Rule Question (2 Viewers)

[Chippy McChiperson]

There is something to be said for snap showing your bluff, hoping villain misreads your hand and automucks.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Seriously though, BG, you keep quoting RRoP and saying that they are the standard, yet they are no where close to that.

I have a question - is there any other written description of poker that you'd prefer to call "standard?" Because I have yet to see one that is not substantially similar to this one:

"There are usually two or more betting intervals for each Poker deal. After the final interval there is a "showdown," which means that each player who remains shows his hand face up on the table."

That's from Bicycle's web site. You'll find similar description from every poker book, from Scarne on Cards on up.

The basic idea is always that after the last call, all the hands are shown. This has been the case ever since people were playing Poque. Allowing some people to muck their losers unseen is the modern variation. But allowing the winner to take the pot unseen pushes things too far... if you want to run a fair game, the winner shows their cards to claim the pot.

Even Wikipedia says: "At the end of the last betting round, if more than one player remains, there is a showdown, in which the players reveal their previously hidden cards and evaluate their hands." That's a pretty commonly accepted modern description.

How do you wiggle a no-show win into any of these written description?

Seriously; find me some references to the basic rules of poker which do not explicitly say that after the last bet is called, the hands are shown. This is pretty straightforward.

 

[12thMan]

Even Wikipedia says: "At the end of the last betting round, if more than one player remains, there is a showdown, in which the players reveal their previously hidden cards and evaluate their hands." That's a pretty commonly accepted modern description.

How do you wiggle a no-show win into any of these written description?

How would a no-show win in the quoted situation? Very easy and very plainly, because if the player that was called folds his hand then only one player remains in the pot, not two as described above, and it very clearly states "if more than one player remains". The one player left with a live hand wins. Seems very simple to me, and supported by what you posted above actually.

If PH would have folded his hand instead of holding onto it and JRB was the only one left with cards he gets the pot. If PH refuses to show his hand, then showdown rules apply and PH shows first. In that case the showdown will have to have at least one hand tabled because the called hand is required to be tabled first.

See?

I've done my best to answer your question, I can clarify if you want or take into account your interpretation, but let me also ask you a question:

If two players remain in a pot, and one player folds his hand, thereby removing himself from the hand/pot, how could that ever be described as a situation where "more than two people remain in the pot"?

Editing to add: the last eight words that are in quotations above should actually read: "two or more remain in the pot."

 

[Mental Nomad]

How would a no-show win in the quoted situation? Very easy and very plainly, because if the player that was called folds his hand then only one player remains in the pot, not two as described above, and it very clearly states "if more than one player remains".

"More than one player remains" after the betting round means is what happens when there is a call. The betting round ends when the last player decides between calling and folding.

Technically, there is no "folding" after that. You can show your hand, or it can be mucked with the loser. With no further bets, you can no more "fold" than you can "call." You merely discard, or muck - whether or not you choose to show them.

I can kinda see how you can take that quote out of context to imply that "only one player remains" when everyone has mucked during showdown save one person. Really, the "if more than one person remains" part is clearly before showdown begins, so I feel it's twisting it to imply that they're saying, "if more than one player remains, showdown begins, and then if only one person remains, there's actually no showdown."

But it's clearer in full context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker

At any time during a betting round, if one player bets, no opponents choose to call (match) the bet, and all opponents instead fold, the hand ends immediately, the bettor is awarded the pot, no cards are required to be shown, and the next hand begins. This is what makes bluffing possible. Bluffing is a primary feature of poker, one that distinguishes it from other vying games and from other games that make use of poker hand rankings.

At the end of the last betting round, if more than one player remains, there is a showdown, in which the players reveal their previously hidden cards and evaluate their hands. The player with the best hand according to the poker variant being played wins the pot. A poker hand comprises five cards; in variants where a player has more than five cards, the best five cards play.

