Rules debate (1 Viewer)

Freeroll

Two Pair
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Messages
362
Reaction score
1,359
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Here’s a debate that was had at my last game, that I’m curious about others’ opinions.

A player called another player on the river. The player that called exposed his cards right away, then the player that got called mucked his cards.
The player that called then asked to see the player’s cards that mucked.

Someone looked up the rules and said that the player that calls on the river is entitled to see the opponents cards.

My argument is that it is (or should be) that if the player that calls wants to see their opponents cards, that they should force them to show first.

Just curious what others think about it.
 
My argument is that it is (or should be) that if the player that calls wants to see their opponents cards, that they should force them to show first.
this.

if they wanted to see their cards they should have waited for them to open instead of opening their hand first which opened the opportunity for the player that was called to muck their hand. once the hand is mucked its too late.
 
There are a few things at play here.

You have to be careful ordering someone's hand up, and a dealer dedicated or not shouldn't do it, the houseman or host should make a determination.

The caller, player B, should simply force the better to show first, this is the easiest way for it to go. Even then player A could simply say 'good call' and muck.
The houseman / host shouldn't show player A's hand unless there is suspicion of collusion or cheating imo.
 
Warning - @Ben8257 style lengthy response below. ;) TLDR option available...

Roberts Rules of Poker (RROP) has a couple of relevant rules on this:

"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. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so."

"Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

Generally this second rule is infrequently invoked, as some consider it bad form (even though it is completely legal).

Also from RROP:

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player"

So a player MAY still be able to win the pot after mucking.

Tournament Directors Association (TDA) has a couple of rules related to this:

" If the house does not have a mucking line or forward motion rule at showdown, pushing non-tabled cards forward face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. However, the cards are at risk of being killed by the dealer when he pushes them into the muckpile."

"All cards will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete."

" In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.). Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down"

"Players not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down without tabling their cards, lose any rights or privileges they may have to ask to see any hand.

TLDR: The answer to your question is - Maybe...

In general,
  • Cards should be shown in order (last aggressive player first) except in all-in tournament scenario, where all cards must be turned over immediately.
  • A player can abandon his claim to a pot by mucking.
  • The winning player (actually any player still in the hand) can ask to see the other player's cards even if mucked.
  • Asking to do so if a player doesn't want to show his cards may be considered bad form, and also exposes the "winner" to actually losing (cards speak).
  • If the cards cannot be readily identified from the muck, then cards are dead and move on.
 
Last edited:
Classic “I Want To See That Hand” rule (or IWTSTH)

Winner of the pot didn’t break any rules. If there’s anything he did wrong, he should’ve asked sooner to see his opponent’s hand. If the cards can still be identified, pull it out and expose it. If not, move on to the next hand.
 
Classic “I Want To See That Hand” rule (or IWTSTH)

Winner of the pot didn’t break any rules. If there’s anything he did wrong, he should’ve asked sooner to see his opponent’s hand. If the cards can still be identified, pull it out and expose it. If not, move on to the next hand.
LOL, you just said what I said, but in about 1/10th the number of words. Well done!
 
LOL, also what I said but in far fewer words. I guess I should learn to be more concise! :x
Whoops. Wasn't trying to be redundant. Just saying the rules I was told when I was working. I didn't really read any of the other comments.

Since everyone is on the same side on this one, how about this ruling, this happened at aria not too long ago and a handful of floor staff were all split in decision.

River, 3 handed. player A goes all in. Player C says "I call". Dealer says wait, you're out of turn. Player B folds. Player C then folds right after and says, I don't want to call. And now here is the icing on the cake... dealer mucks Player C's hand.

Decision is does Player C owe the verbally called amount to Player A.

This is a tough one. Dealer errors always cause really tough decisions.

Obviously action out of turn is binding. A good dealer would never let Player C's cards hit the muck. But now can you force a player to pay off in that spot.
 
Whoops. Wasn't trying to be redundant. Just saying the rules I was told when I was working. I didn't really read any of the other comments.
LOL, wasn't commenting on your redundancy, but on my long-windedness!

Obviously action out of turn is binding. A good dealer would never let Player C's cards hit the muck. But now can you force a player to pay off in that spot.
Yell FLOOR!!!! very loudly. Player C called then folded. His money is (or should be) in the pot. If I'm Player A, I'm not letting this one go without an argument...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies!
So, unless I’m missing another good reason, the only good reason for this rule is to give the players in the game an option to confirm their suspicions if they think there might be collusion going on?
I never thought of that reason until after reading these replies. That is a good reason.
 
