Showdown Drama (1 Viewer)

[Geremie]

This isn’t a strategy thread per se, but it’s something that caused some discussions at the time. Hero folded shit cards.

Game: PL Hollywood

Let’s skip to the river.

Pot: 200

Board: 7d 3d Kd 7h Qd

Villain 1: 3h X X
Villain 2: 7c X X

Villain 1 bets 175, villain 2 tanks for a couple minutes and makes a crying call.

Villain 1 tables 3h Kh Ah

Villain 2 announces that he wins the pot with trip 7s.

Dealer scoops villain 1’s cards and villain 2 tosses his cards to the dealer. Villain 1 says that villain 2 mucked his cards and that he should win the pot. Villain 2 countered that he had shown a winning hand regardless of the hole cards therefore didn’t need to show to be eligible to win the pot.

Thoughts?

 

[JMC9389]

Villain 1 is right to me. He never mucked his cards. The dealer shouldn't muck villain 1's hand until villain 2 shows a confirmed winner. I'm not familiar with Hollywood, but for all games that I've played in, the completely shown and visible winning hand is traded to the dealer for the pot.

 

[BGinGA]

Once V1 discards his hand, he gives up rights to the pot. Dealer correctly mucked them, but should require that V2's hole cards be tabled to deliver the pot. A fouled hand ~could~ change the outcome (duplicate card, joker, etc.).

 

[Geremie]

Villain 1 is right to me. He never mucked his cards. The dealer shouldn't muck villain 1's hand until villain 2 shows a confirmed winner. I'm not familiar with Hollywood, but for all games that I've played in, the completely shown and visible winning hand is traded to the dealer for the pot.

Villain 1 has 77KKA
Villain 2 has 777KQ (with the cards shown - and two cards hidden)

 

[Geremie]

Once V1 discards his hand, he gives up rights to the pot. Dealer correctly mucked them, but should require that V2's hole cards be tabled to deliver the pot. A fouled hand ~could~ change the outcome (duplicate card, joker, etc.).

Never thought about the duplicate card / invalid card angle.

 

[JMC9389]

Never thought about the duplicate card / invalid card angle.

Precisely why the entire winning hand needs to be shown, IMO.

 

[TheDuke]

I hate it when people are coy with their hands at showdown. Just fucking show your hand and let's move on to the next one already.

I vote they should both lose and the entire pot goes to the next hand as dead money pot sweetener. Get some gambol going.

 

[Rhodeman77]

In my game V2 is getting the pot, but also told he needs to table his complete hand and showdown.

 

[tootsmagoots]

i thought you had to table your hand to win, unless it was uncontested. Dealer is at fault here, if V1 wanted to see V2's hand. He has the right to see it unless V2 mucks (which would be very silly)

 

[casinochipper22]

#2 showed the set? Or just said, i have a set and then the dealer pushes him the pot? whatever happened, sounds like dealer is acting way too casual. Cards speak. hand has to be tabled. a tabled hand is literally lying face up on the felt. that is what wins the pot. not announcing, "i have a set."

 

[BGinGA]

He had trip 7s showing -- two on the board plus his upcard. His two down cards were not shown.

 

[CHP TD]

what does your set of rules say?


heres the age old problem - game with no rules.

Get em use em. and stop these threads about rulings.

 

[casinochipper22]

He had trip 7s showing -- two on the board plus his upcard. His two down cards were not shown.

Ok. Maybe I'm not understanding the game then. I thought it was plo. Don't know what Hollywood is. But if #1 still has a card in his hand yet to be shown, then the dealer should not be awarding the pot to anyone. That's when you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs and think to yourself how dumb poker players can be during showdown.

I wouldn't recommend this, but as a dealer if a hand was shown and another player was intentionally slowing the game and not showing cards, i would very slowly start pushing the pot towards whatever hand was shown with a big smile on my face. Lol. Obviously not going all the way. But just enough for the jerkoff to stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[Geremie]

Ok. Maybe I'm not understanding the game then. I thought it was plo. Don't know what Hollywood is. But if #1 still has a card in his hand yet to be shown, then the dealer should not be awarding the pot to anyone. That's when you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs and think to yourself how dumb poker players can be during showdown.

I wouldn't recommend this, but as a dealer if a hand was shown and another player was intentionally slowing the game and not showing cards, i would very slowly start pushing the pot towards whatever hand was shown with a big smile on my face. Lol. Obviously not going all the way. But just enough for the jerkoff to stop wasting everyone's time.

In Hollywood, you have 1 card showing at all times and 2 hidden. There are 5 community cards.

You can use all zero, one, two, or all three of your dealt cards with the corresponding number of community cards to make a 5 card hand.

Villain 2 could not lose the hand with any combination of hidden cards based on the tabled hand by villain 1.

