Rule Question (1 Viewer)

[10centguitar]

This would be a better question for the thedealerslounge. On yuku

Its pretty decent dealers forum

 

[BGinGA]

The relevant parts of RROP v11, Section 3 - General Poker Rules are listed below.

THE SHOWDOWN

1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

4. All losing hands will be killed by the dealer before a pot is awarded.

8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand.

The Tournament section of RROP does not specifically address Showdowns, other than to state that all hands will be turned face-up when players are all-in and no more betting is possible.

The Glossary has this entry:
SHOWDOWN: The showing of cards to determine the pot-winner after all the betting is over.

 

[BGinGA]

So what happens if the dealer does muck both hands?

It's probably only going to be an issue if somebody complains or wants the hand shown per the rules (like Player A in the OP's example). Call the floor, I suppose, if the dealer won't show the hand. It's one way to find out whether or not that card room enforces such a rule (or whether or not that particular floorperson enforces the rule, more likely).

 

[12thMan]

The dealer won't muck player A's hand, and if he does, he certainly won't muck player B's hand before it's shown to award the pot. Players don't muck (they can only fold or surrender their hands). Only dealers can kill/muck hands.

OK, so we get it. Technically using the term "muck" when referring to a player folding is incorrect because they aren't mucked until the dealer puts them in the muck. But it doesn't change any thing when referring to what we are talking about here. In any of the stiuations, like jbutlers you are most recently repsonding to, replace "muck" with "fold" and everything stays the same, because we know what is meant is that the player folds and then the dealer takes the cards and mucks them. This is like owning a BMW and correcting anybody that says "beemer" and not bimmer, yeah it's correct, but give it a rest... (for the record, I drive a BMW, you can call it whatever you want, including a prck-mobile )

You want rock solid proof that what you are describing is not the way it's done "in the vast majority" of places, and that in the situation jbutler just posed (about where the pot would go if both hands where folded one after the other) the very next thing that would happen after the first player "folds" his hand is the dealer pushing the pot to the last player with cards?? (can't believe I didn't think of pointing this out earlier) Watch the video of the JRB/Hellmuth hand above, JRB is waiting for Phil to fold his hand so he can win the pot with out showing his! The ENTIRE crux of the argument they are having is that because Phil is still holding his hand JRB will not show his until Phil either A. shows, or B. folds. JRB even says "I don't want to see your hand Phil, I want your hand to hit the muck so I can not show mine." <-----and win the pot!

Watch the video above, and make the case that if Hellmuth where to fold after JRB called the dealer would force JRB to show his hand. The very video being discussed in this thread proves, that at the very least, the game those pros where playing in was played by the way I am describing, not you..

Still don't see what we are talking about??

 

[Mental Nomad]

In the PH vs JRB video, Phil also agrees that Jean Robert is not obligated to show by the definition of the rules, but it is considered good poker etiquette to turn the winning hand face up.

Not quite - in the clip, Phil agrees that Jean Robert is not obligated to show first. Phil is obligated to show first, but is choosing not to show - but is also not folding, meaning he's keeping his hand live. Phil admits that he's obligated to show first, by the rules of poker. Jean Robert insists on Phil showing first, as obligated in a showdown, or folding his hand - one or the other.

The whole reason this situation erupted is that Bellande is trying to pull a bit of a fast one. He is hoping to muck his hand after Phil folds, and claim the pot without showing - which is incorrect, but it is an angle which he's inclined to try. Several other players, including Sam, point out that Bellande has to show his cards to win, and Sam points out that Bellande plays likes a "low-stakes limit player" and won't show until after Phil does.

The thing that Bellande doesn't understand is that although he's right about not having to show until Phil shows, he wrongly believes that if Phil folds, that he can muck his own hand and still claim the pot legitimately. That is actually incorrect. In practice, this would work - Bellande would probably get the pot after the floor is called, but he would also get a scolding for mucking his hand improperly, noting that next time, he needs to show his hand to claim the pot.

Several people say repeatedly, "you have to show your hand to win." They don't mean before or after Phil folds - they mean, correctly, that he has to show it to win, regardless.

