Ruling please?

Hi, can people give me their opinions on what "should" have happened here?

Local "friendly" game, £10 buy-in, £10 re-buys up to 9:30, play to finish. Middle of the game 4 players remain after the blinds. Flop comes down 2s, Jh, 4d. P1 goes All-in (short-stacked) all 3 others call. Turn is 5h, all check. River is Qc, P2 & P3 check, P4 pauses a long time, then asks if the other two had checked (there's a lot of chit-chat and noise going on, on and around the table). P1 thinks P4 has checked so flips his cards over showing a straight. P4 calls foul saying that he hadn't made his mind up yet and that P1 showing his hand had materially affected his actions. His argument was that he might have bet when he was in with a chance of the main pot, but as he couldn't beat the straight he wasn't going to bet for a possible side pot. P1 had the best hand overall

On the night the pot was split 4 ways - I don't think that was right.
What do you think?

I think that

1. P4 was being a bit pedantic for a friendly club game
2. P1 should have verified the hand was over before showing his cards, if he didn't he has to take a penalty
3. P1 later claimed the dealer had said that all had checked - I guess that makes it the dealers fault, but the dealer wasn't a current player so couldn't be penalised.

Brgrds,

P4 Bad attitude..

I think it should of been determined what the dealer heard and what the dealer had said if anything to P4 or to the entire table.
If he answered they have all checked, talking to P4 and P1 turns over his cards, then it is P1 who is at fault.
If the dealer told P1 (or the table in general) that all had checked because he only heard P4 say the word 'check', how can he be at fault.
If dealer was unsure what was said, then yes he should of confirmed.

Irrespective of fault

I think in situation P4 should still be allowed to act if a side pot was possible.

Splitting the pot sets precedent and in a future hand should a player end up on a river with a hand if feels is behind, he could just flip his cards, claim that he heard the others check, and demand a split pot.

I've seen something like this happen before and the pot should still go to the winner and not split 4-ways. (This is just how the host handles it at the house game I go to)

P1 should have confirmed if P4 had taken any action. Also, dealer should be more alert and ready to step in:

1. To prompt P4 if he is taking action.
2. Alert table that P4 has yet to take action.

Don't invite player 4 to the game next time.He must be a whinny little b---h who cries when he looses.Player 1 had won the pot and as the was no side pot their should have been no split.

Pot should not have been split, Player 4 should still have action and player 1 should receive penalty for showing hand.

Cant see how people think player 4 has a bad attitude, yes he might have been beat, but irrespective of who had the better hand his comment is quite right.

It is very results orientated to dismiss P4 as rude/bad attitude, and you are not appreciating the wider context of his reasoning.

starting_at_the_bottom said:

Cant see how people think player 4 has a bad attitude, yes he might have been beat, but irrespective of who had the better hand his comment is quite right.

It is very results orientated to dismiss P4 as rude/bad attitude, and you are not appreciating the wider context of his reasoning.

Click to expand...

Regardless of players 4 attitude be it good or bad the pot should not have been split.Player 1 was all in and had the best hand of all who were in that pot prior the the infraction.Obviously player 4 bitched and moaned till this fact was overlooked.

Yeah this should never, ever be a split pot.

Player 1 technically broke the rules by showing his hand - it sounds like it was a genuine mistake given the noise. He might be subject to a penalty, but that would only happen after the current hand has been decided. And if Player 1 had the best hand then he should have won the pot.

You should always always be looking to rule in favour of fairness. As Oz said player 1 seems to have made a genuine mistake, it happens. Any ruling that does not give the best hand the pot is terrible.

I would rule in this case that player 4 has all options available to him, even knowing player 1's hand, including raising, and that player 1 only has the option to call or fold any further river action.

Thanks all, I 100% agree. The pot should have gone to the best hand, P1 may be due a penalty later (but it's a friendly game so just a reminder to double check before showing should do) P4 may well have an attitude but he had a point that his action was impacted but it was a genuine mistake and should have been let go. The pot splitting, as was stated above, set a bad precedent and opened the door for questionable plays in the future.

Thanks again for your views, most helpful

brgrds, SF

The ruling should be based on the rules set forth before the game started. However in many home games this doesn't happen. PI is allin - and thus no longer plays an active roll in the outcome between P2,P3, and P4. While it is P1's responsibility to know what is happening at the table his subsequent actions -- showing his cards -- did not affect the outcome of the hand. In fact they provided the other players with information that is they would not bet unless their hand beat PI's. P4's argument that he may have bet to create a side pot (since it appears his hand was not as good as P1's thus having no chance of winning the main pot) is predicated on an assumption that P2 and P3 would have called. P1's action did not cause P4 to lose any chips and his action appears to have been an honest mistake. P1 should have taken down the pot and P4 should switch to playing chess - where background noise won't effect the game.

I agree with jsaw, there should have been rules set forth before the game, and i know it would be a long list no doubt, but it should be done regardless, as rule making on the fly just doesn't cut it with everyone. And the pot splitting is an absolute travesty, unbelievable.

'Friendly game' so the 'friendly' thing to do is void the hand split the pot and carry on as friends without any arguments.
Casino rules don't have to be applied all the time.
Does scrapping a disputed hand really make much difference to what should be a fun evening?
Splitting it isn't technically right, but it should be an easy way to move on without friction.

Player 4 still has a chance to act, the hand is not over.

Player 1 may be subject to a penalty at the floors discretion.

The penalty for an early bet is that you can't change your bet regardless of the action a player in front of you might make, unless he puts more money into the pot than you did. The penalty for flipping your cards early is that your cards remain face up.

There are no other penalties. A casino might ask a player to leave after repeated infractions, but that doesn't apply here. Splitting the pot was an absurdity.

"His argument was that he might have bet when he was in with a chance of the main pot, but as he couldn't beat the straight he wasn't going to bet for a possible side pot. "

This is an idiot argument, since P1 was already all-in and his hand could not effect whether P4 should bet. He can only be betting for the side pot in any case since once one player is all in, that is where any further bet goes. Seeing P1's cards had no effect on that.

I have seen penalties and/or warnings issued in many situations, not in cash games, but in tournaments. Exposing your hand early in a tourney is a big no no.