it when it is not heads up? If they have that rule that kills your hand, then yes, his hand should've been dead. If they don't, then no, his hand is not dead and all we can expect is a warning.

And, yes, the floor was wrong to say what he said.

The casino rule where I play is if heads up you can expose your cards without killing your hand. But in this situation it's multiway even though one person is all-in, so belive exposing your cards should kill your hand. The guy who exposed his cards, I believe had no intention of calling or raising all in even though it took him 2 minutes to decide - I was just really curious on the ruling.
If I was the guy all-in I would be happy about someone exposing their hand.

As the hand played out. The guy with exposed hand had pocket 7's. The UTG+1 had ace/queen(and won) never seen the all-in hand as his hand wasn't shown

Room rules vary, and as mentioned, there are wrong decisions made at least from time to time.

I'm not a fan of killing hands, but rules are rules. A 3rd player already all-in does not make the other 2 guys HU for purposes of exposing hands (IMHO).

I am a fan of moving the game along, and as soon as I see a guy shifting to get comfortable for his soul read, or showing cards to a neighbor (or the whole table), the blood temp start to rise. When I get to write the rules... exposing a hand should be discouraged, and multiple infractions will be grounds for temp bans.

I really don't consider this hand similar at all. Here P2 is actively seeking collusion. This is the most blatant form of cheating. I think his hand should be killed even if he doesn't turn it over. Or if you really don't like killing hands, keep it live then ban him from the room forever. This is not a minor offense.

I like Ray's take that exposing cards means a fold. We're not killing hands, we're saying that this action equals a fold. The problem is that this isn't universal, so you can run into a lot of problems.

Good luck getting any 1/2 player to understand this. "But we're heads-up!" And what's worse is that 99% of the time it's not a problem anyway. Nobody ever believes me that the 1% is a huge freakin' deal. I'm just a super-nitty tightwad out to ruin their fun.

it was a bad ruling but this situation falls into the it really doesnt do harm category. this is why.
the action of exposing the hand can either help or hurt the person who is all in. sure it shouldnt be done but the allin could benefit say if he had a monster or say a draw and wanted both to call. and it could hurt him if he had a hand that beat the first player but not the second.