Is there a distinction to be made here between cash vs tournament? The way we play tournament all hands must immediately be turned over at an all in. There is no mucking and if attempted the dealer will flip their cards. In cash neither would have to show their cards and in this scenario if the caller showed then the aggressor can fold without showing. No idea if that is right, but that is the way or game developed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies!
So, unless I’m missing another good reason, the only good reason for this rule is to give the players in the game an option to confirm their suspicions if they think there might be collusion going on?
I never thought of that reason until after reading these replies. That is a good reason.
This is exactly the reason for the rule, thus should be treated as such. If a player wants to give up the pot, you should let them...unless you suspect something is amuck and want proof.
 
Warning - @Ben8257 style lengthy response below. ;) TLDR option available...

Roberts Rules of Poker (RROP) has a couple of relevant rules on this:

"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. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so."

"Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

Generally this second rule is infrequently invoked, as some consider it bad form (even though it is completely legal).

Also from RROP:

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player"

So a player MAY still be able to win the pot after mucking.

Tournament Directors Association (TDA) has a couple of rules related to this:

" If the house does not have a mucking line or forward motion rule at showdown, pushing non-tabled cards forward face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. However, the cards are at risk of being killed by the dealer when he pushes them into the muckpile."

"All cards will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete."

" In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.). Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down"

"Players not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down without tabling their cards, lose any rights or privileges they may have to ask to see any hand.

TLDR: The answer to your question is - Maybe...

In general,
  • Cards should be shown in order (last aggressive player first) except in all-in tournament scenario, where all cards must be turned over immediately.
  • A player can abandon his claim to a pot by mucking.
  • The winning player (actually any player still in the hand) can ask to see the other player's cards even if mucked.
  • Asking to do so if a player doesn't want to show his cards may be considered bad form, and also exposes the "winner" to actually losing (cards speak).
  • If the cards cannot be readily identified from the muck, then cards are dead and move on.
++1 this ^^^^

To make the rules clear at my game (cash and tourney), I govern using WSOP rules. Yes...I know these are tournament rules, but they are the house rules and are consistent with everything LotsofChips mentioned above.

@Freeroll , my recommendation is to find a standard set of rules you like and adopt them as house rules. It will save you a TON of headache in the long run. I used to deal with these never ending debates where somebody played it this way at one place while somebody else argues the opposite because that's how it was done at Fred Sanford's house.

I actually use this ruling to see somebody's cards if I've paid for that privledge. I have players who bluff, I call, but they try to muck to keep me from getting information. NOPE....I paid for the information and I'm getting what I paid for. Yes, they get pissed and cry that it's bad form, but oh well butter cup...LOL
 
++1 this ^^^^

To make the rules clear at my game (cash and tourney), I govern using WSOP rules. Yes...I know these are tournament rules, but they are the house rules and are consistent with everything LotsofChips mentioned above.

@Freeroll , my recommendation is to find a standard set of rules you like and adopt them as house rules. It will save you a TON of headache in the long run. I used to deal with these never ending debates where somebody played it this way at one place while somebody else argues the opposite because that's how it was done at Fred Sanford's house.

I actually use this ruling to see somebody's cards if I've paid for that privledge. I have players who bluff, I call, but they try to muck to keep me from getting information. NOPE....I paid for the information and I'm getting what I paid for. Yes, they get pissed and cry that it's bad form, but oh well butter cup...LOL
I mostly agree with what you are saying about you paid for the right to see your opponent’s hand, however, I think that if a player wants to see their opponent’s hand that they should make them show first. Then they can decide to show first, or muck their cards and forfeit the pot without any cards being shown. Otherwise it feels to me like the person who shows their hand out of turn is getting rewarded for making a mistake.
 
between cash vs tournament

^^^^

If I'm hosting, and its a cash game. I'm not making the player show his hand. If he wants to forfeit the pot by mucking then so be it. The only reason for this is if I suspect foul play. If I suspect cheating I would have suspected it by now, and you wouldn't be at my game. I've stopped inviting players for less.

If it is a tourney, everyone that is all in is tabling their hand.

If Ben addressed this in his post, sorry. It was way to long to read lol. He already knows that :)
 
Only catch is that it will become a live hand and can win the pot if shown.
I was under the impression that cards thar touch the muck are dead. Is this an exception to that rule? That they can be brought to life again if someone requests to see them?
 
I will tag on to this as a known aggressive player on here that tends to bluff. If I get caught bluffing, I will flip my cards over just the same as if I have the nuts. I will never get the people that refuse to show their cards, as if embarrassed. I just don't get it. There is no shame in bluffing...be proud! Flip them cards and let the table know you are a player!

And, if you want to muck your cards, well that's your decision. Just slide that pot my way.

I have no problem with @Seeking Alpha Social Club rules....because you know going in what they are. Consistency is key.
 
