Cash Game Clarification needed on a rule... (1 Viewer)

[Alex Lundstrum]

Robert's Rules of Poker, ver. 11: Section 3 - General Poker Rules: The Showdown: Rule 5

"Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if
the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.
If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks
to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

Can anyone provide some clarity on this rule? As far as I ever knew, it was last aggressive action (or first to act in last round if no aggressor) is required to table. Any following players can muck or table as desired. If hand that is required to table in turn mucks, any other caller has right to see, but this is typically considered to be in poor taste. This rule seems to say that all hands that make it to showdown are fair play to be requested by anyone that started in the hand.

Not that I see this ever, EVER, coming up as an issue. I'm just weird about wanting to know every possible ruling.

 

[AWenger]

Can anyone provide some clarity on this rule? As far as I ever knew, it was last aggressive action (or first to act in last round if no aggressor) is required to table.

I think most tournament rules require a hand to be tabled if two or more players make it to showdown.

This rule seems to say that all hands that make it to showdown are fair play to be requested by anyone that started in the hand.

If I understand it correctly, one intent of the rule above is a way to check if two players are colluding, or 'chip dumping' (in a tournament setting.)

 

[BGinGA]

Robert's Rules of Poker, ver. 11: Section 3 - General Poker Rules: The Showdown: Rule 5

"Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if
the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.
If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks
to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

Can anyone provide some clarity on this rule? As far as I ever knew, it was last aggressive action (or first to act in last round if no aggressor) is required to table. Any following players can muck or table as desired. If hand that is required to table in turn mucks, any other caller has right to see, but this is typically considered to be in poor taste. This rule seems to say that all hands that make it to showdown are fair play to be requested by anyone that started in the hand.

Not that I see this ever, EVER, coming up as an issue. I'm just weird about wanting to know every possible ruling.

Not sure what's your real question. I've had this exact situation come up before, more than once.

In short, any hand that was eligible for showdown can be requested to be shown by the dealer by any player who started the hand with cards -- regardless of the actual showdown or outcome. As @AWenger pointed out, the rule exists to help protect against player collusion, and should not be abused by players merely attempting to gain information about folded hands.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

In short, any hand that was eligible for showdown can be requested to be shown by the dealer by any player who started the hand with cards -- regardless of the actual showdown or outcome. As @AWenger pointed out, the rule exists to help protect against player collusion, and should not be abused by players merely attempting to gain information about folded hands.

Never thought about it in terms of collusion, though in a cash game, what benefit would there be to collusion of this sort (tournament makes perfect sense)?

Since posting, I did find a post (below) that uses this rule in an interesting way I also would not have thought of.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/optah-one-player-to-a-hand-question-did-host-overstep.6502/

 

[DRacula]

If

Not sure what's your real question. I've had this exact situation come up before, more than once.

In short, any hand that was eligible for showdown can be requested to be shown by the dealer by any player who started the hand with cards -- regardless of the actual showdown or outcome. As @AWenger pointed out, the rule exists to help protect against player collusion, and should not be abused by players merely attempting to gain information about folded hands.

This is correct, I most commonly see this in cash games at casinos where more than one player is "all in." A player will request "All hands dealer" and all eligible show down hands are flipped up. Possibly to discourage a slow roll? If I'm not misinformed it's bad form to request this if you are not in the hand.

 

[BGinGA]

Never thought about it in terms of collusion, though in a cash game, what benefit would there be to collusion of this sort

Two players colluding in a cash game can target another player by raising/re-raising until he eventually folds, then reap in his called money with no showing of any cards required. The rule allows for both holdings to be revealed, which would/could show the collusion.

 

[Jambine]

Not sure what's your real question. I've had this exact situation come up before, more than once.

In short, any hand that was eligible for showdown can be requested to be shown by the dealer by any player who started the hand with cards -- regardless of the actual showdown or outcome. As @AWenger pointed out, the rule exists to help protect against player collusion, and should not be abused by players merely attempting to gain information about folded hands.

That exactly.
That is why, whenever this comes up, I always ask why.
"Why do you want to see the hand sir. Do you think there is collusion here?"
reply "I was just curious, that's all"
"Nope. Shuffle up & deal"

 

[TexRex]

A risk to asking players to show is that if a player folded the winning hand, he wins the pot. But as BG said, collusion can be hidden by never showing. I'd especially watch players that don't seem to get along getting into a raising contest with each other and a third guy caught in the middle. If the third guy folds, one of the colluders can fold when the other shows and you never know there is collusion going on. Even better for colluders if neither of them has to show. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that was the reason for the older WSOP rule.

Requiring a suspicion of collusion to show defeats the purpose. That outright requires accusing someone else of cheating, and most will not do that. Being "just curious" should be enough. My response to "Do you think there is collusion here?" would be "I have a right to see the hand." No other explanation is needed. You just have to remember, that might be the right to have someone who folded in error take the pot. That's a risk you run by asking, and I've seen it backfire.

This rule has changed over the year. The WSOP used to allow any player to ask and it would be granted. The TDA required an accusation of cheating. Now the WSOP (at least the last time I checked an update) requires you to have been eligible for the showdown to ask.

 

[JustinInMN]

Robert's Rules of Poker, ver. 11: Section 3 - General Poker Rules: The Showdown: Rule 5


Not that I see this ever, EVER, coming up as an issue. I'm just weird about wanting to know every possible ruling.

This is a sign of a thorough host, I respect that .

@BGinGA and @AWenger have covered the reason for it's existence.

<rant>

IMNSHO, in practice this rule is abused for the sake of gaining information far more than it's actually helped prevent any collusion. Frankly, such requests shouldn't be granted in a home game, and limited in public cardroom games more than it is.

</rant>