On the flop it's checked to the 6 seat who says out loud so everyone can hear, "I saw her cards (meaning the 5 seat) so I'm gonna check too". There are players left to act behind this guy. A few players on the table object and the floor gets called over.

Seat 6 says that he didn't intend to look at seat 5's cards. He said he was looking at the pot and just happened to see her cards when she looked at them herself, and she didn't intentionally show them to him. He explained that it was an innocent mistake and he was just being honest when he said what he said.

What do you do here as the floorman?

simple problem, have her show her cards to the whole table, and thank him for his honesty

My ruling: Receiver clearly had both feet in bounds and complete control of the ball. First Down.

Exactly, her hand must be tabled and announced, then she can turn them back over and play continues.

glad u believe her hand must be announced to the whole table and shown, i once in a similar situation said out loud what the hand was i saw--since the whole table had the right to know. because of this they made ME out to be the bad guy.

yeah, the problem is that it's much easier to keep quiet than it is to go through this whole discussion/call the floor every time you see someone's cards, that's why people tend not to speak up.

Sometimes players feel like you're punishing them by making them table thier hand, when if fact you're just making sure the playing field is even. They usually learn to protect their hand more carefully though, which they'll never learn if nobody says anything.

Yeah, a pretty easy one really, but a few folks I know disagree with my ruling and I wanted to be sure the altitude wasn't getting to me.

I ruled that the player in seat 5 has to show her cards to the table because seat 6 based his action on his viewing of those cards.

This is where it gets kind of funny. Seat 5 hears my decision and slaps seat 6 on the shoulder and says "You should keep your mouth shut! You donkey, doooo maaaa, what are you doing, etc, etc." She had middle pair on the flop.

Seat 6 gets very aggitated, probably from being kind of embarassed, and starts to argue with me about the ruling. He calls me foolish, arrogant, incompetent, not deserving of my job..... OK, enough. I say, "Have a nice night sir...you can come back tomorrow if you want but you cannot play here any more tonight" My usual PC "get the f*** out of here" line.

He resists and says "I'm not leaving". To which I reply "If you don't leave on your own, you will be phsically removed". Hey, I had a pretty good list...I had to get another guy in there.

He bascially says "F-U", so I get on the radio and call for the security goons who tell him that if he does not back away from the table that they will literally drag him away from the table.

He comes to his senses then but he makes me call the Div. of Gaming. Fine. I call them and it takes them about an hour to get there. The guy is sitting there on an empty table just fuming and glaring at me me like I'm the antichrist the whole time while he waits for Gaming with a security goon standing right next to him.

Gaming arrives, gets the story from me, the dealer and the player and says "Even though it's not a Division of Gaming rule but a house rule I agree with the floormans ruling here (yaddda, yadda, yadda)".

The guy erupts into this rant about how we (casino employees, the Gaming Investigators, etc) "are in the mafia" and "working together to beat the people". LOL. Half the room was laughing at this fool. Now he has a 90 day "exclusion" from the poker room for being such an a-hole.

Don't be fool like this guy if you make a mistake or have a ruling go against you. Even if you don't like decision that's made, it's not worth freaking out. Vote with your feet and go somewhere else if you don't like how a room's floorman rules certain things.

"You saw her cards and now she has to show them to everyone else."
"Oh dang it - sorry seat 5..."
Done deal.
LOL!

That's beautiful. Guy tries to do the right thing, gets scolded by another player, plays "macho tough guy" and then ends up getting booted!

Right decision...wrong outcome!

It isn't the altitude, but I am not requiring her to show her cards. Seat 6 says he saw her cards, but is there any reason to take his word for it? I mean he probably did, but we can't really confirm it and poker players sometimes will say something that is not true.

Juanez, That is a terrible ruling, where do you work? On what basis do you make that decision.
If a player behind bets and then then seat 5 can make a decision and then seat 6 ,makes a decision. If seat 6 folds, play the hand out.
Sounds like you made up your own rule and ruined the hand and then seat 6's session.
Can you quote the rule behind the decision? Please don't use show one show all.

What RR said. This creates an ultimate angle opportunity (an angletunity?). If you want to see any players hand who mis close to you just pull out the old "I saw that hand so I will....". Also would be a handy collusion tool.

AW

doesn't this open a huge hole for angle shooting? You could just say you saw somebodies cards when you didn't and force them to show?

edit: read every post except the last one... But I agree with it, obviously.

Seat 5 should have been the one who needed to be restrained.

