NLHE Ring Game - Caller conceding / mucking the hand without showing (1 Viewer)

[softchewy]

Example - NLHE Cash Game:
All other players have folded and the hand is heads up. The river is shown and Player 1 is first to act.
Player 1 bets (not all-in) -> Player 2 calls (not all-in) -> Player 1 shows his hand which is better than Player 2's hand.
Player 2 concedes the hand without showing and mucks his cards.

Does Player 1 still have the right to see Player 2's cards?

What ruling do you use for your game and what have you experienced in different casinos?

 

[Nex]

Player with last aggressive action (bet, raise) must show first, then the option to show something better goes clockwise. Option. You don't have to show.
Been like this in all of the three online poker rooms I've played in so far (P*, 888, Party).

 

[Quad Johnson]

Called hands must show first in my games.

Generally in this case, Player 1 can let it go if he so desires but he still has the right to see it.

 

[abby99]

I understand that the rule was initially intended to be a way to uncover collusion or chip dumping.

Not permitted in my games for several reasons, one of which is if you suspect collusion, please tell me privately. The reason that carries most weight is that it's better to let the loser lose gracefully. Exposing a surrendered hand that loser doesn't want to show just creates hard feelings. In other words, you won -- get over it.

 

[upNdown]

I recently learned that if one player is all in, all players who called the all-in MUST show at showdown. This was a new one to me. At least that's how it was ruled in a tournament last week when one guy went all in, me and another player both called. When it got to showdown and I didn't hit my draw, I tried to muck. Dealer was very clear that I must show.
The other exception I've heard is (again, for tournament play) is that a player who's in the hand at showdown has the right to request to see another showdown player's mucked cards - but only a player with a live hand can make that request. I feel like the TD might have some discretion here - hopefully somebody knows the rule and can clarify.
Other than that, I think anybody can muck at showdown.

 

[DrStrange]

Tournaments must show the hands.

All-in cash game, every hand must be tabled prior to run out.

Otherwise the losing player can muck his hand. Even if first to show, a bluffer can toss his cards in the muck. yes the caller has "the right to see the cards" but why embarrass someone or make a time consuming issue out of it. Let's just show a winner, take the pot, get on to the next hand.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I recently learned that if one player is all in, all players who called the all-in MUST show at showdown. This was a new one to me. At least that's how it was ruled in a tournament last week when one guy went all in, me and another player both called. When it got to showdown and I didn't hit my draw, I tried to muck. Dealer was very clear that I must show.
The other exception I've heard is (again, for tournament play) is that a player who's in the hand at showdown has the right to request to see another showdown player's mucked cards - but only a player with a live hand can make that request. I feel like the TD might have some discretion here - hopefully somebody knows the rule and can clarify.
Other than that, I think anybody can muck at showdown.

My understanding is that in a tournament, all live hands must be tabled at showdown. In a cash game, aggressors should show first and players can muck at showdown. A player may request to see a hand that hasn't been tabled at showdown, but if they do so, that hand is live and may win the pot.

 

[softchewy]

I understand that the rule was initially intended to be a way to uncover collusion or chip dumping.

Not permitted in my games for several reasons, one of which is if you suspect collusion, please tell me privately. The reason that carries most weight is that it's better to let the loser lose gracefully. Exposing a surrendered hand that loser doesn't want to show just creates hard feelings. In other words, you won -- get over it.

I have never seen the rule in a home game where the caller has to show and can't concede.
It makes sense for the winner to want to see the cards (gain information / confirm if any collusion/dumping).
The home games I have played in and hosted always allowed for Player 2 to surrender without showing in this scenario.
All-ins are treated different and all live hands show their cards.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

All-in cash game, every hand must be tabled prior to run out.

I've never seen it done this way before. In cash games where players are all-in, it seems to be most common to me that players hold their cards until the board runs out.

 

[Lemonzest]

If you dont care about winning you can muck anytime you want.

 

[Highli99]

My understanding is that in a tournament, all live hands must be tabled at showdown. In a cash game, aggressors should show first and players can muck at showdown. A player may request to see a hand that hasn't been tabled at showdown, but if they do so, that hand is live and may win the pot.

Came here to say this.

 

[softchewy]

I've never seen it done this way before. In cash games where players are all-in, it seems to be most common to me that players hold their cards until the board runs out.

I have only played the opposite in home cash and tournament games... once no more betting is possible (all-ins) and there are still more community cards to come, all live hands flip up their cards prior to run out

 

[softchewy]

Clarified the question a bit to specify it is a cash game

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Everywhere i've played player 2 can muck

 

[detroitdad]

I've never seen it done this way before. In cash games where players are all-in, it seems to be most common to me that players hold their cards until the board runs out.

At my house you have the option to hold them or roll them over. It rarely causes a delay in the game.

 

[navels]

If you dont care about winning you can muck anytime you want.

