Cash Game Rules relating to folding/mucking at showdown (1 Viewer)

[Gobbs]

You aren't forced to show in a cash game at showdown to take the pot. I've seen times where a player first to act on river bluffs, gets called, then mucks. As the only live player left, the caller takes the pot without having to show.

Then you’ve seen it done horribly wrong. First, the player first to act can’t muck his hand. Only the dealer does that. He discarded his hand and as dealer, I’m not mucking that hand at showdown until the other player tables his hand. If the other player refuses to table two cards after being warned he/she will not be awarded pot without doing so, the dealer should call over whoever is in charge. At that point, the initial player will probably be allowed to table his/her hand for the pot. (Note: Dealer should never expose either hand under any circumstances unless directed to do so by the person in charge.)

 

[Legend5555]

Not true.
It depends on house rules,


There are places where the rules are unknown, I agree
There are places with strange home rules, I agree
There are players gambler that don't care of the rules, I agree

How is it different than people giving the BB walk? They don't have to show. Last person with a live hand wins the pot. I've played at places that force a show

Then you’ve seen it done horribly wrong. First, the player first to act can’t muck his hand. Only the dealer does that. He discarded his hand and as dealer, I’m not mucking that hand at showdown until the other player tables his hand. If the other player refuses to table two cards after being warned he/she will not be awarded pot without doing so, the dealer should call over whoever is in charge. At that point, the initial player will probably be allowed to table his/her hand for the pot. (Note: Dealer should never expose either hand under any circumstances unless directed to do so by the person in charge.)

It's not horribly wrong. It's just a fact that this is how it's done in some places.

 

[Legend5555]

From the 2018-2019 WSOP Circuit Rules, Rule 71:

Showdown: During a showdown where no Participants are all-in and if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the Floor People may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive Participant on the final betting round (final street where betting is possible) must table first. If there was no bet on the final betting round, then the Participant 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.) Participants 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. The winning hand must be shown to claim the pot unless there are no other live hands at which point the pot can be awarded to the only live hand remaining. If a Participant refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the Participant in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with Rules 39, 112, and 113

The last sentence is for situations where someone requests to see the hand but the person refuses to do so.

 

[Gobbs]

How is it different than people giving the BB walk? They don't have to show. Last person with a live hand wins the pot. I've played at places that force a show

The last time I checked, a BB walk does not occur at showdown. In that case, the last person to take action validly folded. At showdown, at least two players’ last action was not a fold.

Even in the WSOP circuit rule mentioned above, the player has to show or be penalized. “If a Participant refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the Participant in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with Rules 39, 112, and 113.”

...and the WSOP needs to learn the difference between muck, discard, and fold.

 

[1A25R]

You aren't forced to show in a cash game at showdown to take the pot.

I've played at places that force a show

So we agree, it depends on house rules,

There is also a difference between Tournament rules and Cash Game rules.
While WSOP which are based on TDA are very popular, they are not the only ruling for tournaments.

And cash games rules may vary from place to place, even in Vegas the rules of are not the same between the MGM Resorts owned casinos (Bellagio / Aria, MGM, etc ) and the Las Vegas Sands owned casinos (Venetian, Caesars, Wynn, etc.)
I not say that there are complete different rules, but there are differences that worth to know.

 

[Legend5555]

The last time I checked, a BB walk does not occur at showdown. In that case, the last person to take action validly folded. At showdown, at least two players’ last action was not a fold.

Even in the WSOP circuit rule mentioned above, the player has to show or be penalized. “If a Participant refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the Participant in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with Rules 39, 112, and 113.”

...and the WSOP needs to learn the difference between muck, discard, and fold.

Then the rule is contradictory.

Why say "The winning hand must be shown to claim the pot unless there are no other live hands at which point the pot can be awarded to the only live hand remaining" if you are going to then penalize that person if they don't show? Why not just say "the person awarded the pot at showdown must table their hand?"

I believe that the part about the penalty is referencing situations where someone has asked for a hand to be shown and the person refuses to comply.

 

[Legend5555]

So we agree, it depends on house rules,

There is also a difference between Tournament rules and Cash Game rules.
While WSOP which are based on TDA are very popular, they are not the only ruling for tournaments.

