2 Rulings On One Hand

[doudave 0]

O.k. Playing in a home game with these guys for the second time and I'm not involved in this hand. We are sitting on a round table playing 1-2 no limit. I'm in the big blind, as we're getting our second card the two guys sitting across of me start telling the guy sitting in the small blind that his card flashed and they saw the K of spades, they repeat this a couple of times at which point the guy says you are wrong, so we drop it. The pot gets raised to 10 dollars and the small blind calls. The flop comes K27 at which point the small blind bets out 15, the only other guy in the hand is one of the guys that called out the card before the flop. Anyway, the guy thinks for a few seconds and says I put you allin. He puts out 31 dollars thinking the SB had only 16 dollars left. Here is the problem, the small blind had like 70 more dollars in cash sitting right next to him (between me and him). Anyway they turn over their cards and the small blind shows KK for a set and the other dude shows 22 for a smaller set. The Kings hold up and the SB is like you owe me like 70 more. The other dude says he paid him and he didn't see the cash in front of him. A couple of seconds go by before I say this hand should not even count since his cards were exposed before the hand and he lied about having the K. He says no and I realize that I made my point and I'm going to keep my mouth shut since its not my money. They decide that the SB should get the pot without the extra 70. I know if it was me I would take half that pot back and in noway let that hand stand. What should have been the rulings here, If you dont have your cash directly in front of you and people don't see it what should be the ruling and also what's the ruling when a card is exposed and the guy lies about it?

[Suited_Up 2]

I have no idea on this one.

[fleung22 1]

Home game rule prevails.In a casino an exposed card is dead. I've never actually seen somebody flat out lie about it but I would think the hand doesn't count. Tough to say what would happen as a dead hand that's played to the end is worth money to the casino (rake vs. session fee may play a role in floor decision)In home games sometimes players have the option of keeping the exposed card or having it replaced. If you get the option in your game then I'd say this hand is good. If there's a hard and fast rule about exposed cards I'd follow through on that.

[rocksquid 50]

you better know exactly how much is in front of a player if you're going to put him all in. get a count.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

As for the flashing of the card, that doesn't matter, once the action starts with his two cards in his hand, and everyone agrees to let him keep those two. As for the cash, you should all know at the beginning of each hand whether or not cash plays. I would usually assume that if you wanted cash to play, you should put it on the table, if not leave it in your pocket. I would say that the guy with the kings should get the pot, including all the cash he had in front of him. "A couple of seconds go by before I say this hand should not even count since his cards were exposed before the hand and he lied about having the K."P.S. You can never say a had "doesn't count" and just call a redo. Once the money goes into the pot it's there for good.

[BDPoolie 0]

This is an interesting situation. I've directed tournaments and have not seen this one before.First, I would say that if anyone called out the exact card that it was, then the SB should have conceded that his card was seen and he should have flipped that card up to be the burn card and he should have taken what would have been the first burn card. If there was an argument about it, then as the dealer or tournament director, I would look at the card myself and if it was the exact card the guy had said he's seen, I'd call that card dead and give him another one.Since that didn't happen, the hand played on.The second example is exactly why, when I deal, and someone is all in, I like all chips to be 'in the pot' before the rest of the hand is dealt. A lot of people just say "deal the hand and we'll figure out the money later". I like the pot to be right first. This would have taken away any confusion in this hand.When the other guy said "I put you all in", and pushed out 31, the SB should have called and pushed his money out as well. At that point, the 'dealer' should have seen that the money wasn't right. If I was dealing and making the decisions, I'd have said that the larger bet would stand. Even though the other guy didn't know the SB had $70. He said "I put you all in", which is the same as saying "I am betting the amount that you have". The SB calls...Bet stands.Now, we're back to the issue of the SB lying about the card he had. Obviously he had already seen both cards and didn't want to give up the pocket Kings. If I was directing this tourney and had not seen the first part go down but was just told about it, I think I'd have to let the hand stand, but on the dealer's word that all of the above transpired, I'd give the SB a penalty to sit out x number of minutes.I would love to know what the SB would have done if the other guy had AA and hit an Ace on the river to beat him. Would he then complain that his hand should have been dead?

[doudave 0]

As for the flashing of the card, that doesn't matter, once the action starts with his two cards in his hand, and everyone agrees to let him keep those two. As for the cash, you should all know at the beginning of each hand whether or not cash plays. I would usually assume that if you wanted cash to play, you should put it on the table, if not leave it in your pocket. I would say that the guy with the kings should get the pot, including all the cash he had in front of him. "A couple of seconds go by before I say this hand should not even count since his cards were exposed before the hand and he lied about having the K."P.S. You can never say a had "doesn't count" and just call a redo. Once the money goes into the pot it's there for good.

The question was not if cash played or not, cause it did. We all had cash in front of us but we had it under our chips, he had his chips in front of him and the cash to the side next to him, i knew how much he did but I guess a guy from across the table might have not seen that the cahs was his. And for me saying what i said, it because he lied we couldnt look at the cards when it happened, but when he turned it over it was obvious that he lied. And as far as rules we were playing casino rules.

