1-2 NL in casino, 3-way pot on flop. V1 bets, V2 raises on immediate left, V3 calls, action back to V1 who is thinking.

V1 checks his cards, but holds them perpendicular to the felt and it seems V2 would be able to see them. V1 grabs chips to call, then literally as he is reaching forward over the line V2 says "Be careful, I can see your cards." V1 freezes, is confused and pulls his arm back.

Floor! Now what? It was definitely forward motion, but V2's declaration is in a multi-way pot. V1 has to call? V2 hand dead?

No penalty whatsoever to V2. V1 has either called or not, depending on house rule as to what constitutes a bet.

Why would you even ask the question?

Inducing action in multi-way pot? I don't really think it was an angle, but say V2 is beat by what he sees in V1, so tells V1 he knows his cards hoping he will fold or slow down later in the hand.

So, assume V2 actually did see V1's cards.

He has an unfair advantage against V1 and V3.

Instead of informing his opponents that he has gained information that he should not have, you would prefer that he keep quiet?

And if he is honest and tells them, you would reward him by killing his hand?

Sure that's the innocent version, but it could be abused and I just thought V2 picked a bad time to announce it literally as V1 is making the call.

If V1 ends up folding later should it be shown to both players?

Why do people always want to kill hands?

That's a good question. Does show one show all apply to cases of inadvertent exposure?

I've also heard people in the past suggest that since V2 knows V1's cards V3 should also get that knowledge, which I do not agree with.

Ok forget I said that, obviously a last resort ruling I was just tossing out possibilities.

Of course it is on V1 to protect his cards and V2 could have stayed quiet and tried to exploit the information privately, but calling it out during V1s call doesn't help anything. Now V1 is nervous because he knows V2 saw his hand and V3 is still in the dark anyway. The declaration influences action in a 3-way pot, so do we do anything?

No. V2 made an ethical decision, contrary to his own pecuniary interests, to help protect the game by informing V1 that he was not guarding his hand. He deserves to be commended for his noble and selfless efforts. Action is on V1.

DIDSure in fact if there is any chance 2 saw 1 hand it must be exposed before additional action. As long as 2 is in the pot 3 or 4or others deserve that info. If 2 folds then expose 1 hand after this hand completes.

At the very least, 1's hand can only be forced to be exposed if villian 2 can name both cards by suit and rank. But I even object to the notion that V1 should ever be forced to expose his hand to V3. That is a devastating ruling, almost as brutal as killing a hand and profoundly unfair to V1.

My question was about after the hand is over, and whether or not V3 or another player at the table can invoke SOSA and see V2's holding.

Depends on room's rules regarding forward motion/betting line.

Most likely V1 is forced to call and the hand plays on. If V1 ever folds then his hand should be exposed to the table.

What if V2 really didn't see the cards?

Oh well.

What if you ask him to name the cards and he snaps off two other random cards knowing that he can keep that info to himself if he gives you the wrong cards?

Exactly. There is no way to be certain 2 did see the hand. But if it is reasonable and in this case it is, then everyone else is entitled to the same knowledge as 2. If 2 two folds before anyone except 1 needs to act. If 2 folds then you can wait to the end of the hand otherwise if 1doesnt fold he will be playing with his hand face up.

Wrong!! What is to stop 2 from intentionally naming the wrong two. Now he has knowledge no one else does. If the dealer or floor determine there is any reasonable chance the hand was exposed to one to one player then it must be exposed to all the others before they have to act again

This is a big penalty but the only fair one. You prefer to kill 2's hand when he did nothing wrong?!? You prefer 2 to be allowed to continue with info the others do not have.

In fact now thinking it through regardless of what 1 does his hand should be exposed before anyone else besides 2 has to act. Even if 1folds 2 would know two cards that are not coming which would not be fair to anyone else in the hand.

This is a weird situation since you can't be sure if the person claiming to see the cards actually saw them, or if he did see them, that he accurately recognized what they were. What if he thinks he saw the Kh but reallly saw the Kd or the Qh?

I recall in a similar thread where someone suggested that the floor say this:

"Player A claims to have seen Player B's cards, and believes them to be KhQd; I will not confirm that information, and everyone must play with that knowledge in mind. "

That seems sort of reasonable to me; it keeps Player B's actual hand protected if player A is wrong or angleshooting; but it alerts the others to the possibility that player A does have info they didn't have. Not a perfect solution, but seems about as fair as you can get under the circumstances.

I don't. I want to kill people .... but I can't get the floors on board with this.

Generally it's the only way some posters here can win at poker

Yes. Clearly player 1 didn't mean to expose his hand (why would anyone do that). He made a mistake. I am of the belief that we should be generally forgiving of mistakes at the poker table and that dealers should have a good deal of latitude when it comes to correcting mistakes. For example, if someone is facing a bet and they are playing with their chips and the chip falls from their hands forward, this should not be a call. Anyway, there is no need to further penalize player 1 for his mistake. He made a mistake, this is a mistake that hurts him, player 2 has already spoken up to correct the problem and prevent player 1 from continuing to accidentally expose his hand. The best thing to do is to continue on as normal. Forcing player 1 to expose his hand to player 3 is overly draconian and an inappropriate response to player 1's error.

1 + 2 +

It would have to be a pretty reasonable chance. If the chance is low or unknown then move on to step 2. It works for me to a point, what that point is I dont know, but allowing A to just state two cards at will, or suggesting they do so, makes me feel a little funny inside.

You are overly focused on the lesser of two offenses here.

I'm surprised we aren't more aligned around this answer. It is the correct approach imo. V2 has already offered that he has seen the cards. If you chose to believe him about that, then we can choose to believe him about what he thinks he saw. Or don't.