This makes it clear that folding is an option during the betting round, and if there isn't more than one person after the betting round, then there's no showdown. But if there are players at the end of the betting round, then you go to the next paragraph, the showdown. There's no more talk of folding.

I don't think you can find any poker references that don't say, plain and simple, that when showdown comes, the cards are shown.

I'm sure there a plenty of places where the house rule does not require a hand to be shown to win the pot; I'm sure the experiences reflected in this thread in various places are true. But I think it's a mistake to think that is a "standard" in most places when it's clearly a variation from basic poker - cards, bets, showdown.

If you're going to claim that's the more common rule, I think you should at least make the effort to find something that says so... I can hardly find anything that describes that as being valid, never mind that it's the more common house rule!

 

[Ronoh]

I have a question - is there any other written description of poker that you'd prefer to call "standard?" Because I have yet to see one that is not substantially similar to this one:

"There are usually two or more betting intervals for each Poker deal. After the final interval there is a "showdown," which means that each player who remains shows his hand face up on the table."

That's from Bicycle's web site. You'll find similar description from every poker book, from Scarne on Cards on up.

The basic idea is always that after the last call, all the hands are shown. This has been the case ever since people were playing Poque. Allowing some people to muck their losers unseen is the modern variation. But allowing the winner to take the pot unseen pushes things too far... if you want to run a fair game, the winner shows their cards to claim the pot.

Even Wikipedia says: "At the end of the last betting round, if more than one player remains, there is a showdown, in which the players reveal their previously hidden cards and evaluate their hands." That's a pretty commonly accepted modern description.

How do you wiggle a no-show win into any of these written description?

Yeah, you are quoting references that are explaining basics of how to play poker. If it doesn't mention the specific situation being discussed why even bring it up?

Your first quote comes from Bicycle's web site and on the same page it discusses hand rankings, in which it lists 5-of-a-kind as beating a straight flush when using wild cards. Certainly many people use that ruling in wild card games yet plenty of others say a straight flush beats 5OAK. Does it make the house playing SF > 5OAK wrong? I mean, Bicycle does have it on their playing cards web site after all.

Seriously; find me some references to the basic rules of poker which do not explicitly say that after the last bet is called, the hands are shown. This is pretty straightforward.

Personal experience doesn't count?

Example for the comment to follow:

P1 bets the river
P2 calls
P1 throws in his cards face down in a manner that can not be seen as anything other than "I lose, muck these please"
P2 places his cards face down on the table

I've already mentioned having played a whole lot of poker in a whole lot of poker rooms and can not remember one single time where the above example resulted in the dealer turning P2's cards face up unless someone requested to see them. I can, however, recall many times the pot has been pushed with no cards shown having been on both sides of it plenty of times.

That doesn't mean that I am right and you are wrong, but it doesn't mean the reverse either. It's called house rules. Your insistence on a specific rule being the only acceptable way to do it it just flat out stupid.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Your insistence on a specific rule being the only acceptable way to do it it just flat out stupid.

I'm sorry if you've read what I said that way - or if I accidentally said it that way - actually, I always allow for "house rules."

The question here is what's 'standard.' I'm biased in that I've mostly played (and dealt) in Atlantic City, where the rules are set in state law, and that's how everyone plays in home games that I've visited.

But I also accept that RRoP is a reliable standard, based on rules generally in play in card rooms all over the country for years. "Robert's Rules" is not just some guy Bob... it's Robert Ciaffone, an actual authority. Context:

“Robert’s Rules Of Poker” is authored by Robert Ciaffone, better known in the poker world as Bob Ciaffone, a leading authority on cardroom rules. He is the person who has selected which rules to use, and formatted, organized, and worded the text. Nearly all these rules are substantively in common use for poker, but many improved ideas for wording and organization are employed throughout this work. A lot of the rules are similar to those used in the rulebook of cardrooms where he has acted as a rules consultant and rules drafter. Ciaffone authored the rulebook for the Poker Players Association (founded in 1984, now defunct), the first comprehensive set of poker rules for the general public. He has done extensive work on rules for the Las Vegas Hilton, The Mirage, and Hollywood Park Casino, and assisted many other cardrooms. Ciaffone is a regular columnist for Card Player magazine, and can be reached through that publication.

