OP you need to clarify this better. How did he show to seats 3 and 6 from seat 2 without showing to seats 4,5 or 7? What seat were you in and did you see the hand when he showed the cards to others?

In some rooms, the hand is ruled dead and in some rooms the hand can still be live. Neither way is clearly better than the other. I don't imagine the rules of poker ever converging so that this gets ruled the same way in every room.

The game was shorthanded and seat 4 was empty. The player in seat 5 was busy playing Candy Crush and not paying attention.

I may be off on a tangent here but....

Doesn't the "Show one, show all" rule come into play here? I've only played in 8 or 10 card rooms over the years, but in my experience, if villain shows his hand to his neighbors, he should also expose it to the table at large. Or in other words if he shows the hand to anyone he has to show it to everyone.

Wouldn't that mean that if he shows his hand at all, he's basically required to table it?

No. If a hand is shown as a result of SOSA, it is done after the pot is pushed, and does not contend for the pot. Same for IWTSTH, unless the pot winner is the one who requests it.

This and it also only happens by request of another player at the table. From my experience, >90% of the time a player shows his neighbors nobody else bothers to invoke SOSA/IWTSTH.

When someone does this they are relinquishing their right to the pot. V folded. Ship the pot to hero.

If the hand has been tabled, he doesn't surrender his right to the pot by misreading it or tossing it towards the muck.

I guess it comes down to whether he shows it to his neighbors only or to the table at large.

Showing your cards to people at the table is not the same as tabling your hand. Tabling your hand, means that both cards are turned face up on the table. It is the only way that a pot can be won at showdown.

You cannot fold at showdown.

Why would you consider this to be relinquishing their right to the pot? What advantage would they gain by doing this that it would be worth relinquishing their right to the pot? What is your logic?

I could see killing the hand if they did this to induce the other player to muck, then retrieved their cards. i could see a warning if they did this to get the other player to show their hand out of order. But I don't understand why you would consider identifiable and retrieavbale cards at showdown dead.

V bets. H calls. V has two options: He can either table his hand to make a valid claim for the pot, or he can 'fold' his hand and forfeit his claim to the pot. What did V do? He tossed his cards face down towards the muck pile. He surrendered any claim to the pot. He folded his hand.

FWIW, I blame the dealer for this entire situation. The dealer did not do his job and muck a folded hand.

Since when?

So did it just touch the muck or was it in the muck? OP is very unclear on a very important detail that really would be the deciding factor on a ruling here.

I read it to mean that he flashed his cards to a couple people at the table and tossed them in face down, but they were clearly identifiable. Someone says you have a straight and V retrieves the cards and turns them over showing a winner.

If I'm correct then V wins the pot and the player violating OPTAH gets a serious warning about following the rules.

At showdown you can't fold, you can muck. Folding is a binding strategic decision, mucking is not.

Why do you feel the best hand should not win once it is tabled? It doesn't matter than villain didn't realize he had a winner and tried to muck it. The hand was still eventually tabled after the erroneous mucking.

I don't feel the hand was tabled.
If it was, via showing it to other players, then cool.

The hand was tabled when he reached out and grabbed it and turned it face up. The majority of rule sets will allow this hand to be live if it was clearly identifiable.

The hand was tabled when the player or somebody else grabbed the cards after they touched the muck and then turned them on their back.

The vast majority of casinos does not require for a hand to be tabled at showdown if it is the only live hand left.

If the dealer and some other players didn't see the flashed cards, was the hand really shown down or "tabled"?

If not, then it doesn't make sense that a game rule violation(OPTAH) should lead to a valid showdown imo.

Yeah, IRTM sorry if my post came off harsh. I was on my way out the door and posting in a hurry. I read "briefly showed his cards" as showed them to the table, not just his neighbors, and considered that a "table," even if a bad one.

There is no question the hand was tabled. The questions are when, by who and was it proper. I do not think V properly tabled the hand initially. But after the OPTAH violation the hand was tabled. Not sure if V, the dealer or even the OPTAH violator tabled it but it did get tabled. At this point it is tabled and should win. At this point cards speak.

Now dealer should have mucked the cards quicker and completely. The OPTAH player should have remained quiet. But his violation does not kill Vs hand. Simply touching the muck solely should not kill the hand, though in a few rooms it will.

As to folding at showdown...technically once betting action is closed after the river, one can no longer fold. But he can relinquish rights to the pot. Some rooms this can be done with forward facedown motion at showdown. IMO those rooms and ones with magic muck are much fewer and use a bad set of rules.

Cards don't speak until the cards are face up on the felt.

Kick in the nuts to the dealer for not burying that hand deep in the muck as soon as the player tossed it.

So you're giving me the power to kill someone's hand by giving him unwanted advice?

At a casino, the floor will generally make a ruling base on

[x] Their rules.

[ ] Your opinion.

So, if, at showdown, you haven't acted yet, and I say, 'Hey, there's four cards to a flush, show if you have a spade.', your hand should be dead? There is potential your interpretation of the rules could result in abuse.

I grovel in mortification for missing the clarification