Phil is attempting to thwart him playing the angle by keeping his hand live. If Bellande tries to muck without showing, and Phil's hand is still live, then Phil would win... hanging on to the cards is a way to force people like Bellande to properly show, and not try to force-muck their cards when winning at showdown.

I have actually had to participate in this exact situation at a cash game (as a dealer, not as floor.)

In terms of the proper execution of the hand, the following hold true (and must be able to be confirmed on camera):

1. The pot can be pushed towards an uncalled bettor if others have all folded.
2. If the last action is a call, the pot can only be pushed to a valid poker hand. Technically, the last hand not folded is the hand that will win, which is why it's the dealer obligation to "kill" any folded hands against the muck before exposing them, if asked to do so.

As a dealer, you're simply not supposed to push the pot unless it's to an exposed hand, or to an uncalled bet. Otherwise, you're calling the floor.

In my situation, the player was warned that if they force-folded themselves again, it wouldn't matter how many people folded at showdown - the floor would have me split the pot to everyone who called the last bet.

 

[grandgnu]

So what happens if the dealer does muck both hands? If you're relying on dealer competency, you have not spent much time in commercial card rooms.

I would say that would fall under the "decision is made in the best interest of the game" or whatever by the floor person, since it's an uncommon situation.

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

The whole reason this situation erupted is that Bellande is trying to pull a bit of a fast one. He is hoping to muck his hand after Phil folds, and claim the pot without showing - which is incorrect, but it is an angle which he's inclined to try. Several other players, including Sam, point out that Bellande has to show his cards to win, and Sam points out that Bellande plays likes a "low-stakes limit player" and won't show until after Phil does.

I would argue that it's Phil who's trying to pull a fast one. He's not showing when he's supposed to, but still expects Jean Robert to show his hand the moment Phil says "You've got it." Jean Robert is correct in not showing until Phil's hand has been mucked.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I would argue that it's Phil who's trying to pull a fast one. He's not showing when he's supposed to, but still expects Jean Robert to show his hand the moment Phil says "You've got it." Jean Robert is correct in not showing until Phil's hand has been mucked.

That's a fair argument, someone in that situation might be just trying to get away without showing... but I don't think the facts support that conclusion. Phil verbally conceded the hand without seeing Jean Robert's cards, so he has pretty much admitted that he has no pairs. There's no embarrassment about going a bluff with an open-ended draw. And he knows the actual cards will be shown on TV. So what's his purpose in making a stand right there, and then?

It seems to me that Phil was playing the typical way - when caught bluffing, concede the good call, and you toss the cards as the caller shows and claims the pot. The caller can ask for your cards to be shown if he wants, or else the dealer will muck them. That's normal play and normal etiquette.

The real give-away in the video, for me, comes from people other than Phil. Jean Robert says he wants to be able to throw his cards into the muck unseen when Phil folds. That's literally improper. And Sam, to Jean Robert's right, calls Jean Robert out for being just that sort of player, warning Phil that he's going to have to show his cards to get Jean Robert to show his own. Sitting next to the muck, Jean Robert will likely get away with that, often.

 

[Big Jilm]

In my home game "A" would not be invited back. If you are called, you show. Very simple.

 

[12thMan]

It's funny how split people are on this issue, something as simple as poker is seen completely different depending on your view of it.

My thoughts in red.

Not quite - in the clip, Phil agrees that Jean Robert is not obligated to show first. Phil is obligated to show first, but is choosing not to show - but is also not folding, meaning he's keeping his hand live. Phil admits that he's obligated to show first, by the rules of poker. Jean Robert insists on Phil showing first, as obligated in a showdown, or folding his hand - one or the other.

---Exactly, the way it should be. Phil is obligated to show first, if he folds it's just like any other fold at any other time leaving only one person in the pot.

The whole reason this situation erupted is that Bellande is trying to pull a bit of a fast one. He is hoping to muck his hand after Phil folds, and claim the pot without showing - which is incorrect, but it is an angle which he's inclined to try. Several other players, including Sam, point out that Bellande has to show his cards to win, and Sam points out that Bellande plays likes a "low-stakes limit player" and won't show until after Phil does.

