A player gets his opponent to fold, shows the opponent one card and mucks. Dealer flips both cards over and player loses his ****. Dealer says "Show one, show all." Player says "I only showed one!" Dealer says "I didn't know which one so I flipped over both." An argument ensues for 10 minutes.

Who was right?

Unless it was a house rule of show one show both then I think the dealer could have handled this better. That said if the player really argued about this for 10 minutes he could have reacted better. Player only drew more attention to something that can't be undone.

This happened to me once in a cash game. I'm usually pretty chill at the table but I got upset with the dealer. FWIW I typically show the whole table any card that I flash to someone but forgot this time, so its not like I do this often. Dealer got defensive asking how he's supposed to know which one I flashed, but it was clearly the bottom card. He later claimed manager told him he had no problem exposing both cards in this case, not sure if thats true and i have never talked to a floorperson about this, but I think it's bad customer service on his part. I get that what I did was annoying to him and slowed down his game ever so slightly but was not typical of me and he knows that. This was a hand that I 3 bet with and him revealing my 2nd card that I did not expose gave significantly more info than I would have liked.

In cash games, normally a dealer wont enforce the SOSA rule unless someone asks, though I've seen some do it after repeated violations. And I'm good with that. But in a tourney, I think its fine for dealers to enforce it themselves, since every hand and every piece of info affects everyone. So if you accept that premise, then I'm OK with what the dealer did, as the guy obviously was trying to circumvent the rule by showing and then tossing cards in together. I dont expect a dealer to follow what should be a routine muck closely enough to be sure which card was exposed.

It was the players fault for tossing them in face down together. So how else was the dealer suppossed to enforce the rule? Ask the guy which one he showed and then look for it? Maybe he showed the guy the significant card to the hand, but then names the insignificant card to the dealer.

I say tough **** for the player trying to get too clever by half. . Follow the rules and stuff like that wont happen to you.

I think the dealer was right in this situation. He had no way of knowing which card the player had shown. The player should have shown it to the entire table himself. He was way out of line for blowing up about this.

I think the dealers should ALWAYS enforce the rule. A player should not have to ask to have the rules of the game enforced at all times.

If a player only shows one card and makes it so that it is not clear which card is shown ... then if SOSA is invoked then the dealer has zero choice but to show both.


I have had this fight many times with players and it s really simple. If you don't want your cards seen don;t show them. If you only want one seen, then make sure that the dealer can tell which one it was (muck the other one first and then then show).

This makes me think you held them up but only showed the bottom card. Unless I'm staring at your display after everyone else has mucked and I'm moving stuff around preparing for the next hand, how am I supposed to know you only showed one? Do you even know 100% that you didn't show both? Do I know that you didn't shuffle the cards around before you mucked them?


I pay a LOT of attention at the table. More than most dealers. I'll declare the card you're showing if you do this and I see you do it. If you just showed the bottom card, I'll do my best just to expose the bottom card when you muck. I'll often quickly ask "What did he show?" if I'm certain you only showed one but I didn't see it. But you're leaving yourself open to having both cards exposed if I don't know for sure that you only showed one. Best solution is not to leave yourself up for this chance.

Technically the player is right, but if this really went on for 10 minutes then they are both idiots.

House rules, dealer error, whatever. If you're that concerned about giving away 'too much info' how about showing nothing to nobody? Just a thought.

I know of at least one room that has a "show one, show both rule".

Otherwise... This.

+1

If idiots wouldn't Hollywood like this, the problem never happens.

Every room should, IMO. You can't convince me otherwise.

The year I worked the WSOP they had this rule and I hated it. It was a PITA to deal with, many players quickly figured out the work around.... and I can;t think of any reason why it should be the rule ...... Can't think of any reason that a player shouldn't be allowed to show only one when in a situation where he need not show any. I do wish however that players wouldn't hold up the game for their shenanigans. If your going to show one .. show it and move on....

No room should, IMO. You can't convince me otherwise

And one good reason is?

Ytf,

Show one, show both makes no sense at all.

Why do you think it does?

It sorta prevents some needing, I guess.

Why do you think showing 1 card is needling but show 2 isn't.

Needling by showing a player a card that makes him rethink he made a bad decision is not worse than needling by showing a successful bluff....

And neither seem inappropriate behavior to me......

Good arguments ytf.

When one player tank folds, and the winner shows one card that doesn't help, but doesn't show the other, indicating their hand might be a bluff, is the needling. Like on a 4 club A high board, when you show a Jd, you might be needling the other player, because your other card might not be a club.

I personally didn't say either was inappropriate, nor that I think it should be SOSB. I'm just repeating arguments made in the past to support such a rule.

Don't see how you could stop the person from mixing one into the muck and showing the other. Unless you penalize them for this, the logic for which doing so seems dubious at best.

Dinesh,


Using that rationalization a player should never be allowed to show a bluff.

Well, the issue here is that it often isn't a bluff. It's (usually) a made hand, but the player shows only enough to make it seem like it's a bluff, even though it isn't.

The thinking goes, if you force the player to show both, they are less likely to do so (and when they do, it's less likely to be a bluff), thus minimizing needling.

Whether or not doing so (by showing either a full or partial bluff) is desirable is a different discussion.

Dinesh,


I'm not sure from what you wrote: Do you consider showing bluffs to be needling?

I don't really like that I am becoming the spokesperson for this particular issue, given that I was just explaining some justification I've heard for SOSB in the past, I am not personally suggesting it should be the rule.

But to the extent that you asked, and I have an opinion...

1- I think it's a spectrum, not a binary yes/no
2- Yes, I think showing a bluff is needling in many cases (ldo)
3- I also think showing 1 card is often needling
4- Showing a bluff is probably "worse" on the spectrum than showing 1 card, because in most cases where people do the latter, I think they actually had a hand, and the recipient probably knows that. So you're less needling them than showing them they made the right decision, because if it was a bluff, they'd have shown the full bluff, not just one card.
5- Having said that, showing a full bluff seems more acceptable to me by a miniscule amount, because you earned it (and are proving that you did so). Showing 1 card feels less righteous to me somehow, because you most likely didn't earn it, and are having your cake and eating it too. Yes, I know I am not really explaining this (and the previous point) well, but hopefully you know what I mean.
6- Having said *that*, I don't personally believe that there is any need for a SOSB rule. The only time I would even consider having it is if as a room manager I noticed it becoming pervasive in my room, and either noticed it slowing the games down somehow, or running off significant portions of my player pool who found it distasteful. It's a business, and I'll do whatever it takes to protect it for the long term.