And cash games rules may vary from place to place, even in Vegas the rules of are not the same between the MGM Resorts owned casinos (Bellagio / Aria, MGM, etc ) and the Las Vegas Sands owned casinos (Venetian, Caesars, Wynn, etc.)
I not say that there are complete different rules, but there are differences that worth to know.

I'm not trying to argue that the "no show as the last live hand at showdown" should be THE rule. Just that it exists and I don't think it's more or less correct than being forced to show to claim a pot. In general I do think it's better to have a person show for integrity and collision reasons. But I also think that people that refuse to show and/or muck before a winning hand has been tabled (and thus might concede the pot to a worse hand) are getting what they deserve for not showing or waiting.

 

[1A25R]

I'ts a constructive discussion, so far I do not take the exchanges as a dispute. And I like to understand other people arguments and reasoning.
Because I believe that it depends very much on our own position, I.E: if you see this rule as a player and try to find and angle or grey area in a rule or if you position yourself as organizer of a game and you try to understand the spirit of the rule and understand which problem are we addressing with such rule.

In the particular case of "shown to claim the pot" one of the problems that we are trying to address is collusion and on a second degree Slow roll by inducing act- out of turn.

REF Swiss rules : "If, after the dealer has called for the showdown, there is only one player left to claim the pot and the other players pass, this player wins the pot without a showdown. Players who do not lay claim to the pot or players who do not have opponents with a valid hand need not reveal their hand unless requested to do so by the floor manager."
If everyone folds to your bet,I'll say take the pot and not shown anyone. But, ... when we are at the shown down and the same two player acted to chase other players with raise- re raise since a while. I want to see the cards to clear all doubt of collusion.
The other part of the rule rule that I like is when it's stated that the dealer calls for showdown in order a) last aggressor it's first to showdown or if there was not betting on the last round round b) the order is clockwise starting by the SB. If at that point a player decides to fold the hand, his hand is Killed.

 

[Gobbs]

Then the rule is contradictory.

Why say "The winning hand must be shown to claim the pot unless there are no other live hands at which point the pot can be awarded to the only live hand remaining" if you are going to then penalize that person if they don't show? Why not just say "the person awarded the pot at showdown must table their hand?"

I believe that the part about the penalty is referencing situations where someone has asked for a hand to be shown and the person refuses to comply.

The only way there are not two live hands at showdown is if the dealer accidentally kills one. That should be a very rare situation.

 

[surfik]

I'ts a constructive discussion, so far I do not take the exchanges as a dispute. And I like to understand other people arguments and reasoning.
Because I believe that it depends very much on our own position, I.E: if you see this rule as a player and try to find and angle or grey area in a rule or if you position yourself as organizer of a game and you try to understand the spirit of the rule and understand which problem are we addressing with such rule.

In the particular case of "shown to claim the pot" one of the problems that we are trying to address is collusion and on a second degree Slow roll by inducing act- out of turn.

REF Swiss rules : "If, after the dealer has called for the showdown, there is only one player left to claim the pot and the other players pass, this player wins the pot without a showdown. Players who do not lay claim to the pot or players who do not have opponents with a valid hand need not reveal their hand unless requested to do so by the floor manager."
If everyone folds to your bet,I'll say take the pot and not shown anyone. But, ... when we are at the shown down and the same two player acted to chase other players with raise- re raise since a while. I want to see the cards to clear all doubt of collusion.
The other part of the rule rule that I like is when it's stated that the dealer calls for showdown in order a) last aggressor it's first to showdown or if there was not betting on the last round round b) the order is clockwise starting by the SB. If at that point a player decides to fold the hand, his hand is Killed.

Well I agree with spirit. The interpretation of rules often depends on background. I played in club with 10 to 15 regulars but we allowed any willing participants. At the beginning we were easy pickings so there were some home rules to protect people from visiting predators.
We had rule that if the all in action will be resolved with showdown of hands.... Pros were not happy.
But with passing time seasoned pros became our specialty...

 

[Eloe2000]

@Frogzilla and @bigdonkey are correct. In both cases, all action has been completed and the hand is at showdown. Player A's cards are live and capable of winning the hand at showdown until discarded AND killed by the dealer by inserting them into the muck pile. Subsequently, Player A wins in both scenarios with the best hand.

