Generally heads up in a cash game either can show if they want. Not encouraged though. Also a room can have almost any rule they want. Though even if the rule is no showing the penalty should NOT be to kill the hand, not even in a tournament.

Btw there are no official rules of poker so the older gentlemen have a right to their opinion but they can't use those nonexistent end rule set for support

But ultimately the house can have their rules good bad or otherwise. In this case the best hand won which should be the goal for every rule every hand. But certainly nothing to get so animated and lose five plus minutes of play.

Cutting into my hourly rate by slowing down the game isn't a sufficient poker reason?

Might be a wry good reason but I would say it is not a poker reason.

All the supervisor said was "If a player shows a card then the hand is dead". That's it..then promptly walked back to his desk and stared at the hockey game.

You have to understand this isn't exactly a well regarded casino. The waiting list often conks out and turns grey and sometimes I see my name on the list beside someone elses name in the same position. It's pretty inept.

But yes, my point being that the supervisor made his decision and that is final. The supervisor may have been wrong to make that decision, but that's not Ed's problem.

I am guessing that perhaps these older gentlemen had played at the casino in the past and that was the rule before. They didn't mention that though.

The poker reason is because it used to get a reaction from the other player. It's considered a form of angle shooting. Not sure if that is correct, it is just what I heard from the other players.

Yeah but that's not a legitimate poker reason ...... There is nothing wrong with looking for a reaction from your opponent....

OK. Your initial description confused me. You said this:


So I thought that Larry flipped over his card while the floor was still there, but apparently he walked away before the flipped card. But my question still is, did the floor, when telling Ed he had to pay the money, actually state that the house rule is that a bettor can't show but a caller can? Or did he just say "the hand is live" without any explanation. I'm curious because I have heard of places that allow either player to show cards when heads up, and I've heard of places that kill either players hand if they show, but until this thread I had never heard of any room where one of the heads up players could show and the other couldn't.

I get the old men claimed that was the rule. I was wondering if the floor actually said that. Or did the floor actually realize that he was wrong about ed showing his card in the first place, and so he knew he couldn't kill Larry's hand at that point.

Showing a card (or both) was historically fairly common in poker, was "allowed" almost everywhere, and was viewed as a normal form of table talk, obviously intended to get a reaction. It was never considered angling (any more than asking "Do you want me to call?" was.)

But in today's sterilized poker, anything other than clicking... oops,I mean acting, is somehow considered by many to be angling and is banned in some rooms (generally the newer ones), though still allowed and common in many others.

Obviously the room should enforce its own rules consistently.

In today's poker world the word angle is applied to any conduct someone doesn't like.

Nobody.

Ed is the least wrong, though. And that includes the "Official Rules of Poker" twins. Ed gets a kick in the nuts, the twins get two each, and Larry gets like five.

If Larry knows that the floor won’t kill his hand, he’s flipping his ace over to see if Ed wants the hand to be dead or not. That would be a pretty sick angle.

Larry might have seen that situation in the past with the same floor and know about that weird ruling or he might just know that the floor won’t kill his hand because of who he is. The latter is more likely in my opinion.

This made me laugh. Not many angles make me laugh but this one did.

Also, I was in the, this isn't an angle camp until this post. Turning over one card is always about getting a tell and/or convincing the other player to fold. It can be deceptive but when within the rules (and it almost always is in cash games HU) it is nothing more than a strategy.

In specific, when facing a call if someone turns over both cards as if they have called, usually accompanied by "OK", then that is an angle. Because it lures the other person into thinking they are at showdown and two of the things that can happen next are bad for the non-angler. If he mucks his hand the angler wins without having to risk any chips. If he turns his hand over triumphantly, he will find himself winning the pot minus a call. Only if he waits patiently will he be rewarded with a call or fold from the angler.

No the Supervisor had left the area. Larry decided to turn over his card. My guess is that Larry's level of English isn't that good and didn't understand what the Supervisor had said. In truth I found it shocking that he flipped over his card and the dealer just didn't declare the hand dead and pass the pot over to ED. I would have said something myself but what if Ed had A-K or two pair..and actually wanted a call?

By the way I should mention Ed was new to the casino and Larry was a regular. May have been part of the decision making.


The supervisor was nowhere to be found. Je said what he had to say and then took off. The dealer just decided the play was live, ran the cards, which didn't help Ed and shoved the chips over to Larry. That's when Ed flipped out. Ed should gave yelled "stop" before the turn/river cards flipped over. But maybe Ed was hoping to get lucky and use the situation as a way out.


Doesn't make sense to me either. I have never seen this before either.

The floor never said there was any difference between the bettor and caller. He just said what I quoted above and walked away and never came back, even after Ed freaked out. The dealer basically listened to these old guys claiming that what Larry did was ok. Ed, though a terrible and overly aggressive player, was actually a pretty nice guy, calmed himself down and played on.

Basically the Supervisor made his ruling and then disappeared. It was a different supervisor then the first one, I think the first Supervisor was on break or something.

I think he flipped his card because he didn't even understand what was happening.

Nobody is that dumb or that smart.

These seem to be very different accounts. How can we discern the truth in this one-person Rashomon?



Does OP correctly remember what the floor said? Did the floor even come by the table? Was it, perhaps, some wandering hobo who sputtered some gibberish? We cannot trust the narrator of either version of this tale.

It was a different supervisor (or maybe security) who told him to calm down. Thought I clarified this in post 39.

They didn’t ask the first supervisor, who is max 30 seconds away from the table, to come back?