--I see it completely opposite, it's not incorrect at all, JRB is in the right in exercising the rule of "i called you, you show first" if he wants to. And this particular time he wanted to.

The thing that Bellande doesn't understand is that although he's right about not having to show until Phil shows, he wrongly believes that if Phil folds, that he can muck his own hand and still claim the pot legitimately. That is actually incorrect. In practice, this would work - Bellande would probably get the pot after the floor is called, but he would also get a scolding for mucking his hand improperly, noting that next time, he needs to show his hand to claim the pot.

--Disagree. If PH would have said "nh, you got it." and then imediately mucked, the pot would have been pushed to JRB without a moment of hesitation. There would be no floor called, there would be no scolding, nothing about the next time. JRB would have been pushed the pot and he releases his hand without showing. He stacks the chips, the dealer mucks his hand.

Several people say repeatedly, "you have to show your hand to win." They don't mean before or after Phil folds - they mean, correctly, that he has to show it to win, regardless.

-Again, I take it as they are saying "PH said you won, the dealer won't just push the pot to you just because PH said it, you have to show your cards first.", not in any way that he has to show regardless to win. He only has to show to win that pot right there since PH is not showing. They mistakenly say he has to show assuming he is thinking he is going to be pushed the pot while both players still hold cards and neither show, not for the actual reason of him not wanting to show his hand.

Phil is attempting to thwart him playing the angle by keeping his hand live. If Bellande tries to muck without showing, and Phil's hand is still live, then Phil would win... hanging on to the cards is a way to force people like Bellande to properly show, and not try to force-muck their cards when winning at showdown.

--No, the way to "force people like Bellande to properly show" is to turn your hand over when called, nothing else. PH is operating under the assumption that "the way it usually goes" is how the situation is going to play out, in other words that's where the etiquette part comes in when someone say's "you go it" and they flip over the winning cards. However, JRB doesn't want to show his hand, and it is his right to not show until PH does, so he decides to exercise that right. PH is bugged because he's using the rule that says JRB is right instead of the "etiquette" of how it is down the other times. You understand that even if JRB where to turn his hand over when PH said "you got it" he would not be pushed the pot until PH either shows or folds, right? It's not automatic he gets the pot just because PH says he does and he shows, PH could have the nuts and just be acting like a jerk, the hands not over until PH cards are tabled or folded.

I have actually had to participate in this exact situation at a cash game (as a dealer, not as floor.)

--Me to, \not as a floor or dealer but as a player. It happens a few times each time I play, it's not uncommon at all. There is no floor called, there is no argument, the pot is pushed to the person who called and hasn't shown yet. Every once in a while one of the grumpy old men will be the "caller" and the person who got caught bluffing will say the Nice call line and wait to see the winning hand. But the grumpy old man sits there like a statue because he called and is waiting for the other guy to show. At that point the dealer will say something to the effect of "come on guys, show me a hand to win." and the person who got called will turn over there busted whatever and then the old man turn over his quad aces. If the floor EVER where to be called in that situation the only ruling ever would be "Sir, you where called, turn over your hand.". If the person where to muck and not show the other guy would get it with out showing.

In terms of the proper execution of the hand, the following hold true (and must be able to be confirmed on camera):

1. The pot can be pushed towards an uncalled bettor if others have all folded.
2. If the last action is a call, the pot can only be pushed to a valid poker hand. Technically, the last hand not folded is the hand that will win, which is why it's the dealer obligation to "kill" any folded hands against the muck before exposing them, if asked to do so.

As a dealer, you're simply not supposed to push the pot unless it's to an exposed hand, or to an uncalled bet. Otherwise, you're calling the floor.

--Not going to argue that, I have no doubt that was what they had you do because I don't think you're just making stuff up. All I'm saying is if you where a dealer/floor in any room I have played in in Washington that would not be how you handled it.

In my situation, the player was warned that if they force-folded themselves again, it wouldn't matter how many people folded at showdown - the floor would have me split the pot to everyone who called the last bet.