 

[casinochipper22]

In Hollywood, you have 1 card showing at all times and 2 hidden. There are 5 community cards.

You can use all zero, one, two, or all three of your dealt cards with the corresponding number of community cards to make a 5 card hand.

Villain 2 could not lose the hand with any combination of hidden cards based on the tabled hand by villain 1.

sounds like an interesting game. Then if you want to get all technical, if he folded his hand without showing all cards then it's a dead hand. But this is a home game and if the other guy was serious about wanting the pot then that is a shady angle.

 

[Frogzilla]

I get that it’s opening up an angle and villain 1 is kind of scummy bringing it up after villain 2 mucked, but the show all cards to win a pot is such a basic rule.

In my game, Villain 1 wins unless it’s like villain 2’s 1st time playing poker, then villain 2 gets the win once and a single warning

 

[ChipEnvy]

I get that it’s opening up an angle and villain 1 is kind of scummy bringing it up after villain 2 mucked, but the show all cards to win a pot is such a basic rule.

In my game, Villain 1 wins unless it’s like villain 2’s 1st time playing poker, then villain 2 gets the win once and a single warning

If we are getting all technical, Villian 1 didn't protect his hand. Dealer mucked it and there is only one live hand at the end, Villian 2's hand.

Villian 1 tabled it but once the dealer took it, his hand is dead. End of story, there's only one live hand and Villian 2 wins the pot.... Technically.

*** edit to clean up my response a bit and add... ***

IMHO, this is both by the rules and in the spirit of the game. By the by Villian 1 is an ass.

 

[Jonesey07]

Once player 2 calls, player 1 knew his hand was beat. I issue a warning to player 2 to table all cards and move on.

 

[Geremie]

Definitely appreciate the comments and great discussion. It wasn't my game so I said my opinion then left it at that (which is consistent with the thread...if you want to claim the pot table all cards, end of story).

Host was trying to be too diplomatic -- hearing out both sides. It was all semantics behind the rule of "show a winning hand". V2 claims the winning hand was already shown without the extra cards vs. V1 probably trying to angle to get the pot. Dealer should have not announced that V2 won the hand until the full hand was tabled to avoid V2s passing the cards back to the dealer without flipping them over.

End result was that the host requested that the hole cards be shown to conclude the hand.

 

[DarPodo]

V1 sounds unbearable. Just ask V2 to show his cards if they can be retrieved, and next time to show his entire hand when the action closes. If V2 is new to circus games I’d hate to scare them off because V1 is a prick.

 

[Darthhoodie]

V1 sounds unbearable. Just ask V2 to show his cards if they can be retrieved, and next time to show his entire hand when the action closes. If V2 is new to circus games I’d hate to scare them off because V1 is a prick.

Ya i'm kinda with you on this, I'm not awarding the pot to the losing hand even though V2's cards should have been tabled for sure.
I would give a warning to all, including the dealer. Actually now that I think about it, the errors by both players and the dealer should be discussed. I would say the main culprit is the dealer, don't muck the losing hand until the hand is 100% over. Make the winning hand show all cards before you award the pot, or expose them yourself if V2 is too busy gloating over the win. I get V1 demanding to see the hole cards, but its kind of a shit move to say V2 mucked the hand and try to take the pot with an obvious losing hand. I would also remind V1 that this is not the type of game that will award the losing hand the pot on some marginal technicality. I don't mean to trivialise the rule, its a good rule for a few reasons, but I'm just comfortable awarding the pot to V2 with a warning in this situation.

 

[Natskule]

I hate it when people are coy with their hands at showdown. Just fucking show your hand and let's move on to the next one already.

I vote they should both lose and the entire pot goes to the next hand as dead money pot sweetener. Get some gambol going.

Pisses me off as well, show your cards and move on, people try to slow roll way to much. If your called show them and move on, some folks take forever.

 

[Mr Winberg]

At my homegames I always try to judge in the spirit of fairness rather than by the book.

For example, if a noob doesn't table the whole hand (e.g. shows one card which gives him a higher pair) and cards aren't retrievable, I would (with a warning) still award him the pot, even if the opponent rightfully points out that he shouldn't have it. If a stink is made, I would just calmly refer to rule #1.

A common thing is for noobs to silently raise with a single chip. In those cases I always interrupt to ask their intention and let them confirm.

Some say the only way they'll learn if to get "burned", but I don't agree. Many of my noobs have learned perfectly well with just me explaining the rules while giving some leeway.

 

[Rakrul]

You must protect your own hand at all times.

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.

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.

If the other two cards are identifiable it is given back to Villain2 so he can table his hand. If not, Villain1 wins. The reason why I'm strict here is because Villain2 could have two cards of the same suit and value, making the entire hand void. Also to teach Villain2 to table his hand to claim the pot.
It isn't my go to ruling though, extra effort should be made to identify Villain2's cards.