If you want to dismiss this well-accepted rule set, fine - but I'm honestly asking for you to propose an alternate, well-respected rule set that shows otherwise in this situation. If we can't find one, then maybe the rule as described in RRoP is, in fact, the most common one. If it isn't, we ought to be able to find it.

 

[12thMan]

Agree with Ronoh, and also, not trying to be a jerk, but if RRoP aren't recognized or played by all and therefore not a good source as "the end all be all", then wikipedia is even further down the list.


Look, I get what you are saying Mental, it's not like I think you are completely irrational, but I also don't think that the way you are describing is the "correct" way, or even "the norm". The problem is, and one of the biggest reasons RRoP are becoming something that can be looked at as a standard, is precisely because there is NO exact standard for poker rules out there. House rules, like ronoh said, are the rules for that game.

For shits and giggles I called the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City and asked the floor how they would rule in this exact scenario: he agreed with you Mental, the player who called would need to expose his hand before he was pushed the pot. I didn't get into what would happen to the pot if that player refused to show, it's not what we are discussing (and probably never comes up), so I thanked him for his time and told him to have a good night.

But I also called the Muckleshoot poker room here in Washington, not surprisingly they agreed with me, the player still holding cards would be pushed the pot and they would be free to fold with out showing. She actually said "muck without showing", but I didn't want to rile up BG.


So yeah, just like the rap war of the 90's, its West vs. East... And again, just like the rap war of the 90's, the West side is the Best side.


Here's the question now, which way is more "standard"... If there was a way to poll every cardroom in America, or the world even, I wonder what way is truly used more in cash games....

 

[12thMan]

I'm sorry if you've read what I said that way - or if I accidentally said it that way - actually, I always allow for "house rules."

The question here is what's 'standard.' I'm biased in that I've mostly played (and dealt) in Atlantic City, where the rules are set in state law, and that's how everyone plays in home games that I've visited.

But I also accept that RRoP is a reliable standard, based on rules generally in play in card rooms all over the country for years. "Robert's Rules" is not just some guy Bob... it's Robert Ciaffone, an actual authority. Context:



If you want to dismiss this well-accepted rule set, fine - but I'm honestly asking for you to propose an alternate, well-respected rule set that shows otherwise in this situation. If we can't find one, then maybe the rule as described in RRoP is, in fact, the most common one. If it isn't, we ought to be able to find it.

(i was typing when mental posted)

I know the who and why of RRoP, I don't mean it literally that "it's just some guy named Robert who wrote down some rules"...but my point is that at this point in time they are not recognized as a "standard". Maybe they will be in the future, and I'm not against that, but still, to use them as proving a "standard" won't work because with our experiences where some of us have played all our life those aren't the rules we have played by.

Rono is from Ohio and plays poker there, he has stated he has never seen the rule you are describing applied, how can that be if the majority of card rooms use the "east coast" rule? Isn't Ohio far enough away from the West coast to maybe be influenced by the rule you know??

I'm really getting curios now, one of you should make a poll.

 

[ChaosRock]

For whatever it's worth, again, all casinos I played at in Detroit, Las Vegas, NJ and The Bike and The Comm in Los Angeles demand the winner player to show his/hers cards to win the pot after a 'bluff muck'... The rule was never discussed but all the dealers required the winner hand to be shown... In contrast, I have never played in a casino that didn't require the winner to show his/hers hands... All those were large, 'corporate' casinos though... Same thing for home games I attend(ed) in Michigan, New York, Colorado and Florida... Can't speak about what's the 'standard', can only speak about what's been my experience and the written rules I have access to...

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

There's also the TDA rules and the WSOP rules if anybody wants to make a comparison. You'll find that most rules are virtually identical in all three rulebooks.

