V wins hand after seeing opponents cards: Live casino plo6 ruling
A situation arose recently during the last three hands of the night playing plo6 and the floor had already left for the night so couldn’t called (laughable in itself)
Villain has admitted he saw the player next to him’s hand (which he never mentioned until after the hand, and that it included JJ). He didn’t say anything to the player, dealer, or table, and then made his decisions based on that information.
That’s the key issue here … he’s used knowledge of another player’s cards, kept it to himself, and acted on it. That’s why I don’t think he can be allowed to keep the pot.
Hero pot bet on the turn with three other players remaining in the hand and one of those players already all and a board of K 8 9 10 rainbow.
Hero pots from the button with JQ, the nuts. Villain calls off (a substantial amount) from small blind with KK despite having very little invested at that point from earlier streets.
Realistically, without that information of the guy next to him’s cards , he’s calling into an obvious straight with only one card to come, needing to fill up (so only 9 outs, and less than 18% chance of winning).
Villain is a super tight player and It’s not a call he is ever making unless he thinks he has an edge … which he’s admitted after the hand that he he did and it came from seeing the other players hand. He said he wouldn’t have called but for having seen the other guys hand and feeling it made anyone having the straight improbable.
As it happens, despite the cheating, it is a terrible call … but the river does pair the board.
What should normally happen here. The holdings and runout are irrelevant … the villain is using 6 cards worth of information that other players don’t have to make decisions. he shouldn’t be keeping the pot. It’s cheating. My understanding is that the hand should be unwound and stakes from the pot returned to all hand participants, an a warning issued.
Thoughts please …
9 Replies
It’s cheating. My understanding is that the hand should be unwound and stakes from the pot returned to all hand participants, an a warning issued.
Thoughts please …
Just curious, where did this understanding come from?
It's definitely a gray area but I can't imagine a scenario in which the hand is undone for this reason, especially when the issue wasn't even found out until after the hand. At worst, a warning is giving to V and the player who didn't protect their hand. If V had called and lost you probably woulda been pretty happy about the situation, no?
This is a very crazy situation. In all the years I have played I have never seen anyone admit after a hand that they saw a player's cards and that determined how they played the hand that they won.
But the problem here is that unless Villain did something physically that led him to see the JJ, it is a situation where he has a legal advantage. If he had spoken up in the middle of the hand and said "I think I just saw JJ in Seat X's hand" he would always be able to make the call he made because of the knowledge he had. And had he said that, you would still have bet pot on the turn because it would look like you were less likely to have the nuts. And that assumes that he saw the JJ before you bet pot.
Here it is extremely difficult because had Villain lost the hand and said he had seen a player's cards, there is no way they would have let all money go back to the other players (and him)
I do think that if I was the Floor Villain would be warned and told that if he ever did that again (not telling the table that he saw cards at the time he saw them) that he would be banned. And there are likely some places that would give him a 24 hour ban anyway. But then the floor would have to still be there... The real problem here is that with this type of warning some players who cheat would just never tell anyone that they saw cards. Though, of course there are situations where you know a player did as otherwise they never would have called. This hand wasn't one of those situations because Villain had top set.
As a note, Villain had 10 outs (not 9 unless he had exactly one T, 9, or 8 in his other two cards). Note that if Villain had no T, 9, or 8 in his other two cards he would have a 25% of hitting a boat or quads and if he had one T, 9, or 8 he would have a 22.5% chance, and if he had two T, 9, and/or 8 he would have a 20% chance (you didn't mention what his other two cards were but for arguments sake I assume he had a T, 9, or 8).
Because your turn bet was pot, Villain needed a 33% chance to break even from a pot odds standpoint (assuming nobody else had called or was still to act). But from an implied odds standpoint he might be able to get a call from you on the river if he hits his hand, and so it could be right to make the call (even if he hadn't seen the JJ). You didn't describe if there was any bet/call on the river.
A set has 10 outs not 9.
Just going by his own hand, assuming he doesn't have any of his own outs, we know 6 + 4 cards = 10 cards. 42 remaining. 10:32 = 3.2:1 against improving.
Now if he sees 6 non board pairs in someone's hand, we now know 16 cards = 36 remaining. 10:26 or 2.6:1 against improving.
Even if villain sees QQQJ or whatever, and so makes the call, there are still combos of J7 and 67 that beat him. Ofc hero is highly likely to have the nuts potting multiway into a dead side pot, regardless of what cards you see. Blockers mean a lot less in 6 card plo.
Anyway, OP mostly just seems salty that he got outdrawn. I see no justification for unwinding the hand, especially since the alleged "cheater" was actually hurt by his own actions, induced to make a losing call he wouldn't otherwise have made. That he happened to get lucky at the same time is immaterial.
The winning hand is basically always getting the pot here. JJ gets a warning to keep their cards hidden, villain gets a warning to disclose information while the hand is still happening and advised to try not to look at neighbor's cards. If they were actually leaning over or doing something to look on purpose, an argument could be made to send them home for the night and a note put in their file.
he’s used knowledge of another player’s cards, kept it to himself, and acted on it.
And where in the house rules (or RROP, or TDA) does it say that one can't do this? Sure, you can't use a periscope to see other people's cards, but if V1 flashes their cards to V2 when they check them, I am not aware of any rule (versus etiquette) that says that V2 can't use that information.
Give a warning to the dummy exposing their cards to their neighbors. And if you play with them again, be sure to alert the dealer if you see them holding their cards in a fashion that their neighbors can easily see their holdings. If it keeps happening, get the floor involved. And if you don't like the floor's ruling it my be best to sit out, or take break until dummy is gone.
"That guy in the hand can see their opponent's cards. It's only fair that everyone else in the hand see their cards too." Pretty soon dummy protects their cards better because they don't like playing with their cards on their backs before showdown.
Do you really think every time someone can see an opponent's cards, they announce it to the table? If so, that's a really dumb thought.
Do you really think every time someone can see an opponent's cards, they announce it to the table? If so, that's a really dumb thought.
Do they? No.
Should they? Yes.
For those that don’t it says much about them.