Additiinally, I would argue that having the best hand awarded the pot is almost always "in the best interest of the game", as it discourages angle-shooting.

Thank you everyone. The responses by @Frogzilla, @bigdonkey, @BGinGA provide a particularly cogent train of thought and underlying basis for future decisions which also sit well with a friendly home game.

After a bet and a call at the river “all action has been completed and the hand is at showdown. Player A's cards are live and capable of winning the hand at showdown until discarded AND killed by the dealer by inserting them into the muck pile.” This is completely sound and fair and provides a very clear underlying basis for ruling in other situations as well as “being in the best interest of the game.”

For what it’s worth… We implored the players to take better care to understand what was happening in the hands, not act hastily, and to know their cards. This is the way we actually ruled the hands at play:

• We ruled that we were not going to award the pot to a player who incorrectly announced his hand when his opponent’s cards were still identifiable.
• We discussed that in the past it was the responsibility of each player to know what their hand was and assert their hand at showdown. We told the players we would rule the pot to Player B based on closest precedent but with prejudice, but allowed the players to discuss the hand if they wanted to figure out something fair. They decided to split the pot and move on.

Situation #2 was clearly a half-assed ruling which is what prompted my question here. In the future we will rule for Player A based on the above.

 

[WedgeRock]

The responses by @Frogzilla, @bigdonkey, @BGinGA provide a particularly cogent train of thought and underlying basis for future decisions which also sit well with a friendly home game

I'm clicking 'Like' on any post that uses the word cogent.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I'm clicking 'Like' on any post that uses the word cogent.

Me too...

 

[JMC9389]

Verbal actions are binding in my game. If someone says fold, they fold. If they say all in, they are all in, et al.

 

[BGinGA]

If they say fart, must they do so?

Can't fold at showdown -- it's not a valid action. You can either table your cards, or in some cases, discard your hand. But folding isn't an option, because you aren't facing a bet.

 

[Eloe2000]

Verbal actions are binding in my game. If someone says fold, they fold. If they say all in, they are all in, et al.

I generally agree, but under the perspective and rules above the player is not in a position to "act" as all action has closed before showdown.

 

[JMC9389]

If they say fart, must they do so?

Can't fold at showdown -- it's not a valid action. You can either table your cards, or in some cases, discard your hand. But folding isn't an option, because you aren't facing a bet.

Yes

I get where the people that would rule in favor of player A in both scenarios are coming from. By the book, they should be ruled the winner of each hand, but generally it's very poor form to not show your hand, push the cards away from you as if to muck the hand, and then pull the cards back last minute.

I would have empathy for a new player that is just learning. But from a more experienced player, I take it as angling and would go out of my way to get as many chips out of them for the rest of the game as possible.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Verbal actions are binding in my game. If someone says fold, they fold. If they say all in, they are all in, et al.

So if they say call, that can't be changed, right?

V: "Bet 1000"
H: "Call" <--- Binding
V: "Straight"
H: "Fold" <--- Verbal call above is still binding
V: "Darn, my mistake, 9 high"
H: "Kings"

@JMC9389, in your game, is the hero allowed to change his action to a fold, or does he win the pot?

 

[JMC9389]

So if they say call, that can't be changed, right?

V: "Bet 1000"
H: "Call" <--- Binding
V: "Straight"
H: "Fold" <--- Verbal call above is still binding
V: "Darn, my mistake, 9 high"
H: "Kings"

@JMC9389, in your game, is the hero allowed to change his action to a fold, or does he win the pot?

To be honest I haven't had that kind of situation come up. We're all friends that have known each other for years that have been playing together since we were teenagers.

We don't declare any hand or pot without the villain in your case showing their hand. If someone shows and they're incorrect, we gently correct them unless they do it multiple times on purpose to be a dick about it (this has never happened).

So say villain raises $10, hero verbalizes call, villain has to show before any ruling is made. Hero would have the option to show or not. If I'm the hero, I'll say "you got me" or "nice hand" and muck my cards. We drink at my game, but no one gets blasted to the point that they realize they muck a straight or a flush to a two pair.

 

[Mr Winberg]

To be honest I haven't had that kind of situation come up. We're all friends that have known each other for years that have been playing together since we were teenagers.