My ruling:

In no way does "I saw this person's cards" mean they now have to show them to everyone.

Floor gets called, seat 6 tells the floor quietly what the cards are, floor looks at seat 5's cards. If seat 6 is correct with what they told the floor then seat 5 must turn the cards face-up for everyone, if seat 6 is wrong then I probably give them a warning, but not sure what the punishment is for a 2nd offense.

I mean this case there's not a lot of harm and seat 6 is probably telling the truth as they don't have much reason to lie here when it's simply checked, but any procedure that says "if you claim you saw the cards they must turn them up" is pretty ridiculous when you think about what happens if a big 3-way pot happens and all of a sudden player 5 pushes all-in and player 6 now says the same thing with someone behind them. "Oh you just went all-in, well I saw your cards and there is another player in the pot, you better flip them up now based on my word that i saw them."

Seat 6 is right to argue with your ruling if it really went as you wrote it. Their behavior is clearly over the line, but your ruling was wrong imo. (Or perhaps more accurately, your ruling may have been right, but you didn't follow the procedure to verify if it was a good ruling or not)

So you made a horrible ruling, and then parlayed it into throwing out the guy who was trying to do the right thing (though was totally wrong about what that was). Well played.

You have to confirm that Seat 6 really saw Seat 5's cards. Have him tell you what those cards were, then you need to confirm it yourself. Then if Seat 6 is correct, you flip over Seat 5's cards. If wrong, you need to warn Seat 6 against angle shooting.

However, Seat 6 is an idiot and overreacted. You guys being the mafia, he clearly needs to be shot out back.

Why is everybody else at the table entitled to a look at seat 5's cards? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Is everybody else entitled to know when I see seat 5 give off a tell as well? The reason you show cards that were exposed during the deal is that *the dealer* can't be giving any player an advantage, but this was a player that exposed the cards. Cards shouldn't have been exposed, play should have just continued.

Absolutely correct.
Why interrupt the flow of the game?

What was the right thing this guy was trying to do? Can't unshow the cards.

Tells=/=what someone's cards are. One is subjective and needs to be deciphered while the other is kind of obvious.

Seat 5 gave 6 an advantage by accident. Best ruling is Charcoal's.

Well you can ask him to tell you what her cards were, and if those were her cards then i think it is safe to believe that he saw them and didn't just guess correctly. And if he in fact did see the cards show one show all applies.

But I agree that this needs to be ocnfirmed before you show seat 5s cards.

So then you would be okay with two players sitting next to each other showing their cards to one another. You wouldn't apply show one show all because you think its just a tell when one player shows another player there cards.

Showing the cards at this juncture is like a premature ejaculation.

Let the hand play out. If Seat 5 folds, show the hand, if that makes the floor happy. If it gets checked all the way down, she may show her hand, or the floor may show her hand. The action could be bet and raise and fold and fold (seats 5 and 6) so who cares that he saw her hand.

Let the hand develop. It is similar to a turn card that comes out early when a player bets and a player calls and the button has not acted. The first business is "action is on the button, with the fact being if you call the card is going back into the deck." If the button folds (and no other players are involved) the turn is okay because no one got an advantage. Same situation here.

Seat 6 already has an advantage since he saw her cards and then acted on said info. If he would have saw them after he checked I could see the ruling being everyone acts until it's 6's turn again.

It has nothing to do with it.

She inadvertently flashed her hand. He announced it, and checked.

You support the floor here? Let the hand play out, and don't punish her for her mistake, she still could have folded. Let the hand play out is the common sense answer. This was handled poorly.

.

That's not analogous to what happened here though. In your example there is one player with the extra knowledge who is still to act. If that player folds then no advantage is gained by anyone. In this case the player with the information is still in the hand. Just because that player checks doesn't mean they've had no action, checking is an action. Your scenario is ok in that no one got an advantage, seat 6 does get an advantage here because seat 5's cards will not be "changed" like the turn card would in your example. Seat 6 will know exactly where they are in the entire hand in relation to another player.

A much better example is a premature turn card after 2 players check before button has acted. You then tell button "if you check we'll leave that card, if you bet we're putting it back in the deck". imo that's not the proper way to handle it. "Oh I have the nut flush draw and the turn completes the flush, ok I check then since checking will give me the nuts on the turn". Your argument is essentially that no one has an advantage because everyone checked, the problem is that they DO have an advantage because they're still in the hand and know someone else's holdings.