Psypher1000
Straight Flush
I *think* you meant that player 2 doesn't need to show.
If you indeed meant to say that player 1 doesn't need to show his cards, how does the dealer/table know who won the hand?
NLHE Ring Game - Caller conceding / mucking the hand without showing (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter softchewy
- Start date
If you indeed meant to say that player 1 doesn't need to show his cards, how does the dealer/table know who won the hand?
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Really? If I'm not very strong, I may consider running it twice. But if hands are tabled and I see he's in a draw and I am way ahead, I'd be inclined to just run it once.
Actually, even if I know I am way ahead, I won't refuse a request to run it twice. But I'd prefer them not to have confirmation of how far behind they are by tabling my hand...
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I don think the strength of hand makes much difference unless one player is near the nuts. Why run it 3 times if you're against a full house, for example?
At the end of the day, is it a good rule to have either both players (called bettor and caller) show their hands (if called bettor shows) or none of the two? (if called bettor mucks first and concedes)
Or is it safer to have both players always show anyway?
Or is it safer to have both players always show anyway?
I've seen somebody make an issue out of this exactly once. Cash or tournament, in my experience nobody cares when somebody mucks, whether he was the bettor or not. But you have to show two cards to win.
Even if the pot has been conceded to you, that is?
100% of the time - gotta show to rake the pot.
I remember seeing a woman ask if she could refuse the pot so she didn't have to show the cards she played. She was kidding of course, but she would have rather not showed, if that was an option.
CdnBeerLover
Full House
Maybe for a cash game as per the topic of this thread. Not for a tournament under TDA rules 17B (http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/)
17: Non All-In Showdowns & Showdown Order
A: In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no final round bet, the player who would act first in a final betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.).
B: A non all-in showdown is uncontested if all but one player mucks face down without tabling. The last player with live cards wins and is not required to table the cards.
I'm not the most experienced player here by a long shot. But I've never seen that happen, tournamnet or otherwise.
CdnBeerLover
Full House
When heads up at showdown in home game tourneys, I have.
At the river, two players are left in the hand.
- player 1 checks
- player 2 checks
- player 1 discards face down, stating "I fold".
Is this binding on player 1, or is their hand still live? Since action is closed, while face down, the cards could still be turned over and tabled. I've seen some hosts/TD's enforce the showdown order and turn over cards (action is closed, so you can't bet, raise, or fold). And others state "verbal is binding" and instruct the dealer to push player 1's cards under the muck and push the pot to player 2. And I've seen both methods cause a debate.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
"Fold" is not a valid action after player 2 checks. At that point showdown rules apply and the verbalization "fold" is meaningless.
Player one can still elect to table the hand. (Or forced to by tournament/house rule.)
Otherwise it seems harsh if players 1 said "fold" if thinking player 2 bet instead of check. I think some protection of player 1 from this sort of misunderstanding is in order and precludes a strict interpretation of saying "fold" always means "mucked.". There are no recognized verbal actions at showdown. (Though I understand santions over a miscalled hand, especially when deliberate.)
Now if this person is deliberately doing this to cause trouble that's different, but if there's a chance there was an honest mistake try and award the pot to the best hand at showdown whenever possible.
CdnBeerLover
Full House
No misunderstanding. They checked the river hoping that player 2 would bet, allowing them to fold. That didn't happen and they simply did not want to show their hand, so they attempted to muck at showdown instead of tabling. They stated 'fold' believing that reinforced their intentions.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I see, obviously different than my assumption. If the house rules require the hand to be tabled, I say it should be at that point. If not I would say player 1 can still release the hand and kill it that way, but I don't think verbalizing "fold" is a showdown action.
moose
4 of a Kind
100% NO WAY
You're right, based on the rules posted above. All I known is I've seen rules posted to the contrary, and seen it played that way every time. And Roberts Rules backs me up on that 100%
Last edited:
RROP and older TDA rules specified that you must show two cards (all hole cards, if more than two) to win a pot in tournaments, even if the cards aren't used to make your winning hand (playing the board, for example, or the 'other two' when making an Omaha hand).