--I've played in card rooms in Washington since 1998, I've never seen or heard a floor say anything of the sort to this situation. I think it all boils down to different places/different rules.

I would argue that it's Phil who's trying to pull a fast one. He's not showing when he's supposed to, but still expects Jean Robert to show his hand the moment Phil says "You've got it." Jean Robert is correct in not showing until Phil's hand has been mucked.

--I would agree 100%. If ANYONE in the video is doing anything remotely close to angle shooting it's PH.

I just want someone to answer my question of how it's fair that JRB call PH bet, and not only not get to see PH cards but also be forced to expose his own is beyond my comprehension. Also, let's say JRB had a worst hand than PH (no reason to think he couldn't, you could call with any two cards, just because he's calling doesn't 100% mean he has PH beat), is there any way that after seeing that he has the winning hand PH doesn't immediately table his hand and scoop the pot? But wait a minute, he just said "you got it." and JRB was forced to show his cards? If there was a rule that said "verbal declarations of giving up in a hand are binding" then I would be ok with the thought process of JRB having to show his cards to win. The way it is though, JRB is being "punished" for making the call and supposedly having to table his hand with out seeing PH cards, he makes the call, doesn't get the reward of seeing his opponents cards that he payed for, AND he has the liability of not actually winning the pot until PH folds?? No way.

That's a fair argument, someone in that situation might be just trying to get away without showing... but I don't think the facts support that conclusion. Phil verbally conceded the hand without seeing Jean Robert's cards, so he has pretty much admitted that he has no pairs. There's no embarrassment about going a bluff with an open-ended draw. And he knows the actual cards will be shown on TV. So what's his purpose in making a stand right there, and then?

--Why was he making a stand right there and then?? The answer seems obvious to me: because there where tv cameras there and he is "the poker brat" and brings out the "old school" stuff every chance he gets. He has a persona to uphold and he knows when to turn it on. Look at them, none of them are actually mad, they are arguing/debating/calling each others moms names like guys do. Once it's all settled they are all laughing about it. (also, sam grizzles joke at the the end makes everybody laugh. It's funny, listen for it. )

It seems to me that Phil was playing the typical way - when caught bluffing, concede the good call, and you toss the cards as the caller shows and claims the pot. The caller can ask for your cards to be shown if he wants, or else the dealer will muck them. That's normal play and normal etiquette.

The real give-away in the video, for me, comes from people other than Phil. Jean Robert says he wants to be able to throw his cards into the muck unseen when Phil folds. That's literally improper. And Sam, to Jean Robert's right, calls Jean Robert out for being just that sort of player, warning Phil that he's going to have to show his cards to get Jean Robert to show his own. Sitting next to the muck, Jean Robert will likely get away with that, often.

--It has nothing to do with where JRB is sitting or getting away with anything, it's well within the rules of the game they where playing in. The room you have dealt in before maybe not, but for this game, or if they where at the casino down the road from my house, JRB is playing 100% by the rules. I take Sam's comment as "he's not going to do the "gentleman" thing and show his cards with out you showing Phil, we will be here all night if you don't show.", to me Sam is telling PH to turn his cards over because they are technically waiting on Phil, not JRB.

 

[12thMan]

In my home game "A" would not be invited back. If you are called, you show. Very simple.

I hear ya.


For my game Player A would be free to fold his hand if he didn't want to show it and Player B would be pushed the pot, It would become weird to me if Player A where to then demand to see Player Bs hand....

Maybe it's a Northwest thing Big Jilm, but we run our games the same way, Player A needs to stop being such a whiny little beotch.

 

[BGinGA]

Nowhere in any rules does it state that a player is 'paying to see his/her cards' when calling a river bet. In reality, they are paying to insure a chance to win the pot with the best hand. Nothing more.

 

[12thMan]

Ok, I believe that. It's just a phrase that goes with poker, a river bet is bet is made and people say things like "you got me, but I'll pay you off.", or "i think you got me, but ill pay to see it." So yeah, it doesn't say that, but what it does say and dictate is order of show down, and if I am the one calling it can be thought of as order of showdown says for me to see his cards I have to pay for it (by calling the bet obviously).

