Live PLO game at MCC in Detroit. The rule in this room is that a revealed hand in a multiway pot, with action still pending, will be declared dead, except under unusual circumstances.

There are 4 players in the hand. The pot was raised preflop to $50, with both blinds, utg, and the CO involved.

The flop checks around. On the turn, both blinds check, and utg bets $200. The CO calls, as do both blinds.

On the river, the first three players check, but the button hasn't done anything. The dealer is looking at him, and all indications are that he is deciding what to do. Now, the BB tables his hand, before the CO has acted, or really had much time to act. The SB immediately asks the dealer if the BBs hand is dead, and the CO announces, correctly, that he hasn't acted.

The floor is called, and the consensus among the players, besides the bb, is that the player revealed early. The BB says that he didn't know the CO had cards, and that the CO was covering them with his hands. The dealer tells the floor that the CO had his hands over his cards, which isn't really an answer, since everyone has their hands over the cards in some fashion to prevent them getting mucked. The way the CO holds his cards, it is not difficult to see them. He doesn't hold them with his hands hiding them. Also, BB was seat 9 (MCC plays 10) and CO was seat 6, so bb has a pretty clear view of the CO.

The floor comes over and, despite the protests of the table, declare his hand live, because the dealer said the CO had his hands over his cards. I am of the opinion, as an observer in the hand, that it was not difficult, through the course of the hand, for BB to see that CO had cards, if the CO did cover his cards, it was only briefly, and that it was a careless mistake by BB. Basically, he should have known CO had cards, but wasn't paying attention. His hand should be dead per the rule, as this seems a pretty clear-cut violation of the rule. The rule may be harsh, but the poker room even announces over the pa a few times a night, reminding people of the rule.

What do you think?

I think if a card room has to repeatedly announce a rule over the P.A. several times a night because it is so non-standard, they might want to consider adopting the more standard rule for this situation.

Well if the rule is that an early exposed card is dead ecepot under unusual circumstances one would have to define unusual circumstances in order to apply the rule.

Sounds like the rule was rightly enforced. My guess is the intent behind the rule is to prevent intentionally showing cards and the caveat is there for just this type of situation. The unusual circumstances basically means it's up to the floor. They said it was unusual, so there you go.

That's how I feel about it. If the floor thinks somebody accidentally exposing their hand is "unusual", then the hand is live. If the floor thinks that exposing your hand because you wrongly thought it was time for showdown, is "unsual" then the hand is live.

OP do you think the spirit of the rule agrees with the hand being killed here? If so, could you tell us what you think the spirit of the rule is?

If the rule was introduced to stop the exposing of hands "to get a soul read" and not to punish honest mistakes and the Floor was given the power to grant dispensations, then I feel the ruling was just.

Terrible rule. Hand should be live and CO has all available options.

IMO this is not the reason the rule is in play, its more to stop players from inducing, or stopping, action when multi-way as an angle (and as a mistake), which has apparently been a problem in Michigan in the past, which is why we use this rule at our room (against my weekly plea to change it), its does not apply to HU action.

Having the clause that it can be reversed due to 'special situations' is pretty tricky, we are not as lenient at our place because we do not want to seem wishy-washy with the rule. Our dealers are trained to announce, in certain situations, things like "3 players, one is all in, there is still action, do not roll your hands" before the next card comes so it seldom ever happens, but it does suck when it does.

This rule does NOT apply to tournaments anywhere as far as I know (it used to at a different charity room but I think they got rid of it).

I feel that if you are going to have a 'special situation' rule you may as well just toss it out, which I hope we (and all other rooms) will soon.

One big problem is players hiding hands (even if just a portion), which can be tricky, and sometimes players feel like dealers are being bitchy telling them not to do it all the time. I have heard stories of players hiding cards on purpose to make someone pre-expose and have a dead hand (though I have never seen it and it could be a myth - but its plausible).

In our room the hand would be dead.

As said above, if you have announce over the loudspeaker several times a night a rule, it is likely a bad rule. Like this one is.

The spirit of Robert's Rules of Poker on dead hands is that it should only occur if the player has agreed in advance to the killing by their action. Even if the clock is called, there is an implied consent that after the time expires the hand can be killed. Otherwise, hands shouldn't be killed.

However, house rules apply. The floor gets to decide what is an unusual circumstance. The floor did. Next hand.

If the house rule is that a Floor gets to interpret what the circumstances were on premature showing of cards , then how he sees a particular situation is how he will rule. And yes this can and likely will vary a lot from hand to hand and floor to floor. But it is (OP says) a rule that the room does not hide from the players so , play on with that in mind.

Room rules vary. If the player does not have a habit of exposing early, and it's plausible that they thought the action was over, then I'd like to see the hand remain live (with any penalties other than dead hand if the CO decides to raise and there is still action).

I'm against the strict interpretation, but can only see it as a rule to help the dealer/floor in the case of a player who regularly does it. I'd still rather see warnings and penalties for a player who breaks the rule, instead of a rule that may punish the innocent.

It's a cash game. The best penalty for intentional or repeated violations is being shown the door.

Dumb rule, point the floor towards this thread. And dont attempt to enforce dumb rules just because they are there.

My room had this rule. I got caught showing with 3 in the hand after player to my right was allin and I had him covered. I had him beat and he drew dead but he called the floor and got my hand called dead- he lost and I wouldve anyways.

I think the reason for the rule is to stop ppl from exposing prematurely on purpose. This was likely not on purpose and probably falls under those unusual circumstances and thus the player's hand should be live as ruled by the floor.

Either way, the rule is ******ed and should be erased from their book.

Well, if the room wants to stop the intentional exposing of the hands early, they have to give the Floor the power to give repeat offenders a time out of some length for punishment.

Sometimes I feel like card rooms change the rules every week one day it's you can't bait by showing one then the next week it's cool you can bait for reactions. It's different but mini don't think a players hand should ever be dead inless they muck it also depending on who the player is some people can get away with anything. I've seen old timers get away with some crazy stuff just because they have a certain card status and are their everyday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk