04-26-05, LearnTexasHoldem:

All-In Revealed Hand Dispute

Question: In a recent spirited game of Texas Holdem a situation came into play that needs your professional ruling to put it to rest. Myself and two others are down to the river, I myself need a club on the river to make a flush, knowing I have the best hand since I have the ace of clubs down and there is not a pair on the board, I am prepared to call all in if a club comes up. The river card is turned and by now you know where this is going a BIG BEAUTIFUL NINE OF CLUBS is revealed, upon seeing this vision of lovliness I call all in, following my call player B pauses and says how much, at that point I begin to count my chips, then player B says you better have a hundred thinking that is enough to cover my all in bet, at this point I turn my cards over revealing what I perceived to be the winning hand ACE HIGH FLUSH. Following this all hell breaks out because player C had not had a chance to call the all in because my hand had been revealed. What took place next will be talked about for generations to come MF this and MF that, your cards are dead because betting had not been completed and took away any chances for a side pot between players B & C who have a history of betting big in these situations. I was short stacked when I called all in so there would have been a side pot between the HIGH ROLLERS.

Top 3 Beginner Rooms

My argument, I called all in showed my cards basically giving them a chance to call if they could beat my hand, therefore in my opinion decreasing my chance to win more chips. What is the ruling should I have been eliminated from the hand because I revealed my cards?

The way we settled it each one of us got our chips back, which cost me a huge pot.

WAS THAT RIGHT OR WRONG. THANK YOU, HWILM

Answer: Yeah, that is a mess. As I understand it, you caught your flush and called all-in against Player B's bet. Then the problem was that Player C didn't have a chance to act behind you since you showed your cards after you called. If I were the floorman or tournament director, I would make the ruling that the action stood and Player C could act after you, privy now to your hand strength. Obviously your intention was to call all-in with the best hand, not do anything maliciously to prevent Player C from acting. Your penalty will be losing his potential call, and his reward will be seeing your cards before he acts. Player B's bet doesn't get taken back because he would have lost regardless of whether or not your showed your hand. So to sum it up, just play the hand out like it would have been had you not shown the cards -- most likely now though Player C will fold knowing you have the flush.

Question/Comment 4/28/05: I'm not sure your answer reflects the situation as posed in the question. The confusion is the writer's use of "call all-in" when I think he means "bet". I got the impression that he is acting first in the hand (later in the question he does refer to his all-in BET), player B is next followed by player C. So the sequence of events I believe is this:

1) club comes on river, player A (the writer) goes all in

2) player B asks him how much he has (I don't understand what is meant by "then player B says you better have a hundred thinking that is enough to cover my all in bet", but it sounds like B is trying to decide whether to call based on how much A has)

3) B interprets this as a call by B and shows his hand before C can act

If this is the case (it's the only way I can make sense of it), since B never declared "call" or "raise" or put any chips out B has the option to fold upon seeing A's hand as does C. So the action taken seems to be correct, although I'm confused by the statement "The way we settled it each one of us got our chips back, which cost me a huge pot" since it sounds like only A had any chips in play after the river card. Maybe he means everyone took back whatever they had in the pot as if the hand had never been dealt, that of course would be incorrect. Lesson learned (hopefully), make sure you know proper Hold 'Em procedure and terminology before playing for real money, even with friends. What cost him his huge pot was his lack of knowledge, not the decision reached as a result of the dispute.

Thanks again for the great site,

John M

Answer 4/28/05: Yes, I agree with you. If the writer meant that he bet all-in and then accidentally showed his cards, the other two players have no obligation to put any money in. The writer would win whatever is in the pot, but no more.

Your rating:

Click on the clover of your choice

User Rating: (0 Votes)

  • Share on Facebook
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us