We don't declare any hand or pot without the villain in your case showing their hand. If someone shows and they're incorrect, we gently correct them unless they do it multiple times on purpose to be a dick about it (this has never happened).

So say villain raises $10, hero verbalizes call, villain has to show before any ruling is made. Hero would have the option to show or not. If I'm the hero, I'll say "you got me" or "nice hand" and muck my cards. We drink at my game, but no one gets blasted to the point that they realize they muck a straight or a flush to a two pair.

Yes, I get your point.

The scenario I described was basically scenario 1. The point I'm trying to make with that is that if you stand by your claim that verbal actions are binding in your game, then as long as player A's cards are retrievable you're pretty much forced to give him the pot, since the verbal action was "call".

 

[Mr Winberg]

So say villain raises $10, hero verbalizes call, villain has to show before any ruling is made. Hero would have the option to show or not. If I'm the hero, I'll say "you got me" or "nice hand" and muck my cards.

Yes, this is the "business as usual" scenario. But scenari 1 and 2 are non-BAU cases where the villain says e.g. "straight" and you (due to alcohol) toss your cards away prematurely (either saying fold or not), and the villain then shows 9 high.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think I am ruling A wins in both spots.

Showdowns do not involve wagers, the word "fold" doesn't mean anything. Players either table or release. This is more obvious to me because if B miscalling his hand. Advise the table that "cards speak" at showdown supercedes "verbal declarations.". Verbals don't matter at showdown because betting is complete. Players either show down their hand (table) or release it. (Inclusive terminology to avoid using the word "muck" @BGinGA, @Gobbs , and others .)

one hand, I would declare player A hand dead as B declared 2 pairs and shown both cards. Allowing player A retrieve cards is opening doors and windows to slow-roll.

I appreciate this rationale, but I think awarding the pot to an identifiable winning hand is better for the game than preventing a slow roll absent any history. I would warn A that is tantamount to a slow-roll and he risked losing his hand in the future.

There is no Action on Player A, so the word 'fold' is of no consequence. He could've said 'chocolate fence' and it would hold the same weight.

SO MUCH THIS!!!! ^^^^^

we agree, it depends on house rules,

Well this could literally be the answer to every rules question thread in the world. I think it's safe to assume anyone posting here is looking for comparisons to other rule sets or more common rule sets.

I do belive you can ask dealer to show loosing hand. Pros don't like that but it's your right.

The rule only exists to prevent collusion. Abusing this rule is extremely poor etiquette.

Players who do not lay claim to the pot or players who do not have opponents with a valid hand need not reveal their hand unless requested to do so by the floor manager."

I like this rule so much I think I am putting it in my addendums.

Verbal actions are binding in my game. If someone says fold, they fold. If they say all in, they are all in, et al.

Again, showdowns don't involve "action" because the betting is concluded. Cards speak is the paramount rule.

 

[WedgeRock]

So if they say call, that can't be changed, right?

V: "Bet 1000"
H: "Call" <--- Binding
V: "Straight"
H: "Fold" <--- Verbal call above is still binding
V: "Darn, my mistake, 9 high"
H: "Kings"

@JMC9389, in your game, is the hero allowed to change his action to a fold, or does he win the pot?

Hero saying 'Fold' is the same as saying 'Chocolate Fence.'. It's not binding because there is no action. So the call is still binding

If Hero says 'fold' to induce V to discard his hand (or done by H repetitively), a warning and/or penalty is warranted.

 

[1A25R]

Well this could literally be the answer to every rules

This is why I try to illustrate with real examples.
Many times people belive that's there is only one rule. The truth is different, I'm not a big player but maybe a traveler that like to play and I noticed differences in some common rules playing in USA, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Italy and UK. Sometimes it worth to ask upfront what's x rule here?

 

[Mr Winberg]

This is why I try to illustrate with real examples.
Many times people belive that's there is only one rule. The truth is different, I'm not a big player but maybe a traveler that like to play and I noticed differences in some common rules playing in USA, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Italy and UK. Sometimes it worth to ask upfront what's x rule here?

Examples include the showdown order on the river when everyone checks and the size of a min-raise. Two rules that most think are foundational, but evidently they're not.

 

[inca911]

 

[phdlance]

For a home game with new players, we let the better hand win.