I was under the impression that cards thar touch the muck are dead. Is this an exception to that rule? That they can be brought to life again if someone requests to see them?
Nah....this is not true at all. There is no magical property of touching the muck that makes them dead. If they can be positively ID'd, they can be live.
(In a few select card rooms, this is the rule though)

Reminds me of the "cheese touch" from Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
 
I was under the impression that cards thar touch the muck are dead. Is this an exception to that rule?
Well THIS isn't necessarily an exception, however that would be the discretion of the floor / host, to call the hand live or not.

'un-mucking' a hand is typically reserved for very extenuating circumstances and would be expressed rarely.
 
Thanks for all the replies!
So, unless I’m missing another good reason, the only good reason for this rule is to give the players in the game an option to confirm their suspicions if they think there might be collusion going on?
I never thought of that reason until after reading these replies. That is a good reason.
The order of show rule is a multi-dimensional rule.
  • Helps prevent collusion - Chip dumping or soft-play becomes a little more noticeable when players continually show in the correct order.
  • Speeds up the game - Before the rule, players tended to "protect" information on their weaker hands (where the bottom of your range may be). Without it, two players may sit and wait for the other to show first, maybe declaring what they have, or worse... what their opponent may have, to protect their information. This is an unnecessary delay in the game.
  • Prevents angle-shooting - more related to topic 2, but players that don't follow the rule tend to show fewer and fewer hands. Once that becomes commonplace, it becomes easier to "misread" a hand to entice your opponent to fold/muck. Once that happens, the angle-shooter never needs to show their (now losing) cards to claim the pot. The WSOP rules have vacillated on a rule requiring a player to show even when they were the last live hand at showdown, for this very reason.
Showing the cards in order prevents all of this. Of course, if you have the absolute nuts, it is still faster to just show - don't pull that James Bond/Casino Royale final hand bullshit.
 
…If Ben addressed this in his post, sorry. It was way to long to read lol. He already knows that :)
LOL, he probably knows that he writes long posts, as a lot of people here (including me) kid him about that. But he hasn’t posted in this thread (yet).

And yes, I knew my post was way too long to read, so I conveniently added a TLDR summary at the bottom for the Reader’s Digest crowd.., ;)
 
LOL, he probably knows that he writes long posts, as a lot of people here (including me) kid him about that. But he hasn’t posted in this thread (yet).

And yes, I knew my post was way too long to read, so I conveniently added a TLDR summary at the bottom for the Reader’s Digest crowd.., ;)

lol..........I must have assumed your post was a ben post. It's been a crazy day. I'm tired, ready to go home, and really ready to contribute to the whiskey thread
 
I'm not making the player show his hand. If he wants to forfeit the pot by mucking then so be it. The only reason for this is if I suspect foul play. If I suspect cheating I would have suspected it by now, and you wouldn't be at my game.
^^ This exactly.
Yes Technically there are rules put in place to prevent cheating, but we are mostly talking about home games in here.
I don't worry about anyone in my games cheating or collusion, if I did, the rule wouldn't matter because the player would be gone.
 
Nah....this is not true at all. There is no magical property of touching the muck that makes them dead.
I thought I read a post from @BGinGA claiming something like that, but I must have gotten it wrong. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Of course, if you have the absolute nuts, it is still faster to just show - don't pull that James Bond/Casino Royale final hand bullshit.
I have to admit....If I ever have a straight flush when all in against a super villain and get called, you better believe I will sandbag the f*ck out of that showdown.
(Not villain as in "poker opponent", but as in someone who kills people)
 
I have to admit....If I ever have a straight flush when all in against a super villain and get called, you better believe I will sandbag the f*ck out of that showdown.
(Not villain as in "poker opponent", but as in someone who kills people)
Le Chiffre did slow-roll with the Jacks earlier in the tournament, so he did kind of deserve it, however the other players were collateral damage with the hand. Besides, slow-rolling super-villains is dangerous.
1644440530625.png
 
Just for the record....

Players cannot muck their hand. They can fold, discard, and/or surrender their cards, but only the dealer can kill their hand by mixing it into the muck pile (the actual act of 'mucking'). Players should never attempt to discard their hand directly into the muck pile, which is controlled by the dealer (as is the deck stub, burn cards, and community board cards).

And yes, cards that have been 'mucked' but are still identifable/retreiveable can be declared 'live'... but if mucked properly by the dealer, this will never happen.
 
Just for the record....

Players cannot muck their hand. They can fold, discard, and/or surrender their cards, but only the dealer can kill their hand by mixing it into the muck pile (the actual act of 'mucking'). Players should never attempt to discard their hand directly into the muck pile, which is controlled by the dealer (as is the deck stub, burn cards, and community board cards).

And yes, cards that have been 'mucked' but are still identifable/retreiveable can be declared 'live'... but if mucked properly by the dealer, this will never happen.
What would you charge, hourly, for being an ox-penis-whip-armed instructor, floor manager and enforcer in Athenian home games?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom