Three players. Friends.
Stacksizes:
A ~ $400
B ~ $300
C ~ $350
A raises $16, B calls, C 3bet $75, A flats, B shoves, C snap-shoves, A is to act

A is fishing for information, B says nothing, C says "I cannot fold Kings here", A folds.
C has AA and wins against KK.

Aftermath: B is complaining that C´s hand should be dead as he revealed information and made me fold. Stating I would have called and maybe if he had AA he wanted me to go All-In also. Claiming by the intervention of C he lost value in vacuum (without knowing cards).

What is the correct ruling?

Slap on the wrist about talking multiway unless he's a repeat trouble maker with this stuff and has been warned before, in which case Floor might send him home for the night or ban him, but that's all based on previous stuff. 99% of the time this is just going to get a "Come on man, you know you can't do that. Please don't do it again"


Not sure what point is mentioning that everyone is friends?

Dealer should stop A from fishing immediately because it is multway. Dealer should shush C when he starts to answer. Floor, if called, can warn both players not to do it again. No way Cs hand is ever dead.

Could have made some impact in solving the matter (giving back half or similiar).

So hand stands, just a warning?

In multiway pots no talking is allowed?

Does it make a difference if C says "I cannot fold Aces here" (saying the truth about his hand)

Pretty much this.

Also B is shooting an angle if they only protested after they lost the hand.

C's statement is meaningless regardless - even if he had 72o, he could not fold, because he was already all-in. It doesn't seem like he was really declaring his hand. Would be ridiculous to penalize him any more than you should penalize him if he said "I have a banana hoosihopper". If anyone should be penalized here it should be player A for fishing for information in a multiway pot.

And if these guys are all friends, I'd hate to see how enemies act in that card room.

B seems to be quite the crybaby.

He should be punished with a punch in the face for being annoying and talking about the hand and if he said "I have a banana hoosihopper” he should get two punches in the face just because.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

I know this thread is about the ruling but I'm much more interested in the "Banana Hoosihopper."

In general the Dealer should step in when there is conversation multi-way but the fact that these are 'friends' certainly could loosen things up here and we can only assume this is a home game where rule enforcement has it's own dynamic. GL

A Banana Hoosihopper only gets beaten by a Royal Fizbin.

Unless it's Tuesday.

He didn’t declare a hand. He said he couldn’t fold kings. He also can’t breathe underwater. Neither declaration gives the value of his hand.

Never heard of anyone getting their hand killed for giving information like this.

Agree that B is angleshootjbf here y not speaking up before cards were tabled. Also his logic of how C’s talking hurt anyone makes sense

Not sure what you are saying here. But making a winning hand a half winner is just or nearly as bad as outright killing it. Worse in some ways. Non-rule supported decisions designed to appease both parties are nearly always bad and bad for the game.

Warning or a rack and on your way (for today, week, forever) are really the few 'penalties' in a cash game.

Correct, and it is amazing how many experienced players do not know this. They see banter on TV but don't recall that it was (nearly) always heads up on TV.

The reason for this is simple. 'Your' talk might influence the third parties actions in a way that can harm 'me'. You might induce a call where I have you beat but not him. Or it might induce a fold, where he was going to bluff and get you to fold. Either way, I can be harmed by your talking.

Technically there is talk that is allowed. But it is very limited and (nearly) all replies are forbidden.

And no, what hand is claimed doesn't matter.

Also remember the rules for cash and tournaments are different with tournaments generally being more strict. (Tournaments also have more options for penalties.)

I am trying to understand how B could have folded after he was all in. Unless he mucked a winner to a intentionally overstated hand at showdown. But that doesn't seem to be close to what OP wrote here.

Even if he had KK, said he had KK and said he could not fold, the hand should still not be killed. Best hand to make showdown should win. Now a post hand penalty of some kind is a different discussion.

B couldn't have folded. OP was unclear but I think he was player A and was referring to himself when he said "made me fold".

I don't know if player A should receive a warning since it's not stated what exactly he said.

When someone raises and says "I had to raise, I have aces", doesn't anyone know it should be taken with a grain of salt? He's either lying or telling the truth. Most people are FOS, as everyone who plays this game knows. So how can you hold him accountable for "lying about his hand" when it wasn't at showdown?

People raise all the time and say "I have aces this time, fold" and they show up with all sorts of hands. You're not supposed to believe people at poker tables.

The problem with talk at the table in a multiway hand isn't about whether it's deceptive .... It's that it violates 1 player to a hand. You are now getting into the thought process of another player.

Suppose you say “ I might have KK.” When in fact I do have KK. Now suppose the third player in the hand had not even considered the possibility that someone had KK. But now that you raised it he starts to think about it and it impacts the play negatively for me .... Now I am not playing against you two as individuals but as people sharing a thought process.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

There's a difference between a player in a mulitway hand saying "I have aces this time you should all fold" as opposed to him saying "This is the first time you 3bet me all day, I know you have it this time. I fold".

While I agree there is a difference in those two statements ... neither one is acceptable ..... both violate one player to a hand.

The second one bugs me more simply because their is not even a benefit to the speaker since he is folding his hand (the only benefit he gets is that he gets to feel smart)

There’s a difference but that doesn’t mean one is within the rules. Imagine player A says “I have a flush, fold” which leads to player B realizing for the first time that there are three of a suit on the table. Would you be OK with player A’s statement if player B was folding because of that, when in fact you are the player who actually has the flush?

+1