Beemer/bimmer thing, my point still stands even if the language isn't technically correct.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I get what you're saying, and you can look at this as either side trying an angle - but only one of the players expressly said he's hoping to do something which is against the rules - typical casino rules and Robert's Rules of Poker...

While Phil was certainly being a jerk about not wanting to show but not not wanting to fold, he had a valid reason to not want to fold until the winner's hand is shown: Jean Robert said out loud that it was intention to fold the winning hand unshown. I'm not re-watching the video, but I recall Jean Robert saying something very close to the following words: "I don't even want to see your hand. I just want you to muck so I throw my cards in the muck." He was literally saying he wants to claim the pot at showdown without showing; this is just not correct (although any given house rules may allow it.)

I understand that your house rules allow it, choosing to treat any fold the same as before the showdown - if there's only one hand left, it wins. But technically, them's not the rules - at showdown, you're supposed to show it down. In fact, everyone is supposed to show! It's a courtesy and etiquette to allow losing hands to fold unshown, but at least one has to show at showdown. Otherwise, it's not "showdown." It's just "final stand-off."

Now, Phil was wrong to try to make such a big stink about it. To be blunt, HE CAUSED "final show-down." The better way to force Jean Robert to to table his hand was for Phil to just table his own. But I can't imagine that Phil was trying to angle-shoot! This might have mattered in an absurd situation, like Jean Robert calling with 9,7 and Phil holding 9.8. But In fact, we know that Phil had 8,7 and knew he was even beaten by many no-pair hands. Nobody would believe Jean Robert called with a hand that can't beat 8,7! Because I knew Phil's cards, I don't feel he was trying to shoot an angle - I feel he was definitely trying to force JR to properly show the winner to claim the pot. But doing so while refusing to table his own was a childish way to do it, burned a lot of time, and required the floor to step in and make him show what he was trying not to show.

The reason I still don't side with JR is because JR was explicitly trying to get away with breaking the rules, and said as much. I could imagine him thinking maybe Phil was trying an angle with a better pair of nines, but since he said he intended to muck them unseen, and because we know Phil was not angling to win with 8-7-no-pair against a hand that called a bluff, I don't believe Phil was trying an angle at all. He was just being an ass about a rather minor rule JR intended to break.

 

[BGinGA]

THE SHOWDOWN

1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table

Sounds reasonable to me, and suprised that some card rooms choose to ignore this rule.

 

[12thMan]

MentalNomad, you keep saying "breaking the rules", over and over your argument is about breaking the rules. Same with the people who agree with you, like BGnGA above, who is quoting RRoP, you all are convinced he is breaking a rule by not showing his hand to win the pot. The fact that can not be argued though is that in many rooms, and apparently the one they are playing in with regards to the JRB/PH hand, he is breaking ZERO rules. RRoP is being quoted like it's a universal truth, when in reality it's just one of a trillion things that show up on the web. Yes, the TDA has recognized them and adopted them for tournaments, but that means absolutely zero if the room in question doesn't go by RRoP.

I am even more certain of this now than I was earlier in the day, and notice above I am now going to use the words "most" when referring to cardrooms playing it the way I am describing. I just got back from one of the biggest rooms in Washington after playing for about three hours. This exact situation came up twice in those three hours, the first time within 20 minutes of me sitting down, I almost lol'ed when I saw what was happening. I asked three dealers there opinions on this exact situation, none of the three dealers have ever heard done it any other way than pushing the pot to the person who still has cards and then mucking the winners hand if they decide not to show. These are three dealers who have dealt for a long time and in 2 of the cases they have been employed in rooms in California (North and South) as well as Vegas.

With that I am starting to want proof that even half, if not "the vast majority", of rooms would force the person with cards to show. I'm beginning to think that the way I am arguing is much more common.

And again, remember, we are referring to cash games. Each dealer ended saying what they would do with the caveat of "if it was a tournament someone has to show."....

 

[Ronoh]

With that I am starting to want proof that even half, if not "the vast majority", of rooms would force the person with cards to show. I'm beginning to think that the way I am arguing is much more common.