[Suited_Up 2]

Upon further review....First.... I would have smacked the one guy for saying "I put you all-in". (Nobody should ever say that and they deserve a beating if they do).Second, I would've smacked the shit out of the guy for lying. (Obviously liars get beat too).Then I would've called the hand a split because they're both idiots and neither one deserves it. They should also pay each of the other players at the table $5 a peice for having to sit there and watch their stupidity.That's what I'd do.

[Jam-Fly 8]

If a guy blatantly lies about his hand, he shouldn't win the pot. Assumin the rule is, all exposed cards are dead, if you refuse to do this, it's cheating, and you shouldn't win the hand.As it went, SB gets all the money, including the $70. If the other player doesn't see the cash, thats his problem. Also, it should be noted, if he saw that the SB had $70, would the play of the hand change? I can't see anyone folding a set in here (unless he seriously suspected the SB lied)This brings up another situation I'm not familiar with, if the SB has, the queen of spades for example, or the K of hearts, he is not obliged to get a new card is he?

[doudave 0]

This is an interesting situation. I've directed tournaments and have not seen this one before.First, I would say that if anyone called out the exact card that it was, then the SB should have conceded that his card was seen and he should have flipped that card up to be the burn card and he should have taken what would have been the first burn card. If there was an argument about it, then as the dealer or tournament director, I would look at the card myself and if it was the exact card the guy had said he's seen, I'd call that card dead and give him another one.Since that didn't happen, the hand played on.The second example is exactly why, when I deal, and someone is all in, I like all chips to be 'in the pot' before the rest of the hand is dealt. A lot of people just say "deal the hand and we'll figure out the money later". I like the pot to be right first. This would have taken away any confusion in this hand.When the other guy said "I put you all in", and pushed out 31, the SB should have called and pushed his money out as well. At that point, the 'dealer' should have seen that the money wasn't right. If I was dealing and making the decisions, I'd have said that the larger bet would stand. Even though the other guy didn't know the SB had $70. He said "I put you all in", which is the same as saying "I am betting the amount that you have". The SB calls...Bet stands.Now, we're back to the issue of the SB lying about the card he had. Obviously he had already seen both cards and didn't want to give up the pocket Kings. If I was directing this tourney and had not seen the first part go down but was just told about it, I think I'd have to let the hand stand, but on the dealer's word that all of the above transpired, I'd give the SB a penalty to sit out x number of minutes.I would love to know what the SB would have done if the other guy had AA and hit an Ace on the river to beat him. Would he then complain that his hand should have been dead?

This was a cash game, the money situation would not have really mattered at the end even if he thought the other guy had 300 in front of him all the money was going in on the turn or the river anyway. NOt like he was going to lay down a set there even he agreed to that. Tha main problem was that he lied about his hand, we had no offical dealer and no director so his word is all that we had to go by. You hit it on the head normally he would have turned his card up but since he had KK he didnt and that was B.S.

[doudave 0]

If a guy blatantly lies about his hand, he shouldn't win the pot. Assumin the rule is, all exposed cards are dead, if you refuse to do this, it's cheating, and you shouldn't win the hand.This brings up another situation I'm not familiar with, if the SB has, the queen of spades for example, or the K of hearts, he is not obliged to get a new card is he?

No, I think it has to be an exact card.

[Omaha Hi/Lo 0]

No offense, but this is actually pretty easy.He said, "I put you all in." That's the end of the argument. He put the SB all in , it doesn't matter how much he pushed forward ($31) as he said "I put you all in." If the cash plays and its on the table in play then it must be matched since he said I put you all in. As for the card flashing, since it was a cash game, he is allowed to keep it if he wishes. In a tournament he would get dealt a new card in exchange for the Ks

[thehidden 0]

Upon further review....First.... I would have smacked the one guy for saying "I put you all-in". (Nobody should ever say that and they deserve a beating if they do).Second, I would've smacked the shit out of the guy for lying. (Obviously liars get beat too).Then I would've called the hand a split because they're both idiots and neither one deserves it. They should also pay each of the other players at the table $5 a peice for having to sit there and watch their stupidity.That's what I'd do.

best response ever.When i first started playing seriously my casino in edmonton put in stead fast rules about angling. If you lie about your hand, or mis declare your hand before exposing it's dead. I like to go by that rule becuase it cuts down on the angling. If you are going to play in a home game, regularly, try and set up some rules. it'll help...btw both should be smacked for being idiots...who says i put you all in...

[Mercury69 3]

You are playing with morons and liars. Stop it and find a new group to play with.

[mclark340 0]

Rock - Scissors - PaperOn three...