The point I was making is that in none of these rulebooks this particular situation is described. There are rules that sort of apply, but none that accurately and definitively deal with OP's situation since there is a deviation from the normal and accepted rules to begin with, and no rulebook will cover every eventuality for compound rule infractions.

In a normal showdown situation the aggressor will table his hand, and the other players need to table a better hand to beat him. When the aggressor blind folds his hand with all action complete that's a rule violation. Whatever happens after that is the result of that initial violation, and if discussion arises from that the floor will need to make a decision. It will depend not only on the region, or the casino's house rules, but on that particular floorperson. When asking two floorpersons at the same casino it's likely you'll get two different answers.

 

[MikesDad]

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.

this x 1000

How in the world can it be right that A bets, is called by B, A mucks his cards without of showing (as he should), and then B is required to show his cards to win the pot.?? Makes no sense in my world of fair play and in my house game and all the casinos I've played in. If A mucks, B has the only live and hand and gets the pot.

 

[ChaosRock]

this x 1000

How in the world can it be right that A bets, is called by B, A mucks his cards without of showing (as he should), and then B is required to show his cards to win the pot.?? Makes no sense in my world of fair play and in my house game and all the casinos I've played in. If A mucks, B has the only live and hand and gets the pot.

This is not about symmetry... Player A is conceding the pot to player B, whatever hand player B has... What happens if A bets, B calls and A shows the nuts? Does player B show the loosing hand? NEVER, players B cards go to the muck... It's the same situation here the difference being Player A is conceding the pot before seeing player B's hand...

Btw, it's not a matter of player A wanting to see Plarer B's hand, Its a matter the of the 'house' only awarding a pot at showdown to a winner hand that's been shown...

 

[Ronoh]

This is not about symmetry... Player A is conceding the pot to player B, whatever hand player B has...

Assuming the game is being dealt "correctly" per the rules you guys are sticking to, and for sake of the argument let us assume the game is being dealt correctly because if not it's a fucked point anyways, then it is impossible for Player A to concede his hand. Because regardless of what action/motion/verbalizing Player A does the dealer won't muck the cards until a winner has been declared because a hand can't be folded at showdown, right? So at what point is Player A conceding the pot? He can throw his cards to the middle of the table, he can stand up and yell I FOLD but he can still show his 9-high wins when Player B shows 87 on a AAKK8 board... right? I really don't know what happens there because in the many rooms I've played in his cards are in the muck, not sitting in the middle of the table readily identifiable.

Its a matter the of the 'house' only awarding a pot at showdown to a winner hand that's been shown...

That is your opinion and that's fine. But based on the fact that a) many here disagree and b) many poker rooms disagree... can we agree that it is only an opinion?

 

[Big Jilm]

this x 1000

How in the world can it be right that A bets, is called by B, A mucks his cards without of showing (as he should), and then B is required to show his cards to win the pot.?? Makes no sense in my world of fair play and in my house game and all the casinos I've played in. If A mucks, B has the only live and hand and gets the pot.

My game is run the same way. I haven't played in a casino or an official poker room in a long time. I don't miss all the regular d-bags that play at those places either. My home game is with my closest friends and family only, people I trust and enjoy hanging out with. I understand the rule, but it has no weight at my house. B does not have to show in that scenario. Our way is much more logical imo.

 

[ChaosRock]

Assuming the game is being dealt "correctly" per the rules you guys are sticking to, and for sake of the argument let us assume the game is being dealt correctly because if not it's a fucked point anyways, then it is impossible for Player A to concede his hand. Because regardless of what action/motion/verbalizing Player A does the dealer won't muck the cards until a winner has been declared because a hand can't be folded at showdown, right? So at what point is Player A conceding the pot? He can throw his cards to the middle of the table, he can stand up and yell I FOLD but he can still show his 9-high wins when Player B shows 87 on a AAKK8 board... right? I really don't know what happens there because in the many rooms I've played in his cards are in the muck, not sitting in the middle of the table readily identifiable.