Dealer fucked up, but this is not an uncommon short cut as they want to speed up the game. Villain2 fucked up and shouldn't throw his cards away before he's awarded the pot.

 

[Marius L]

Obviously villain 2 should win this pot.

I agree that he should technically show all cards, but if a host made a ruling against villain2 here, because the dealer took his cards prematurely (I asume the dealer did this based on the fact that villain2 had the obvious winning hand based on his single upcard), I would think it was pretty BS to be honest.

IMO rulings like these should be made based on common sense as well as the actual rules. It's obvious to everyone that is sitting around that table that Villain1 was bluffing and villain2 was making the hero call after a long tanking. As soon as villain1 tables his hand, all players and the dealer know who won the pot because villain2 already has a winning hand based on his 7 showing.

I agree that people should show their hand at showdown and not be intentionally slow to try to get info/angleshoot/whatever, but in this instance it does not feel like villain2 is being slow for these reasons, he simply made a hero call based on this single upcard, and as far as he's concerned, all players at the table knows he was right the second his opponent flips over his cards.

Nitpicking on the rules and making villain2 hand invalid would be ridiculous. I would also ask villain2 to protect his cards in the future and table his cards.

If this was NLHE and no one at the table had the information of villains open 7, the situation would definitely be much harder to solve, and most likely villain1 would have won based on villain2 not having a hand to show. (even if he was indeed right about having trips,theres pretty much no way to know).

 

[Mr Winberg]

If this was NLHE and no one at the table had the information of villains open 7, the situation would definitely be much harder to solve, and most likely villain1 would have won based on villain2 not having a hand to show. (even if he was indeed right about having trips,theres pretty much no way to know).

I don't think the same situation would arise. Similar situations could be either if V1 would discard his cards the moment V2 called (in case V2 wins, perhaps even without having to show?), or the classic: V2 calls, V1 shows, V2 shows 1 card and mucks the other, then we're in a similar situation where the pot is technically V1's but morally V2's.

Off topic: I've had bluffers muck (or discard and mucked by dealer) their cards when I call the river. Do I have to show? If yes: What happens if I don't? As in: V bluffs, H calls, V mucks, H mucks and drags the pot.

 

[grebe]

Hang on, why would V1 make a crying call with trips showing? He cant beat what the guy is showing, why would he call? Maybe OP just mixed something up. Also, I dont know how to play hollywood, so if there is something that would make the trips not play, of course V2 needs to show his hand to win.

V2 wins pot. V1 has a valid argument, but wtf? V2's cards should be exposed first. Both players deserve KITN. Next hand, please.

 

[Rakrul]

If we are getting all technical, Villian 1 didn't protect his hand. Dealer mucked it and there is only one live hand at the end, Villian 2's hand.

Villian 1 tabled it but once the dealer took it, his hand is dead. End of story, there's only one live hand and Villian 2 wins the pot.... Technically.

*** edit to clean up my response a bit and add... ***

IMHO, this is both by the rules and in the spirit of the game. By the by Villian 1 is an ass.

Nope. Dealer cannot kill a winning tabled hand, even if he sets them on fire. And until Villain2 tables, Villain1 is winning.

 

[Rakrul]

Off topic: I've had bluffers muck (or discard and mucked by dealer) their cards when I call the river. Do I have to show? If yes: What happens if I don't? As in: V bluffs, H calls, V mucks, H mucks and drags the pot.

You're the only one with live cards left = No-one else can claim the pot = No need to show*

*Tournament rules may override this to avoid chip dumping

 

[Darthhoodie]

Nope. Dealer cannot kill a winning tabled hand, even if he sets them on fire. And until Villain2 tables, Villain1 is winning.

Sounds like you want to award the pot to an obvious losing hand for some reason. If the dealer mucks V1's cards how can you say they are not dead, they are, what are they, where are they, I don't know they are not on the table anymore, did V1 show an invalid hand, I don't know its gone. How can you say the dealer can't kill a V1's hand, its gone, it's killed, it's in the muck. Also, if your willing to go to great lengths to retrieve and make live an obvious losing hand by digging V1's cards out of the muck, why not do the same for V2 and dig his cards out and show them. Or flip the entire discard pile over and show no irregular cards. No way in hell V1 should win this pot, V1 lost, the second V2 gave his cards to the dealer, the dealer should have exposed the two hole cards and awarded the pot to V2. This is a dealer error for not having the two cards be exposed before awarding the pot. This is a game with exposed cards at all times, so we know that V2 hand is the winner, the only way V1 could have won the pot at this point is if V2's hand is invalid, and even in the muck I think this could have been verified as not the case. No way a casino is awarding the pot to a losing hand that is currently in the muck pile based on a dealer error like not exposing the two hole cards when the winning hand was visible to the entire table.