Duke attempts the Impossible

[thinsy147]

Surely accidental or not shouldn"t matter... If you show your cards you should have a disadvantage? You are responsible for your cards!
I think the ruling is fine.

[Paulie_D]

What about if they put themselves at an advantage by getting a read?  This is the reason "no aggressive action" makes sense.

Showing one"s hand (to get a read or otherwise) is covered in the rules (AFAIK)

22. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player in a multihanded pot may not show any cards during a deal. Heads-up, a player may not show any cards unless the event has only two remaining players, or is winner-take-all. If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one's hand during the play may be penalized.

As far as I know penalties (as mentioned above) should be assessed after the hand is over. If the floor thinks it"s an angle then he"s free to impose a greater penalty as compared to one for a noob.

[Paulie_D]

Surely accidental or not shouldn"t matter... If you show your cards you should have a disadvantage? You are responsible for your cards!
I think the ruling is fine.

He"s playing with is hand face-up for crying out loud...how much of a disadvantage do you want him to have.

He can"t get value if he"s ahead and he"ll be called by better hands.

This "no aggressive action" is just BS....but perhaps I"m alone in this?

[MintTrav]

Surely accidental or not shouldn"t matter... If you show your cards you should have a disadvantage? You are responsible for your cards!
I think the ruling is fine.

He"s playing with is hand face-up for crying out loud...how much of a disadvantage do you want him to have.

He can"t get value if he"s ahead and he"ll be called by better hands.

This "no aggressive action" is just BS....but perhaps I"m alone in this?

Hadn"t considered this issue before but I totally agree with Paulie. He has the disadvantage of his cards being face-up. If it was not deliberate, what is the reason for penalising him further?

[MintTrav]

What about if they put themselves at an advantage by getting a read?

This reminds me of one of my pet hates. I know I"ll be in a minority of one here but imo the people who say "raise" and then take a while before they decide the amount are blatant angle-shooters. This is a clear string bet, where the player can take the opportunity to gauge reactions before deciding on the amount. It"ll be the first thing I ban when I get power. Okay, go ahead and disagree, you dirty string-bettors.

[thinsy147]

Surely accidental or not shouldn"t matter... If you show your cards you should have a disadvantage? You are responsible for your cards!
I think the ruling is fine.

He"s playing with is hand face-up for crying out loud...how much of a disadvantage do you want him to have.

He can"t get value if he"s ahead and he"ll be called by better hands.

This "no aggressive action" is just BS....but perhaps I"m alone in this?

Playing his hand face up is noones fault but his own so no sympathy there!

Showing his hand and moving all-in afterwards can be an advantage in that he is scaring people from having a gamble.... I know ultimately you want people calling when behind but sometimes suckouts do happen!

[AJDUK]

Seen this no aggressive action thing many many times. Also seen the hand called dead - that"s happened to mel  
But never seen allowed to continue with all options allowed; doesn"t seem right, you need to have some penalty during the hand for not paying attention!  

Surely accidental or not shouldn"t matter... If you show your cards you should have a disadvantage? You are responsible for your cards!
I think the ruling is fine.

He"s playing with is hand face-up for crying out loud...how much of a disadvantage do you want him to have.

He can"t get value if he"s ahead and he"ll be called by better hands.

This "no aggressive action" is just BS....but perhaps I"m alone in this?

Paulie it"s a MASSIVE advantage to be able to protect your current holding on the flop by betting and giving incorrect odds to draw FFS - especially when they know for sure what you have. If you"re forced to check/call and you get outdrawn well that"s your fault for exposing your cards. C"mon think about it!

[MintTrav]

The question was asked on the TDA forum recently and they were virtually unanimous in allowing the player all options, though most would give a one-round penalty after the hand. The discussion takes a while to get going, cos the OP, Wolfster, seems pretty brain-dead:

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=297.0

TDA Rules include the following:

42. Exposing Cards
A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand.

[thinsy147]

What if the hand was played slightly different:

After the 10 high flop is revealed the player holding 10 10 "accidently" turns over one card revealing a pair of 10"s. He is then is allowed to make a bet.
The player holding K K is now being encouraged to get involved thinking he is ahead! Surely this is unfair?

Would you be happy if this was done to you?

[Paulie_D]

What if the hand was played slightly different:

After the 10 high flop is revealed the player holding 10 10 "accidently" turns over one card revealing a pair of 10"s. He is then is allowed to make a bet.
The player holding K K is now being encouraged to get involved thinking he is ahead! Surely this is unfair?

Would you be happy if this was done to you?

Now we"re getting away from the specific ruling which has a specific penalty (regardless of how BS I think it is) into a whole other scenario.

Frankly the two scenarios are chalk & cheese...in the first, the KK player knows EXACTLY what he"s facing...in the second...he doesn"t.

Without going too far into it, if the KK player chooses to think on thing that"s up to him...pretty dumb in my opinion.

The replies I"ve seem supporting the "ruling" pretty much all assume that this is an angle and should be punished. My point is that it might not be and by setting a specific remedy you are punishing the innocent with the guilty.

By allowing all options and assessing the penalty after the hand is over (and I think we all agree a penalty is warranted) the TD/Floor can weigh up all of the possible penalties and apply them appropriately to the crime/offender.

Seems to me the game is "cleaner" and more transparent by allowing all options...but, as I said, I seem to be in a minority.

[Marty719]

The replies I"ve seem supporting the "ruling" pretty much all assume that this is an angle and should be punished. My point is that it might not be and by setting a specific remedy you are punishing the innocent with the guilty.

Not innocent.  They turned their cards face up mid hand.  It is their error, regardless of whether their intentions were honourable or not.  Also, its pretty hard to tell if ppls intentions were honourable.  Its not like asking them would work...

[thinsy147]

The player is guilty of revealing cards when he shouldn"t! Accident or not!

So if you get stopped by the police and be found to have no insurance, will it make a difference if you accidentally forgot to renew it? NO

Are you allowed to carry on your journey without insurance? NO

Yes, this is a bit more extreme than just turning some cards over but the point is:

You do something wrong you are punished there and then regardless of the intentions/reasonings!

Just my opinion... Maybe I should have been a copper?!  

[MintTrav]

The player is guilty of revealing cards when he shouldn"t! Accident or not!

So if you get stopped by the police and be found to have no insurance, will it make a difference if you accidentally forgot to renew it? NO

Are you allowed to carry on your journey without insurance? NO

Yes, this is a bit more extreme than just turning some cards over but the point is:

You do something wrong you are punished there and then regardless of the intentions/reasonings!

Just my opinion... Maybe I should have been a copper?!  

Maybe - you definitely shouldn"t have been a Tournament Director, that"s for sure!

[duke3016]

This venue is a little different in that the joint organiser and chief bottle washer plays as well. In fact he was the player who exposed his hand and HE made the ruling. Post flop my hand was 30% ish and Karen"s was worse so no action obviously ensued. The boat on the turn had Karen dead to a river K only.

Now the exposure came pre flop AFTER Karen had called Howards call of my all in. He believed that she was also all in. Not withstanding the actual ruling, the flop stopped any action from Karen, however is that really relevant ?.

Even if he was allowed to bet he probably would not have anyway (personal reasons   )

[duke3016]

Anyway it"s off to the aquarium again tonight for more punishment......