And again, remember, we are referring to cash games. Each dealer ended saying what they would do with the caveat of "if it was a tournament someone has to show."....

Agreed with this. I've played in a ton of cards rooms and can't remember a single time a "showdown muck + no show" resulted in the dealer turning over the winners hand before shipping the pot unless someone requested to see them. Does that mean it's right? Nope... but it doesn't mean it's wrong either. Please stop quoting RRoP like it's the poker gospel. To use the threads popular term of the day I will guess the vast majority of you have a house rule(s) that don't follow the book to the letter. It's like Helmuth trying to bet him 10grand on "proper poker etiquette", only a fool would accept that wager because it's unprovable and you know Phil wouldn't let it go without creating a stink that runs for years.

Phil verbally conceded the hand without seeing Jean Robert's cards

Conceded the hand? He absolutely did no such thing. He would say the same thing holding 33 but I guarantee he's collecting the pot if JR shows 22.

 

[Big Jilm]

Very interesting conversation. I never knew this was such a big deal. Again, in my house you SHOW if called, period. However, the logic listed below sums it up. I saw this on pokernews.com and thought it was relevant to share if you haven't already read it.

When and why to not show


I’ll make this real easy. There is never a time not to show in these situations.

The only argument for not showing would be because you don’t want your opponent to know what your hand was. Some players would argue that this is reason enough. However, the truth of the matter is by not showing you’ve already given away that information you’re trying to reveal — namely, the fact that you were bluffing.

Yes, your opponent won’t know your exact cards if you muck, but he or she already knows that you have no showdown value and therefore you had to have been bluffing. Whether you let your opponent know that you were bluffing with king-high or four-high is mostly irrelevant.

When and why to show


Having established that you should never not show your hand in these spots (and thus allow your opponent also not to show and collect the pot), let me explain why you should show.

First of all, you might actually have the winner. Usually this won’t be the case when your river bluff is called, as your opponent will generally have a hand with showdown value (most likely a pair or better). But there will be rare instances when an opponent might be looking you up light with something as weak as queen-high or jack-high, meaning your king-high would take the pot. But you don’t know if you don’t show.

Secondly, the most important reason for showing in this situation is because it allows you to acquire information about your opponent’s tendencies. You get to see your opponent’s cards and learn what he or she had when calling you. This is such a huge part of poker that it’s worth revealing what your bluffing cards were in order to see what your opponent had. It will help you in future hands with this opponent because you’ll be able to define his or her range of hands more accurately, especially when similar postflop scenarios develop between you and the player.

Now that you have shown


One other important consideration to make when you do show a bluff in order to view your opponent’s hand is to recognize how doing so will affect your table image going forward.

If you’ve been playing relatively tight, you’ll have to adjust your opponents’ perception of your play as they are no longer automatically going to give you credit for having a strong hand. If you’ve been playing loose, then showing the bluff won’t change your image, but may enhance the impression of your looseness even further.

Remember how you bet the hand, though, and use that pattern in a similar situation later when you have a legitimate hand. It’ll keep your opponents off balance and guessing, and having others feel uncomfortable when they are in a hand with you is always an advantage.

 

[12thMan]

Very interesting conversation. I never knew this was such a big deal. Again, in my house you SHOW if called, period.

I just want to say real quick that I hope I don't come across as rude or argumenative about this. I like to debate, especially about subjects I enjoy, and I have never taken anything anybody in this thread has said as anything more than that. Plus, ultimately, the Golden Rule of poker rules seems to be the undeniable one of The Host (house) Makes The Rules. At my game the person with the called bluff would be able to fold and the person who called would collect the pot and only show if they wanted to, at your game Big Jilm the person who was called would be forced to show, at BG and Mental's game the person who was called would not have to show but the person who made the call would have to show to win the pot...and we are all right because we make the rules.

And you all are welcome at my game anytime, I'll even play by your rules that night.



But, to the subject at hand :

When and why to not show




When and why to show




Now that you have shown

Everything that is said in the article above is written from the assumption that if you fold your hand to protect it from being exposed, your opponent wins the pot without having to show what he called you (and won) with.


Chalk another one up for the Good Guys.

