Rules Question on Sorta Showdown (1 Viewer)

[Steve Birrer]

I was playing a tourney in a casino. In the hand in question I was in the cutoff and raised preflop. Got two callers for the preflop limpers. Post flop it goes check, check, and I bet. One fold and one call. Turn comes and it goes check and I bet and get called. River comes. Rather than check the dude folds and says I have to show. So I said huh and asked the dealer and he said yes I have to show a winning hand.

I had never heard of such a thing and reluctantly showed one card. Then the dealer said no you have to show both. So I did.

What is the corresponding rule here? I haven't been able to find anything like this and the dealer said its a "standard rule."

 

[BGinGA]

Most tournament rules require that all hole cards be shown to collect the pot.

But when not facing a bet, holding the only live hand on the table, I don't think you should have been required to show.

 

[raynmanas]

dealer just misinterpreted the rule @BGinGA implied above - remember half of people are below average at their job. if you wanted to be a dink and call the floor, they would have said you don't have to show, but you don't want to be that guy.

 

[TheDuke]

I would have thrown in a bet at that point to make a point of not showing.

No call = no show.

 

[Steve Birrer]

There was no misinterpretation. Every one at the table said I had to show. For the record I have not played there since.

 

[BGinGA]

There was no misinterpretation. Every one at the table said I had to show. For the record I have not played there since.

Everyone at the table was wrong.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I would refuse to show and demand the floor come adjudicate it. This is really unusual. Never heard of anything of the sort before.

It's possible the cardroom has some kind of misguided rule like this to deal with soft-playing in tournaments. It sucks, but I could see it happening if they ever had a problem with players folding into each other to dump chips.

The solution to that would be to eject anyone who does it (because it's cheating), not this bizarre rule that allows one player to force another to show his hand. But once it's on the books, it's on the books.

I wouldn't return either. Sounds like the kind of cardroom where sketchy regs have the run of the place.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Weird house rule, maybe? I once had to show first in position when the river went check-check because I bet the turn and therefore made the last aggressive action. This was at a casino in London.
Everyone was like "don't you know the rules?" except one guy who defended me, pointing out that the rest of the world handles it differently.

 

[raynmanas]

There was no misinterpretation. Every one at the table said I had to show. For the record I have not played there since.

unless it's a house rule, everyone at the table was wrong.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Incidentally:

Although your post title says "sorta showdown" and it's obvious why, just to be very clear, there was no showdown of any kind there. The action was on your opponent. He folded. As the only live hand you win the pot then and there. The hand ends without closing the action on the river or proceeding to a showdown. This matters, because in most rulesets you only have the right to see someone's hand if it was live at the showdown, and even then that's only true under certain circumstances.

Who knows what goofy rules this cardroom has, though.

Best thing to do is to call for a floor ruling. Maybe the table is right, but maybe not. Can't hurt to find out.

 

[upNdown]

dealer just misinterpreted the rule @BGinGA implied above - remember half of people are below average at their job. if you wanted to be a dink and call the floor, they would have said you don't have to show, but you don't want to be that guy.

I have zero problem being "that guy" and I'm a pretty agreeable sort at the table. But if the dealer is enforcing a rule that I'm not aware of, yeah, I want to hear it from the floor. Especially in a situation like this where the guy seemingly open-folded like that, to try to gain some weird advantage?

 

[raynmanas]

I have zero problem being "that guy" and I'm a pretty agreeable sort at the table. But if the dealer is enforcing a rule that I'm not aware of, yeah, I want to hear it from the floor. Especially in a situation like this where the guy seemingly open-folded like that, to try to gain some weird advantage?

I should clarify I would also have no personal problem calling the floor in this situation, but I probably wouldn't because you don't want to be "that guy" from a table presence perspective. I would shrug and smile, show my cards, take my pot, and look for my next spot. This is not a hill I would choose to die on.

 

[davislane]

I was playing a tourney in a casino. In the hand in question I was in the cutoff and raised preflop. Got two callers for the preflop limpers. Post flop it goes check, check, and I bet. One fold and one call. Turn comes and it goes check and I bet and get called. River comes. Rather than check the dude folds and says I have to show. So I said huh and asked the dealer and he said yes I have to show a winning hand.

I had never heard of such a thing and reluctantly showed one card. Then the dealer said no you have to show both. So I did.

What is the corresponding rule here? I haven't been able to find anything like this and the dealer said its a "standard rule."

This is one weird crazy rule. So they are allowed to muck to force you to show fold? You need to show cards to collect pot? No way in the world Im ever exposing my cards in that spot, house rule or otherwise. Who would they award the pot to if you didn't?

 

[BGinGA]

Personally, I like the 'make a bet' approach. Pretty hard for the dealer to argue with that approach. .

