10centguitar
Two Pair
This would be a better question for the thedealerslounge. On yuku
Its pretty decent dealers forum
Its pretty decent dealers forum
RROP v11 said: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.
So what happens if the dealer does muck both hands?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my home game "A" would not be invited back. If you are called, you show. Very simple.
RROP v11 said:THE SHOWDOWN
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table
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.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."....
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.Mental Nomad said:Phil verbally conceded the hand without seeing Jean Robert's cards
Very interesting conversation. I never knew this was such a big deal. Again, in my house you SHOW if called, period.
When and why to not show
When and why to show
Now that you have shown
Sounds reasonable to me, and suprised that some card rooms choose to ignore this rule.RROP v11 said:THE SHOWDOWN
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table
If Player B is the only player still holding cards, it's an uncontested pot and that means he wins.
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.Sounds reasonable to me, and suprised that some card rooms choose to ignore this rule.RROP said:THE SHOWDOWN
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table
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.
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.
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.
I think BG and Mental have officially became the people who won't fold or show...
Actually, I just show.