How many different supervisors roam through the room at any given time and does security make rulings in case none of the supervisors is interested to visit the table?

Very disappointing to get to the end of these posts here. I tend to be pretty anal with the wording of a post and this one has a lot of open doors.

1) It's very common for a Floor to say the minimum and 'get out of Dodge' when called over to a table.
2) Unfortunate that the Dealer was swayed by regs even though a Floor has just been at the table. OP suggests that the Dealer, not the Players, called the Floor over the first time. Did she call them over the second time as well. Did she explain to the 'new' Floor what the other Floor had stated?

3) Is it possible that the Dealer thought the call was put in before the card was turned over?
4) It's unfortunate for Ed that this ruling went against him, but once the second Floor is called over it's out of his hands unless he can convince them to get the first Floor to return ... he really couldn't have been 'that' far away.

5) May have missed it, were both Larry and Ed new to this room with 'language' issues?
6) Nothing is 'official' as poker evolves from one area to the next. Most rooms I play in don't allow showing of cards anymore, some never did. As a strange one ... Some restrict the talking to only the Player that action is on, even HU.

7) I'm assuming OP is a reg based on knowledge of room/list issues. You've stated not seeing this before ... but as a reg I can't imagine this has at least been broached in a previous hand.
8) Posters who are saying that killing the hand is 'the worst, last case' resort here are stating an opinion. There are only two choices here, warn or kill the hand, if a room rule violation is actually occurring.

9) TDA rules state that showing is not allowed with action pending and "MAY" result in a penalty, but the hand is not dead. That's pretty specific other than the 'may' about the penalty.

OP is asking who's right or wrong here ... I don't think we know for sure. The first Floor may not have taken in all the information about HU and all-in when making the brief statement and then taking off. If these two Floors are actually ruling in opposite directions then the room's problems are real and big. A young Dealer not being more persistent or even capable of passing on the correct information is not that unbelievable. A couple of regs swaying a Floor is pretty common, welcome to live poker. GL

OP has me confused as all hell. So, a supervisor came over and ruled that if you show any cards, then your hand is dead and he then walked away. Shortly after this, Larry showed his cards and Ed said his hand should be dead. Larry then called the bet and the dealer ran the board out declaring Larry the winner and pushed Larry the pot. Now, Ed freaks out because Larry's hand should be dead. Then, someone that may or may not be a supervisor or housekeeper or something comes by and tells Ed to calm down. Either way, there was never a supervisor called to the table to make a ruling to decide if Larry's hand should be dead or live. Is this pretty close to what went down????

My question: Why wasn't a supervisor called to the table to rule if Larry's hand is dead or live?

My opinion: Since a supervisor wasn't called to rule if Larry's hand was dead or live, then whatever the dealer decided stands. Larry's hand is live. Whether that decision is right or wrong, I'm not sure we will ever know. In most rooms I believe the hand would be live, but in most rooms, you are allowed to show cards heads up. Apparently in this room they just make up the rules as they go because no one really knows the rules.

In the rooms I've worked in, showing cards is not allowed. The general progression is a heads-up by the dealer, followed by a warning by the floor, and after that, the floor will kill the player's hand (and possibly send the player home for the night).

Now if a floor is called ahead of time and explains that showing cards isn't allowed and that he'll kill a hand (or a single card) if it's shown, then the player has absolutely zero recourse.

yeah I'm thinking supervisors don't want to be locked down..similar to many other businesses.
No just called over 1 time. The same supervisor kind of disappeared. The hand continued.

Absolutely not.
he foolishly let the hand play out. I think he either thought he could suck out by hitting 2 pair or maybe he thought he could complain the hand was dead after the fact. if I was him, I would have yelled out "stop".

I think the dealer was at fault here. She should have mucked Larry's hand when he turned over his cards.

Larry was a reg and had a heavy accent. Ed was new and spoke English clearly.

I have seen players show a card, with no comment on it. But the rules seem to change from time to time. I think it depends on the dealer, supervisor, table vibe etc. Similarly, I've been in some casinos with different rules on string betting.

You have to kill the hand once the Supervisor says so. To me it's not a grey area.

For what it's worth I went back to the same caisno last night and I asked the supervisor about it. He said that the hand isn't usually killed and the player showing is supposed to get a warning. He didn't say the hand would be dead.

So I think the other Supervisor was wrong to say the hand would be dead.

Welcome to live poker. I think it depends on whether a reg is involved less often than a lot of people think.

I think it's often coincidence. Reg and Floor have the same shifts so "Reg gets his way" is more a function of "Floor would have made the same inept ruling regardless of who called him over."

Reg may even prefer to play at certain times, knowing Floor will rule a certain way. Or think the game is more profitable because he gets a few bonus bucks from every bad ruling.

I know you backpedalled in a later post.... but your initial post described the card showing as "just then" which is why most of us assumed the floor was still there.


Remember there is a difference between how you handle something that has happened and something that you are asked about ahead of time.

If I get called to a table and told that you called another player a "jerk" I'm going to pull you from that table and have a discussion with you about the conduct and warn you.

If you ask me ahead of time if you can call another player a "Jerk" I'm going to warn you not to do it ..... If you then turn around and call another player a "jerk" you don;t get another warning .... its time for you to go.

Same principal may be at play here. Maybe if the player had exposed the card the floor would not have ruled the hand dead but warned that if it happens again the hand is dead. But because the player asked that initial warning was already given to the entire table.