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

THE SHOWDOWN
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table

Sounds reasonable to me, and suprised that some card rooms choose to ignore this rule.

I think this rule specifically describes you must show all cards. Just showing your Ace for top pair or a straight isn't enough. You need to show the other cards in your hand as well. In my humble opinion this rule doesn't exist for OP's situation.

I agree that nobody pays to see cards. You're paying to have a chance at winning the pot. If Player A decides to fold his hand instead of show it, he concedes the pot. If Player B is the only player still holding cards, it's an uncontested pot and that means he wins.

If Player A doesn't show and waits for Player B to show, and Player B waits for Player A to show, I'll have the last aggressor turn over his hand first.

Though it's probably good etiquette to show your hand in that situation, I would have no problem with you tossing your cards forward face down. That's how I do it myself. Player A doesn't show and folds, I'm the only one left, I win, I collect the pot, I release the cards face down, the dealer pulls the cards into the muck, nobody makes a fuss.

The same is true in reverse. If Player A tables his hand, and that hand beats me, I can fold face down as well.

 

[BGinGA]

If Player B is the only player still holding cards, it's an uncontested pot and that means he wins.

With all due respect.... yes, it means he wins -- but it doesn't mean that the showdown rule no longer applies. There is no written rule I've ever seen that says the winner of an uncontested pot at showdown doesn't have to show. But there is a written rule that states otherwise (noted in above post).

Not saying it's right, just, or logical, or that the rule is used or enforced at every single cash game in the entire world... but it is a generally accepted poker rule that is part of a generally accepted set of poker rules. There are always exceptions, of course, but those are, well, exceptions.

 

[Big Jilm]

Sometimes, when ladies are present, we play I'll show you mine if you show me yours rules; but that happens late nights after booze.

 

[Mental Nomad]

THE SHOWDOWN

1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table

Sounds reasonable to me, and suprised that some card rooms choose to ignore this rule.

I think this rule specifically describes you must show all cards. Just showing your Ace for top pair or a straight isn't enough. You need to show the other cards in your hand as well.

Can you think of any rational explanation why someone showing an Ace to claim with the straight is required to show the rest of the cards... which does not apply equally to requiring the winner to show their cards in the first place?

I think the rule to show all cards makes absolutely no sense unless they're required to show cards in the first place.

 

[BGinGA]

There are two distinct reasons for the rule that both cards must be tabled at showdown to win a pot:

1. to ensure that the best hand of those shown is awarded the pot (obviously if it is the only hand shown, it wins provided it is a valid hand)
2. to ensure that the hand is valid - ie, it contains the correct number of cards and does not contain duplicate cards already shown or dealt in the board (this is why both cards must be shown, even if only one is used to make the winning hand or if neither hole card is used because the player is playing the board)

One of the underlying currents in RROP is that it is in the best interest of the game for the best valid hand to be awarded the pot. There are many nuances built into the rules with this concept in mind.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Not sure about Robert's Rule of Poker, but Chippy's Rules about Poker (CRaP) state that if player A mucks his hand, he forfeits his right to the pot. If he then insists upon seeing player B's cards, he is entitled to do so, directly after receiving a swift kick in the gonadal area from player B.

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

Can you think of any rational explanation why someone showing an Ace to claim with the straight is required to show the rest of the cards... which does not apply equally to requiring the winner to show their cards in the first place?

I think the rule to show all cards makes absolutely no sense unless they're required to show cards in the first place.

The answers in BGinGA's post and to prevent collusion. You can't lay claim to a contested pot with part of your hand. You need to show all your cards. But to say that this rule makes no sense unless you make the winner show their hand in the first place is too general a statement.

If you bet and everyone folds you don't have to show your hand, yet you win. If you check and the only other person in the hand folds before the river you win and don't have to show your hand. If you're in the big blind and everybody folds to you, you win and don't have to show your hand. What makes this situation after the river so special that now you do have to show if everyone else folds? You will have to show all your cards if you want to claim any part of the pot, even if your Ace in the hole makes a hand that beats the pocket Kings of your opponent, because your opponent has shown a valid hand. If you have suited aces and your bet pushes everyone out of the hand you still win because you don't have to show your hand. Technically you could win with an Ace and a Snickers wrapper .