TDA rules now differ from RRoP in this regard. And there is no requirement to show hands in cash games to win a pot per RRoP. The last live hand remaining wins the pot, tabled or not.
TDA rules now differ from RRoP in this regard. And there is no requirement to show hands in cash games to win a pot per RRoP. The last live hand remaining wins the pot, tabled or not.
Are there different versions of RRP? The one I'm looking at online says at showdown a player must show all cards face up to win any part of the pot
Yes, and there is a 'for home games' version, too. Latest version is v11.
And you are correct; RRoP clearly states that all cards must be shown to win any part of the pot at showdown, even in a cash game. It also states that "A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot.", essentially allowing a player to fold his hand even though all action has been completed.
However, that is not the 'typical' ruling in cash games that I have played in or dealt. A player is not required to show his hand to win the pot if it is the only live hand remaining after all betting has completed, although it has always been required in tournaments in which I have participated (no major ones since the TDA rule change).
moose
4 of a Kind
That is way over reaching. If there is only one hand left there is no showdown. You don't have to show your cards.
This. You can essentially concede your hand at any time. The 'who shows first' based upon who calls is only when there is a contested pot. However, after the bettor makes his bet, and the next player calls, the original bettor can still concede the pot by dishing his cards. The remaining player has the last live hand, and takes the pot.
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.
I forget I'm spoiled by home games with designated dealers. Still, even in a rotating deal, the dealer should guard the muck.
DRacula
Pair
This is going to vary from card room to card room, but I’ll share my experience at LA casinos.
At anytime during a called all in, or showdown, any player at the table (regardless of whether or not they were involved in the hand) is allowed to ask to see all of the hands by saying “all hands dealer”
This is generally frowned upon, and I have seen several players throw their losing cards into the muck and wash the pile of cards before the dealer could open their hand.
IMO, if you are called, that player paid for the privilege of seeing your hand, they are not required to show their losing hand. This is how most games are run.
At anytime during a called all in, or showdown, any player at the table (regardless of whether or not they were involved in the hand) is allowed to ask to see all of the hands by saying “all hands dealer”
This is generally frowned upon, and I have seen several players throw their losing cards into the muck and wash the pile of cards before the dealer could open their hand.
IMO, if you are called, that player paid for the privilege of seeing your hand, they are not required to show their losing hand. This is how most games are run.
I don't know if this is in the rules or not, but I consider a check a bet of 0. Hence:
- player 1 bets 0
- player 2 calls the bet of 0
- player 1 has to show
TheOctagon
Two Pair
That is exactly the rule. If action closes with a round of checks on the showdown, the first player to act must show their cards first.
RRoP v11 does, in fact, state you have to show to win a pot. I don't think I've ever seen this enforced (watch any poker broadcast). TDA's ruling seems the more common scenario. The last player with a live hand does not have to show his cards in a non all-in showdown.
colter ripton
Full House
If you show your hand first the caller doesnt have to show. If you wait you can make him show first.
If I know my hand is good though why wait I think it's kinda like a slow roll to sit there and make someone show their hand and then turn over the nuts.
Either way I think it is good practice to turn your hand face up at show down. I have seen people muck the winning hand before. Once the hand is mucked it is dead.
If I know my hand is good though why wait I think it's kinda like a slow roll to sit there and make someone show their hand and then turn over the nuts.
Either way I think it is good practice to turn your hand face up at show down. I have seen people muck the winning hand before. Once the hand is mucked it is dead.
Lash
Straight
The person who bet has to show their hand first. The caller never has to show their hand
Old State
Full House
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,006
- Reaction score
- 4,786
I’m surprised there is so much debate about this. I read this entire thread thinking I was missing something. This is a simple age old poker rule...probably from the very beginnings of the game.
When you call a bet you are risking money to basically make the bettor “prove” they have what they are trying to represent- the best hand.
The caller is in no way obligated to show. This is has been my experience from penny games as child to casino cards rooms.
When you call a bet you are risking money to basically make the bettor “prove” they have what they are trying to represent- the best hand.
The caller is in no way obligated to show. This is has been my experience from penny games as child to casino cards rooms.
Last edited:
Lash
Straight
That is not correct
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
