Cards Speak?
What does it take to get me back on the forum? Situation in a cash game tonight that got me seriously tilted, and looking for opinions on the rule/etiquette involved, to see if my expectations are too high or if I'm justified in being upset.
The game is a well-run home game at moose's, which is generally well-run and follows all the normal/standard rules, so no string-raises, angle-shooting, or other shenanigans. Friendly and fun atmosphere, but the players are generally "regulars" who know poker etiquette and the rules (not many casual players).
The hand in question was with 800Over, and after much betting we end up at the river heads-up and it goes check-check. I turn over my cards and declare "2 pair". Nik says "just a 6" and is about to muck, shows his cards to the player beside him, and then as he's about to muck, that player points out "you have a flush". At this point Nik apologizes since he didn't see it, and scoops the pot.
My issue is that this other player was not in the hand and was not the dealer, and my opponent did not show either my or the dealer his hand, or simply table it face up. If he had done any of these things, his cards would speak, and I would have pointed out the flush myself. However, showing your cards to another player and then mucking is something many people do, but it deprives your actual opponent of the privilige/information of seeing your hand, and in my opinion is not the same as tabling your hand. My opinion is that the other player should have remained silent, and if Nik had either noticed on his own or tabled his cards, he would win. However, the other player interfering deprived him of the opportunity to do any of these on his own and "legitimately" win, and deprived me of winning the pot if he decided to muck without opening.
If it matters, the third player is a frequent player in home, underground, and casino games, and appears to know the rules. Also, for any who don't know 800Over, he wouldn't intentionally angle-shoot or slow-roll, and this was just a brain-fart on his part, and I don't think he did anything inappropriate in this situation.
So, my question is whether the third person should point out Nik's hand, or if he should remain silent and wait for the hand to be tabled?
The game is a well-run home game at moose's, which is generally well-run and follows all the normal/standard rules, so no string-raises, angle-shooting, or other shenanigans. Friendly and fun atmosphere, but the players are generally "regulars" who know poker etiquette and the rules (not many casual players).
The hand in question was with 800Over, and after much betting we end up at the river heads-up and it goes check-check. I turn over my cards and declare "2 pair". Nik says "just a 6" and is about to muck, shows his cards to the player beside him, and then as he's about to muck, that player points out "you have a flush". At this point Nik apologizes since he didn't see it, and scoops the pot.
My issue is that this other player was not in the hand and was not the dealer, and my opponent did not show either my or the dealer his hand, or simply table it face up. If he had done any of these things, his cards would speak, and I would have pointed out the flush myself. However, showing your cards to another player and then mucking is something many people do, but it deprives your actual opponent of the privilige/information of seeing your hand, and in my opinion is not the same as tabling your hand. My opinion is that the other player should have remained silent, and if Nik had either noticed on his own or tabled his cards, he would win. However, the other player interfering deprived him of the opportunity to do any of these on his own and "legitimately" win, and deprived me of winning the pot if he decided to muck without opening.
If it matters, the third player is a frequent player in home, underground, and casino games, and appears to know the rules. Also, for any who don't know 800Over, he wouldn't intentionally angle-shoot or slow-roll, and this was just a brain-fart on his part, and I don't think he did anything inappropriate in this situation.
So, my question is whether the third person should point out Nik's hand, or if he should remain silent and wait for the hand to be tabled?
Comments
Is this a rhetorical question?
C'mon man.
No, not rhetorical. Just wondering if it's reasonable to not table your cards thus depriving your opponent of the information of seeing your hand, which is to your benefit, while also gaining the benefit of having your cards speak? If you get both, why would you ever table your cards? Playing devil's advocate, I know you can invoke "show one, show all", but it's pretty customary that player's will occassionally just show the guy next to them and muck, and asking to see the hand if neither notices the better hand is actually to your disadvantage. So from my viewpoint, the person showing their neighbor is gaining all the advantages, which doesn't seem right. I like being friendly, but I'm not really interested in handicapping myself either.
