August 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
Categories
Latest Postings
Links
Archives
Meta
« Allin player leaves during a hand??? | Dilemma: Fouled Board, Mucked Cards, Dealer Error… »

verbal is binding?/ exposing cards during live play

I had 3 players involved in a hand, NLHE cash game. After the flop, Player A bets $75, a player between A and B with no cards says raise, Player B and C Fold. Players B and C cards were thrown together so there was no way to sort them out. I refunded player B and C monies and made player that announced raise put $150 in pot and awarded pot to Player A. Right or wrong?

Hypothetical qeustion. Player turns over 1 card after flop with 3 others in pot and then bets. What is proper procedure? Thanks

This entry was posted on August 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm and is filed under Bets, Min Raise, StringBet, Fwd Motion, Act Out-Of-Turn, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

| Print

One Response to “verbal is binding?/ exposing cards during live play”

  1. ChicagoMike says:
    August 11, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    Hobbit:

    On the first situation you have wide latitude, and IMO your ruling is probably as good as any.

    Of course I wasn’t there, and this is just armchair quarter-backing but I probably wouldn’t have refunded the entire amounts that B & C had in the pot. Even though this idiot player said “raise”, B & C have SOME CULPABILITY in that they should have been following the action more closely and recognized that the idiot didn’t have any cards.

    Also, we have to ask if it’s fair to Player A, who made a legitimate bet, to not benefit from his action because of this idiot and to be denied his (albeit possible) victory of the entire pot because B & C did something that THEY shouldn’t have done.

    SO, we have 3 people who have acted irresponsibly (the idiot, B and C) and one person who has acted responsibly (A). There’s an “adage” somewhere out there that says one persons bad action doesn’t prejudice the rights of others, i.e. just because the idiot, B and C all act bad doesn’t mean that Player A loses what he’s entitled to, or lose the rights to action he would otherwise take.

    This is a long-winded way of saying that in this event I would probably award the pot to Player A, and then work out some sort of penalty on the idiot. Perhaps making him put in his raise and dividing THAT between B & C as some compensation for their (potential) loss; or perhaps refunding just the bet to B&C on this last betting round but not earlier amounts they put in the pot… Or honestly not refunding anything to them and just ejecting the idiot from the table or giving him at the least a time out. It would all depend on the nature of the game (I’d treat a “frat house” tournament different than a formal championship, for example)… you’re given fairly wide latitude in fashioning a penalty.

    As for the 2nd example, you’re talking about card exposure and those rules apply. For first offense in a tournament it’s usually NOT a dead hand, but it may involve a penalty after the hand is over. For second offense and on it can be about anything you deem appropriate.

    As for the action once the Player turns the card over, it doesn’t affect any of the rights of the other players (as the “non prejudice” standard above). His bad action does not prejudice the rights of other players. They can go ahead and call his bet, fold, or raise as they see fit. Then you apply your penalty AFTER the hand is over. Keep in mind this is a tournament rule, many cash games will permit card exposure, just depends on the house rules.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.