You ever decide without looking at your cards that you're going to go to war against a particular opponent? My all-time favorite hand was when a buddy and I decided to do this against each other at the same time. He had A9o to my A2o. I think I was on the button and he was the BB. Preflop was raise, 3-bet, call. He check-called my flop and turn bets and check-raised me all in on the river.

We both had nothing. I called his river shove and he instantly mucked. I flipped my cards over . . . as soon as it dawned on him that his kicker played he trying grabbing his hands out of the muck . . . too late. #rekt.

 

[Lemonzest]

You ever decide without looking at your cards that you're going to go to war against a particular opponent? My all-time favorite hand was when a buddy and I decided to do this against each other at the same time. He had A9o to my A2o. I think I was on the button and he was the BB. Preflop was raise, 3-bet, call. He check-called my flop and turn bets and check-raised me all in on the river.

We both had nothing. I called his river shove and he instantly mucked. I flipped my cards over . . . as soon as it dawned on him that his kicker played he trying grabbing his hands out of the muck . . . too late. #rekt.

This is awesome. Its what poker with friends is all about. Calling down with A high...

 

[luckroy]

Most places I've played in had rules which allowed the bettor to see what the caller had. But doing so was considered poor etiquette.

 

[Coyote]

In home cash games I played till very recently (where not all things were done right anyway), the called bettor/raiser could also muck his cards and surrender the pot.
In a card room I played recently, showdown of cards is compulsory by everybody still in the pot.
What does "the book" say? Is it up to the house?

 

[Gobbs]

In a cash game, Player 2 may concede the hand and not show.

In a tournament, Player 2 may concede the hand and not show, but Player 1 (and in the example, only Player 1 since he/she was the only person remaining in the hand) may request to see the hand. There are two points to be made about this, though:

1. If Player 2's hand actually beats Player 1's hand, Player 2 will be awarded the pot.
2. It is bad etiquette to do it. It's really only supposed to be used when you suspect there may be some sort of cheating, soft play, collusion, etc.

Also, just to clarify, players never muck their hands. Only dealers muck hands. Players discard their hands. While it sounds like semantics, it is important to distinguish between the two when interpreting rules.

 

[WedgeRock]

Also, just to clarify, players never muck their hands. Only dealers muck hands. Players discard their hands.

 

[Lovejoyz]

Tournament house rules can vary, along with blind structures, denoms of chips all of that stuff that the gaming commission leaves up to the casino.
Most cash games follow the same rule set. In our casino, the bettor has to show. The caller is 'paying for the right to see the bettors cards'. If you bet, and I call, you show your cards, end of story. I have the option to flip my cards or not. Dealer can muck them if I dish them face down. If it's checked down to the river, the fist action is the one that has to show. First check would flip their cards, and second check has the option.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

At my house you have the option to hold them or roll them over. It rarely causes a delay in the game.

Oh sure, that's what I meant. You can choose to table immediately, but you aren't required to do so.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Also, just to clarify, players never muck their hands. Only dealers muck hands. Players discard their hands. While it sounds like semantics, it is important to distinguish between the two when interpreting rules.

Home game players muck hands all the time - generally because the muck is spread across the table when Joe is too busy watching the game to gather and protect it.

Also...

 

[MatB]

i'm having a brain freeze,,, whats NLHO?

 

[Neirro]

What did the table think of the ruling? Personally I believe that player 1 does not need to show his cards.

 

[Highli99]

i'm having a brain freeze,,, whats NLHO?

No Limit Hold Em

 

[softchewy]

i'm having a brain freeze,,, whats NLHO?

I had the brain freeze... NLHE

 

[JustinInMN]

I would not permit this in my game unless a player has told me in advance they suspect something. Otherwise this rule is open to abuse.

In other words, exactly what Abby said.

I understand that the rule was initially intended to be a way to uncover collusion or chip dumping.

Not permitted in my games for several reasons, one of which is if you suspect collusion, please tell me privately. The reason that carries most weight is that it's better to let the loser lose gracefully. Exposing a surrendered hand that loser doesn't want to show just creates hard feelings. In other words, you won -- get over it.

I can go either way on all in situations before the river, I don't force the hands up, and will expect the called player to show first at showdown.

However, players should table their hands if they want to consider running multiple times.

I recently learned that if one player is all in, all players who called the all-in MUST show at showdown. This was a new one to me. At least that's how it was ruled in a tournament last week when one guy went all in, me and another player both called. When it got to showdown and I didn't hit my draw, I tried to muck. Dealer was very clear that I must show.
The other exception I've heard is (again, for tournament play) is that a player who's in the hand at showdown has the right to request to see another showdown player's mucked cards - but only a player with a live hand can make that request. I feel like the TD might have some discretion here - hopefully somebody knows the rule and can clarify.
Other than that, I think anybody can muck at showdown.

I believe this is a fairly recent TDA change.

 

[Trihonda]

Not the same, but reminds me of THiS