There are two distinct reasons for the rule that both cards must be tabled at showdown to win a pot:

1. to ensure that the best hand of those shown is awarded the pot (obviously if it is the only hand shown, it wins provided it is a valid hand)
2. to ensure that the hand is valid - ie, it contains the correct number of cards and does not contain duplicate cards already shown or dealt in the board (this is why both cards must be shown, even if only one is used to make the winning hand or if neither hole card is used because the player is playing the board)

One of the underlying currents in RROP is that it is in the best interest of the game for the best valid hand to be awarded the pot. There are many nuances built into the rules with this concept in mind.

RRoP are constructed to ensure a fair game. Not to ensure the best valid hand is awarded the pot. A lot of the rules place the responsibility of playing a fair and competitive game with the players. Playing in turn. Binding action. Ensuring a pleasant atmosphere (like having non-smoking seats adjacent to the dealer position). A sportsmanlike game (no abusive behavior). Some rules are somewhat open to interpretation though, depending on where you lay the emphasis.

Is it "1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table" or "1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table"? I'm inclined to go for the second interpretation because of the inclusion of the word "all", though an argument can be made the word "all" was included to be all encompassing.

 

[Mental Nomad]

The answers in BGinGA's post and to prevent collusion. You can't lay claim to a contested pot with part of your hand. You need to show all your cards. But to say that this rule makes no sense unless you make the winner show their hand in the first place is too general a statement.

So if I understand what you're saying correctly, if the board has 2, 3, 4, 5, and Joe shows an Ace, saying, "I have an ace for the straight," and the only two opponents muck their cards, then Joe is forced to show the second card, and this is in order to prove that he has legal cards and to prevent collusion.

But if Joe says, "I have the straight," without showing the ace, and the the only two opponents muck their cards... then Joe can claim the pot without showing either card. Why is it no longer necessary for the winner of the pot to prove that he has legal cards? And why do we no longer need to prevent collusion?

Why do the legitimate reasons for showing the second card not apply to the first card?

If you bet and everyone folds you don't have to show your hand, yet you win.

Sure, but that's an uncontested pot. If the bet is not called, you don't go to showdown. But when you go to showdown, someone has to show.

 

[12thMan]

I think BG and Mental have officially became the people who won't fold or show...

Seriously though, BG, you keep quoting RRoP and saying that they are the standard, yet they are no where close to that. What room do you play in? I'm curious to know if I asked the floor of the room you play in about this situation what they would say. If they sided with you I wouldn't be totally surprised, after all it's your room and you know it best, plus if your username is referring to the state you live in then you are on the East coast and apparently the East coast is more common to have this rule...but I also wouldn't be totally surprised to find out that your room plays it the way I (and many other people) are describing.

You give politician answers, even though people have repeatedly pointed out that RRoP doesn't have anything to do with this situation because A. They are not official rules, just something somebody named Robert put together, and unless the room specifically plays by them for cash they have no bearing on this argument, B. RRoP are primarily applied by TD to tournaments, we are talking cash, and C. RRoP would never over rule a "house" rule just because they are printed on the internet; with all that said you still keep quoting them with out even acknowledging the points people bring up about why they don't apply. It's almost like you are skipping over all that doesn't agree with you and acting like your point is valid.

If RRoP is the only leg you have to stand on I respectfully ask you to show your hand (convince me, without using RRoP, that the "common" rule in poker rooms is the way you are describing) or fold (admit you are wrong)... Please do one or the other, I have called your bet on the river and would prefer to scoop the pot with out showing if you "muck" your argument.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I think BG and Mental have officially became the people who won't fold or show...

Actually, I just show.

 

[12thMan]

Actually, I just show.

The funny thing is, me too. lol I VERY rarely fold my hand unseen if my bluff is called. I have a very tight image, so when I get to the river in a hand with a board that has ATK9Q on it, and I'm caught bluffing with a 73off, I proudly turn it over and declare "awww, i was just screwing around, you caught me."...