It didn't look to me like he was and he hadn't done so yet. I also talked with him after the game, and he indicated that he was actually going to muck if it hadn't been mentioned. If he had tabled his hand there's no issue, the pot's his. However, he only tabled his hand as a result of the third player's comments.
Now you are asking if the player in the hand should have gotten the pot. Yes. Cards did not hit any detectable muck.
Both players should get a warning which is probably meaningless.
It's a friendly game however and expecting someone to remain silent when they have knowledge about someone's hand, whether it is at showdown or any other point in the hand, ie exposed card on the deal etc. invokes an atmosphere of cutthroat, win at all costs which kind of ruins the point of a friendly bi-weekly game.
Bottom line is I know the 3rd person felt bad about upsetting you because the hand was discussed after you left but I think he would have felt worse about feeling obligated to remain silent and letting the 2nd best hand win. That seems to me, to be the greater wrong.
If it is just a bunch of friends playing poker then I wouldn't care either way. If it is a structured poker game where people are trying to win then it doesn't matter how "friendly" the game -- it is always the largest indiscretion possible at a poker table to talk about a hand in which you aren't involved. Pointing out that a losing hand is a winner is probably the worst manifestation of this indiscretion as it 100% rewards the loser of the hand with the money. It is the player's responsibility to table his cards. That is a concrete part of a poker hand. The hand isn't over until he decides to table his cards or muck them and that is his decision -- 1 player per hand, period.
Is he also allowed to tell the person next to him that the other player is bluffing and that he should make a call? We wouldn't want the worst hand to ever win money.
I think this is the core question I have, and is why I described the game and the players involved. If it's a casual "anything goes" game, it would be overboard to enforce this. However, despite the friendliness, this game and this group of player's are all knowledgable about the game, and playing to win. Usually it's more for the enjoyment of the game and the pride of beating each other, rather than the stakes.
So when the players know the rules and they're generally enforced, is it reasonable to think "but we won't enforce this one, because it might get too competitive"? Even when you're having fun with friends, aren't the rules of a game (poker or otherwise) to ensure a fair and level playing field for all?
From how you describe the game I think that you are correct that the rules should be enforced. The question is how do you think they should be enforced without ruining the fun of the game. I think if the player outside of the hand is a friend of most of the players that just mentioning that this shouldn't be done (and explaining why if need be) should rectify the problem in the future. This should likely be done by the host...ideally at the time of the issue, but if it is a friendly game it shouldn't hurt anyone to do it prior to the next game in a lighthearted manner. Not enforcing these sort of rules will lead to upset players and deteriorate the fun of the game faster than saying nothing.
Nicely done Sir.
Again I didn't see the action but when you word it this way, I have to agree with you.
Kudos in your fine taste.
No...see above. How does playing someone else's hand for him protect the integrity of the game?
That's why no one should show anyone else their cards until after the hand is over. It is rare to have someone show their cards to someone and then still call or show their hand. I have read a rule where if you show your cards, at any point, to anyone, your hand is dead. Regardless if it would have won or not. That would clear up this situation nicely.
I have been to Moose's game once before and I don't think anyone would have a problem having this rule stated and followed.
BTW, I don't think you're holding a grudge or being a jerk about any of this, just that you're legitimately looking for how to handle a somewhat icky situation.
Already added to my thread.
I do have a solution though: Video cameras.
Nah, good points, well stated and interesting, but for poster of the week I've gotta go with the defending champ......
2500 weeks defending the title of "poster of the week" imo.
none of the above occurred.
Once its dead pointing out he had a flush, or not saying anything at all.....but if your mucking face down your cards dont matter, even if you have the nuts!
Clearly.
No he should not speak up.
The decision to table or not is not to be assisted.
One Player Per Hand!
It's not a catch 22. You should keep your mouth shut. The decision to fold or muck should not be assisted.
One Player Per Hand!