Showing Cards In Game

[Graham C]

I read a bit in the WPT magazine about playing AK and someone lost basically on a pair of kings and they asked Devilfish how he's have played the Cowboys and he said he'd have moved all in and then showed the cards before the other guy could make a descission.

Is it not bad form to show your opponants what cards you hold prior to them making a descission?

[Pokerron]

If he does his cards are dead aren't they?

[Graham C]

Not sure,

He said he'd have showed to know where he was at.  He (Devilfish) said he'd rather just take the pot there than risk an ace or a flush coming and that his opponant would have to take a risk knowing what the other guy had.

[ifm]

Rules can vary on this but everywhere i play the rule is that you cannot bet further only call.
Your hand is NOT dead, they did try this at walsall a few months back and it backfired spectacularly!

[TightEnd]

The hand is NOT dead...this is the current rule in all Grosvenors.

[peeveen]

Someone did something like this at one of the sit'n'gos on Saturday night.
Player in question was facing an all-in, only him left to either call or fold. He shows his two cards.
I assumed it was a fold, several other people at the table thought the same thing.
We later asked Mel (londonpokergirl) what the situation was, and she said it was allowed under those circumstances.

[shortstack_itb]

Someone did something like this at one of the sit'n'gos on Saturday night.
Player in question was facing an all-in, only him left to either call or fold. He shows his two cards.
I assumed it was a fold, several other people at the table thought the same thing.
We later asked Mel (londonpokergirl) what the situation was, and she said it was allowed under those circumstances.

Aye I heard about this!

The ruling is he can only check or call, however its sometimes thought as being ungentlemanly!

His name was Dale and he was a bit upset about the decision when i was talking to him he should be it was ruled wrong....would he have won??

[Pokerron]

The hand is NOT dead...this is the current rule in all Grosvenors.

Apologies, I knew I was wrong as soon as I pressed 'post'.  Lets see if i can get get 2/2.

If you show you hand before acting surely it gives you a totally unfair advantage?  I thought as soon as you show your cards (before acting) they are dead.

[peeveen]

His name was Dale and he was a bit upset about the decision when i was talking to him he should be it was ruled wrong....would he have won??

Yeah, that's the fella.
I can't remember if he had the winning hand ... I think it was against SheriffFatman, maybe he could tell you.

If you show you hand before acting surely it gives you a totally unfair advantage?  I thought as soon as you show your cards (before acting) they are dead.

That's wot I thought too. The idea is to read your opponent's reaction to the exposed hand. Dale's opponent was already all-in, so he could only call or fold, and I think it is that particular detail which made it a valid tactic. You learn something new every day.

I remember seeing someone try something like this on a TV poker tourney, and the TD told him he was out of order, and he had lost the hand ... I guess it is this which made me think it was an automatic default, whereas in actual fact there are circumstances in which it is allowed.

[Pokerron]

But even so, the guy who has gone all in might be bluffing, by showing his cards before he acts Dale potentially gets a unfair advantage by seeinng a physical reaction to his hand which could cost him a call, or earn him a fold.

[dik9]

If cards were shown on purpose to gage a reaction whilst not heads up then I would take action, to the point of disqualification. However if heads up then this is acceptable.

[I KNOW IT]

The hand is NOT dead...this is the current rule in all Grosvenors.

I believe this is the case when you expose your cards by accident, but if you deliberately expose them in a moody, I think they would be deemed dead.
Imagine someone being in a pot with a pal holding the nuts, and he turned them over to show his mate so he wouldnt put any more chips in the pot.

[peeveen]

If cards were shown on purpose to gage a reaction whilst not heads up then I would take action, to the point of disqualification. However if heads up then this is acceptable.

Apologies in advance for the pedantic question, but I'm genuinely keen to know ...
If two players went all-in, and you were the only player left to either call or fold, would it be valid? Not strictly heads-up, but the same circumstances.

Imagine someone being in a pot with a pal holding the nuts, and he turned them over to show his mate so he wouldnt put any more chips in the pot.

Yeah, that's DEFINITELY not allowed. If there are any other players still to act, then you've just made a major booboo.

[dik9]

If cards were shown on purpose to gage a reaction whilst not heads up then I would take action, to the point of disqualification. However if heads up then this is acceptable.

Apologies in advance for the pedantic question, but I'm genuinely keen to know ...
If two players went all-in, and you were the only player left to either call or fold, would it be valid? Not strictly heads-up, but the same circumstances.

As this is not heads up, I wouldn't allow it for the reasons I Know It stated. What if your mate is the one left to call? It is only allowed in Heads Up play i.e. 2 people left in the tournament.

[peeveen]

As this is not heads up, I wouldn't allow it for the reasons I Know It stated. What if your mate is the one left to call? It is only allowed in Heads Up play i.e. 2 people left in the tournament.

No, I mean if Player A goes all-in, Player B goes all-in, you are player C, your only options are call or fold, there is no other player left to act. Can you flip 'em over? I know it's a ridiculous " scenario, but these are the kinds of questions that keep me awake at night.