[ed1776 0]

Not sure where I first saw this, or if I imagined it, but I've used it at a few home games where the rules aren't necessarily spelled out. If a card is exposed, the player has the option to keep the card but the card must remain face up for the remainder of the hand. It really makes it interesting since you don't know if the player has a pocket pair, 2 broadway cards or is just bluffing when they decide to keep the card and raise it up. If a second card is exposed then the hand is dead.

[BDPoolie 0]

This was a cash game, the money situation would not have really mattered at the end even if he thought the other guy had 300 in front of him all the money was going in on the turn or the river anyway. NOt like he was going to lay down a set there even he agreed to that. Tha main problem was that he lied about his hand, we had no offical dealer and no director so his word is all that we had to go by. You hit it on the head normally he would have turned his card up but since he had KK he didnt and that was B.S.

My bad...I misunderstood and thought it was a home Tournament. All of my comments were based upon it being a tournament.If it were my home cash game, I'd probably have made the decision to split the pot and explain that you can't lie about it, and then do all that other stuff that Suited_Up said and smacked them both.

[Omaha Hi/Lo 0]

Just to put this out there...There is NO rule that says you cannot lie about your hand.There is a rule that says you cannot tell the truth about your hand, but that is a tournament rule.

[Suited_Up 2]

Just to put this out there...There is NO rule that says you cannot lie about your hand.There is a rule that says you cannot tell the truth about your hand, but that is a tournament rule.

It's one thing to lie about your hand and it's another to have someone say they saw a card exposed, and then to tell them that it's not true.

[psujohn 0]

In the home game I play a card exposed by the dealer is dead and you don't get the option to keep it. If that's the rule you're going by I'd pull the Ks out of his hand and replace it with the first burn card (if you could identify which was the first burn card). As for the extra cash - unless the jerk with KK was hiding it somehow it would have to be matched. If you say "I'll put you all-in" without knowing how much your opponent has you're an idiot twice. The proper response to "I'll put you all-in" is for the dealer to say "He has $x - so you are betting $x". If the dealer misses the cash and the player doesn't correct him at that point then whatever amount the dealer called out would be the size of the bet.

[CrazyJoe 0]

hmmmm....... that's a tough spot, i dunno what i would do if that happened at my game, i might come up with something for future, but if nothing is known beforehand, that's tough. He should have turned it up and taken a new one obviously, but as it played i dont know.edit: the guy that lied is a douchebag and shouldn't be invited again

[JaxxVain 0]

I think that we should consider why there is a rule about exposed cards. Poker is a game of information. When one player has more information than another player about someone's hand, based on seeing, or partially seeing the cards, then the hand should be ruled dead OR the card should be turned over so that everyone has equal information. The person playing with the exposed hand should probably allow for a new deal, because they probably don't want to play with an exposed card.In my game we sometimes rule hands dead even if someone just catches a color or "paint" on someone else's cards.

[11 to 1 0]

Upon further review....First.... I would have smacked the one guy for saying "I put you all-in". (Nobody should ever say that and they deserve a beating if they do).Second, I would've smacked the shit out of the guy for lying. (Obviously liars get beat too).Then I would've called the hand a split because they're both idiots and neither one deserves it. They should also pay each of the other players at the table $5 a peice for having to sit there and watch their stupidity.That's what I'd do.

:D

[LincolnK 1]

if you have a hard rule that an exposed card is dead, without the choice to keep it, i call the guy's hand dead at showdown. the card has been "exposed" and specifically identified by a player at the table, and is ruled dead at that moment. if he argues, having the dealer/a bystander check the card seems like a good solution. since he keeps it, and nobody challenges, there are a few ways this could go. in this particular case, the hand goes to showdown and he's required to show 2 cards from his hand to win. since one of his cards is technically dead after being "exposed" and identified, he doesn't have a valid hand to contest the pot.the part about exposed cards being dead is in robert's rules of poker, as is the part about a hand being invalid without the required number of cards. i think the logic is good enough to get from one point to the other.edit:also, i call him for cheating no matter what.if his card is exposed, and is called correctly by another player, he should be obligated to report truthfully to the rest of the players, whether he will get to keep it or not.having the card exposed is going to create some common factual knowledge at the table. for example, if he had the 7h, and it was exposed, and everybody knows it, then everyone has equal knowledge of where the 7h is (in the muck, or his hand if he keeps it, etc). now say he gets the 7h and someone sees it enough to identify and call it. if he denies it (lies), then the rest of the table "knows" the 7h is somewhere else in the 51 cards left in the deck. he has given himself an advantage over the rest of the table by being dishonest (note: this is different than hands where no cards are exposed, and he's talking about his hand while playing it. it's then up to the other player/s to decide if they believe him). a close comparison would be the guy seeing a burn card, the other players being aware of it, and the guy telling everyone the wrong card.i don't know what the repercussions would be, but that's how i read the situation.

[doudave 0]

Like I said I did'nt really know these guys, I still really don't but if I play with them again some ground rules have to be set. Like if they do that again the will stand in the corner and get smacked.