 

[davislane]

Personally, I like the 'make a bet' approach. Pretty hard for the dealer to argue with that approach. .

Agreed. I think OP needs to go back to the cardroom and find out what happens if he bets on the river when folded to him or call the floor to find out what the official ruling is.

 

[Jz44]

Even before being forced to show your hand, shouldn't an open fold with action behind be a penalty in a tournament?

 

[Steve Birrer]

There was no way to "make a bet." Since I was the only hand left. I am sure it had to have been some BS house rule and a dumb ass one at that. Dumb to let somebody chase or bluff or whatever he was doing down to the river and then fold if he doesn't hit and force the winner to expose his hand thereby giving them some free intel.

As to the title "sorta showdown" wasn't sure what else to call it.....lol

Oh and there is no way to go back and play there again and see what the rule really is....they closed their poker room....LOL I wonder why!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Oh and there is no way to go back and play there again and see what the rule really is....they closed their poker room....LOL I wonder why!

Closed permanently, or temporarily due to the plague?

 

[Eloe2000]

There was no way to "make a bet." Since I was the only hand left. I am sure it had to have been some BS house rule and a dumb ass one at that. Dumb to let somebody chase or bluff or whatever he was doing down to the river and then fold if he doesn't hit and force the winner to expose his hand thereby giving them some free intel.

As to the title "sorta showdown" wasn't sure what else to call it.....lol

Oh and there is no way to go back and play there again and see what the rule really is....they closed their poker room....LOL I wonder why!

I may be mistaken, but I get really interested in the technicalities of these situations as I try to understand the rules better. If you go back to the river... your opponent who is first to act only has two legal actions; 1) check, or 2) make a wager. He does not have the option to fold. I believe he can say “fold” and abandon his hand but the dealer must then muck his hand. The hand would not be live and you would have the only live hand. Hence no need to show. I believe this would have been the correct ruling and what @BGinGA was referring to (and he is the one who would know best here). I think the dealer was thinking “ok, he said fold but he can’t fold so he is really just checking. So the other guy needs to show his cards”. And if the dealer was operating under that assumption and therefore admitting there is another live hand in the game, then you absolutely can either check or bet.

 

[Steve Birrer]

Closed permanently, or temporarily due to the plague?

No they shut it down well before the virus. It was just a matter of the amount of business they were getting.

 

[ekricket]

You can’t fold without pending action without a penalty. Floor should have penalized the guy who folded to no action.
So by their rules, if it folds around to the blinds, and the small blind folds as well, the big blind is required to show their hand everyt time?

 

[Jimulacrum]

You can’t fold without pending action without a penalty. Floor should have penalized the guy who folded to no action.
So by their rules, if it folds around to the blinds, and the small blind folds as well, the big blind is required to show their hand everyt time?

If their rule is about folding without pending action, it wouldn't apply to the SB folding to the BB. There is pending action in that case.

 

[ekricket]

If their rule is about folding without pending action, it wouldn't apply to the SB folding to the BB. There is pending action in that case.

I meant two different cases with the paragraph separation. In the OP case the folder should have been penalized.

The BB case was just a ridiculous interpretation of their ridiculous rule.

 

[Jimulacrum]

No they shut it down well before the virus. It was just a matter of the amount of business they were getting.

Not surprising, given your anecdote. Places like this end up being reg havens, loaded with dicks who won't think twice about, say, abusing some arcane rule to force a new guy to show his hand.

I'd bet $100 that, when it was open, it was a den of angle-shooting and collusion, and you dodged a bullet by avoiding the place.

 

[legonick]

Weird house rule, maybe? I once had to show first in position when the river went check-check because I bet the turn and therefore made the last aggressive action. This was at a casino in London.
Everyone was like "don't you know the rules?" except one guy who defended me, pointing out that the rest of the world handles it differently.

Dang that threw me. My brain read that as "I once had to show in first position" and the rest didn't make any sense, LOL.

 

[legonick]

Agreed. I think OP needs to go back to the cardroom and find out what happens if he bets on the river when folded to him or call the floor to find out what the official ruling is.

Good luck waiting for that to happen again. Who open folds? Why call the turn if you are going to open fold the river? I'm all for giving up on a hand, but might as well check and see if the guy checks behind. Calling all the way like that, there is a decent chance he doesn't have the 3rd barrel.

 

[Coyote]

If villain checked and hero also checked, and then villain said "I 'm not showing; you take the pot", what would the correct ruling be?

 

[Mr Winberg]

If villain checked and hero also checked, and then villain said "I 'm not showing; you take the pot", what would the correct ruling be?

Hero - "Neither am I, you take the pot!"
Floor -

 

[xdan]

He folded. No show required.