That is your opinion and that's fine. But based on the fact that a) many here disagree and b) many poker rooms disagree... can we agree that it is only an opinion?

I'm not sure if I stated a hand couldn't be mucked at showdown, I don't believe I did because I don't think that's the case (I used the term fold as in facing a bet)... So if the player who was called shows middle pair, can the caller muck his bottom pair? A winner hasn't been declared yet, it's only declared once the caller says 'you got it' or mucks his hand right? That happens every time in a showdown when the out of position player has a better hand... So that is mucking at a show down... In my mind, this situation is very similar the only difference being Player A is declaring Player B has a better hand 'a priori' (without seeing Player B's hand) so all Player B has to do is show his hand...

To be honest, if we are talking about 'opinion', I have mixed feelings about the pros/cons arguments, or what 'should' be the official rule... I can see both sides: 'having to show' and 'there's only one player left in the hand' positions... So from a 'common sense' perspective, I can kinda go either way tbh...

But what I was writing was NOT an opinion , it was a fact: I have never played in a cash game (casino or home) in which a player haven't shown a hand in a showdown to win the pot... I have played in many casinos (and homes) kinda all over, but maybe it was just luck of the draw I got to go to the ones that do enforce this rule... I guess that's why we've never seen each other at the casinos, you picked the ones which do not require the winning hand to be shown and I picked the ones which do require that, LOL!!

It's all good man we can certainly have had different experiences...

I think if I am in charge of writing the World Poker Rules to be used worldwide, I'd probably pick the 'have to show' side though...

 

[Mental Nomad]

I'd like to take back something I said earlier - I was thinking about it, and I haven't actually seen the situation come up in most home games around here. It has come up at my game, but people deferred to me for house rules.

I don't just mean I haven't seen anyone raise the question of whether the winner has to show... I simply can't remember an instance of someone TRYING to muck without showing at showdown, outside of newbs at my house, or in Atlantic City. I've played a few rooms outside AC, but it just doesn't come up all that often. The vast majority of the time, if someone's bluff is called, they generally say "you got me" as they flip up their bluff (often wanting the advertising), or else the caller says something like, "No, I've REALLY got the third Ace," or whatever, as they show it. In the few instances where the players hesitate, the same thing always happens: everyone turns to the bluffer and says, "well, show 'em!" and "you bet, you gotta show first."

So, basically, if Phil were playing at our game, he would just be told to shut up and show his damn cards... But if Phil did toss them into the muck himself, I'd tell the caller, "good call. Now you can flip 'em up and take the pot."

The question still stands as to what the dominant "house rule" is, and how/where it varies. Several posters in this thread have the impression that the majority of the places they've played across the country do it one way, yet others have the exact opposite experience.

All online poker rooms automatically show the winning hand, although all losers are given the option to show or muck.

I really wish we could find more places that officially state their house rule on this.

 

[Ronoh]

The question still stands as to what the dominant "house rule" is, and how/where it varies. Several posters in this thread have the impression that the majority of the places they've played across the country do it one way, yet others have the exact opposite experience.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you'll never find an answer to your question

 

[Mental Nomad]

for sake of the argument let us assume the game is being dealt correctly because if not it's a fucked point anyways, then it is impossible for Player A to concede his hand. Because regardless of what action/motion/verbalizing Player A does the dealer won't muck the cards until a winner has been declared because a hand can't be folded at showdown, right?

The dealer can and should muck any cards as soon as the player concedes and drops them. When a player says, "you got me," and tosses their cards face-down, they're dead cards, not live. They've discarded. You can call it folding if you want, and the dealer and all the player will understand what you meant, and the hand is dead, and the dealer should touch them to the muck to make it visible and to stop people from deliberating about whether or not they can still ask for the cards to be seen.

In practice, pretty much nobody at my games says, "I fold" as they discard their loser at the showdown... they just toss their hand. If they toss it face-down, it's dead. If they table them face-up, they're read. If they say anything, they're looking at someone else's cards and saying, "that's good," or, "you got me."

The only reason any of this is coming up because Phil chose to say, "you got me," but never actually let go of his cards, and wouldn't flip them up right away - as he ought to.

 

[Mental Nomad]

How in the world can it be right that A bets, is called by B, A mucks his cards without of showing (as he should), and then B is required to show his cards to win the pot.?? Makes no sense in my world of fair play and in my house game and all the casinos I've played in. If A mucks, B has the only live and hand and gets the pot.

Am not trying to convince you to change your rules - and I understand there's a logic in wanting the rules the way you have them - but there's also a logic to doing it the other way around.

Think of it this way:

The basic play of the game is that after the last bet is made and called, everyone who is still in shows their cards. Everyone at once. And the best hand wins. We signify the best hand by mucking the losers, so the last hand remaining gets the pot.

Then, to speed up the game, we make an exception and allow everyone who knows they are a loser to muck without showing if they want. That's fine, too.

Then, you come to the weird scenario when everyone except one person believes they are a loser and decides to muck - why is the winner not showing? The "loser can muck unseen" rule doesn't apply to the winner.

In all honesty, I feel this is the way the rules evolved. I think they still show; them's the rules. You say it doesn't matter if they show, because they have the last live hand. To me, both are correct - showing doesn't change the fact that they win, but they still have to show, because that's how showdown works; if nothing else, everyone always gets to see the winner at showdown. Meanwhile, to you, if it's not going to change the outcome, they are allowed to not show it.

That's not to say it has be one way or the other - maybe most place do allow a winner to muck unseen, and if they don't, maybe in a few years they will. I won't like it any more than if people decided you only have to show one card to win. To me, if you don't have to show your cards to win, then you shouldn't have to show all your cards to win - it should be perfectly fine to show the one card that makes the hand, and muck the other, unseen. All the reasoning for insisting the second card be shown have to do with playing fair and protecting the game, and all of those reasons apply completely equally to the rule that the winner has to show in the first palce. I guess what I'm saying is that the reasons for wanting them to show the second card apply double for wanting
them to show their cards in the first place. If you're going to be consistent, you should play the same in both situations.

There are LOTS of rules that are there which don't change the outcome. They're there to ensure the game is fair - to ensure that errors don't happen, to ensure that people know they'll be exposed if they cheat, so the fair players know everyone else is fair, etc. In short, to protect the game. I'm all about protecting the game.

For example, why are we supposed to be making single over-hand cuts? It's so that you can't do a false cut. In my game, we ask people who do two-handed cuts to stop doing it... but not because it's going to change the outcome of a cut; we ask them to do it the right way because it's proper and it's more fair and safer for everyone!

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Are you the same guy who was arguing the real meaning of the term bad-beat? I'm too lazy to look it up. If so, you seem pretty stubborn. If not, I apologize.

 

[CHP TD]

I LOVE these rules threads... Why?

Because the problem for all past and all future rule questions are the same!!!!!

And the answer to all the future rules questions are the same.


The problem and answer is.... Drum Roll Please,,,,,,


Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That you don't have any.

Get some! and make them available.

PS

Sorry people = you will hear this from me again and again!!!!!

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

Okay, hypothetical:

Player A (the last aggressor) says "You got me" and releases his cards.
The dealer mucks Player A's cards.
Player B (the caller) is the only player left, tables his cards, and turns out he has a fouled hand.
Player A's cards are irretrievable.

What happens next?



@CHP TD Your reply is invalid since we're talking about the rules as described in RRoP. So there definitely are rules here...

 

[Poker Zombie]

Here's a new perspective:

A player must show a winning hand. If, at a showdown, you (Player A or Phil H) you are the first to act, then don't you technically have to show, as up to this point, any hand is technically winning (until something better is tabled)?

 

[MikesDad]

Here's a new perspective:

A player must show a winning hand. If, at a showdown, you (Player A or Phil H) you are the first to act, then don't you technically have to show, as up to this point, any hand is technically winning (until something better is tabled)?

Your premise that a player must show a winning hand is invalid. If I bet the flop and everyone folds, I don't have to show my winning hand.
For me the same applies at showdown. If A bets the river and is called, he either shows his hand or folds. If he folds, then B has the only live hand (just like when everyone folds on the flop) and wins the pot without showing.

 

[jbutler]

I LOVE these rules threads... Why?

Because the problem for all past and all future rule questions are the same!!!!!

And the answer to all the future rules questions are the same.


The problem and answer is.... Drum Roll Please,,,,,,


Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That you don't have any.

Get some! and make them available.

PS

Sorry people = you will hear this from me again and again!!!!!

Okay, hypothetical:

Player A (the last aggressor) says "You got me" and releases his cards.
The dealer mucks Player A's cards.
Player B (the caller) is the only player left, tables his cards, and turns out he has a fouled hand.
Player A's cards are irretrievable.

What happens next?



@CHP TD Your reply is invalid since we're talking about the rules as described in RRoP. So there definitely are rules here...

his reply is exactly correct because these threads are always full of people stating with certainty that this or that should have happened despite the fact that all card rooms establish their own rules. some use RRoP and some don't. but no one here can say what the ruling should be in the particular room without knowing what the house rules are.

Are you the same guy who was arguing the real meaning of the term bad-beat? I'm too lazy to look it up. If so, you seem pretty stubborn. If not, I apologize.

same guy. also same guy to argue with people that they shouldn't call a cut card a cut card. also the same guy who private messaged me to argue with me about whether he's a pedant.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I'm pretty sure at Live! player B is not forced to show his cards, and this situation comes up far more frequently than it should.

Here's my thing...both sides think they are right, and there are no magical words out there that are going to convince the other side that your point of view is correct, not matter how eloquent your words. And both sides are right, depending on the card room. This can all be solved by either showing your cards or not being a jackhole if you are player A.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Your premise that a player must show a winning hand is invalid. If I bet the flop and everyone folds, I don't have to show my winning hand.
For me the same applies at showdown. If A bets the river and is called, he either shows his hand or folds. If he folds, then B has the only live hand (just like when everyone folds on the flop) and wins the pot without showing.

What I typed and meant were obviously not clear. It should have said:

Here's a new perspective:

A player must show a winning hand at showdown. If, at a showdown, you (Player A or Phil H) you are the first to act, then don't you technically have to show, as up to this point, any hand is technically winning (until something better is tabled)?

 

[DrStrange]

We agree that some sort of standard ruling is best. No one is in doubt who gets the pot, only if the winner has to show his hand. Either rule is plausible - last man standing wins without showing or winning hand must be tabled at showdown. We are not discussing cheating accusations so "I want to see the hand" rules are not the issue. What ever is the house rule is the rule for the game.

In my cash games, I rule last man standing wins. The mucking player chose to forgo seeing the winning hand rather than show his hand - that was his choice. The rest of the table has no rights in this case.

In my tournament games, both players have to show.

I almost never allow "I want to see the hand" requests - meaning I haven't ever allowed it in the past, but I would consider each future request and might grant it.

Yes I have rules, 58 pages widely spaced available in the room for people to read. No one ever has - they rarely ask to see them and when produced hand them back. One commented, "the fucking Constitution is a whole lot shorter!"

My reply, "Founding a new nation is a lot easier than running a poker game with you guys" -=- DrStrange

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Holy Crap I want to play at your game just to read the rulebook. And also crazy. Definitely want to play with crazy.

 

[DrStrange]

My rules are a barely edited copy of Robert's Rules. We occasionally play a wide variety of games and so we need rules for each one not just hold'em (and not all of our games have special rules - try to find Robert's Rules for Crazy Pineapple, big O and the like)

DrStrange