Rules questions

Lplate

Can any of you rules buffs sort out a couple of queries for me?

1. Action on flop and turn between 2 players, river checked down. Can pot winner ask to see losers hand if he wants to concede?

2. Guy dosen't realise he's in BB, thinks he's UTG and says raise before anything else has happened. Is he committed to at least a minimum raise when action comes round to him? If someone else raises on the way round does he have to reraise? Even if this puts him all in?

jtsuited

1. yes. if they hit muck beforehand they are dead though. i'm probably wrong though. But i've asked to see cards before after the river was checked down. Shame on me!

2.well that's a good one. i know that if chips are put out into the area of play, they stand even if out of turn. But not sure if verbal indications are treated in the same way. I'll let the dealers take care of this one.

When raise is announced, he is intending to bet something more than twice the previous bet. So i presume he will have to raise at least twice the amount of the bet at that stage which would be 2BB. Makes sense to me but doesn't really clear up whether he can fold to a raise that happens previous to his proper turn. My head hurts!
Nic will probably give a far better answer!

Lplate

Just to clarify point 2, no chips were put into play. He made a verbal "raise" and his mistake was pointed out before it went any further.

tricky D

1. Yes, though if the winner asks it is frowned upon as this is just looking for info. Any player may ask to see a conceded hand that has gone to showdown. The dealer takes the cards taps them on the muck to kill them and then exposes them. That rule exists to prevent collusion, not for the purpose of gaining info. To ask merely to gain info is bad etiquette. Best course is for the winner to expose and leave it at the discretion of the loser. Lastly, if the loser's cards have hit the muck before the request, they will not be exposed, even if it is obvious which cards the are. After such a request, the dealer should protect the muck from the loser's cards being chucked in.

2. Interesting. l reckon that not enough action (a raise and a subsequent call in this case) has occured for the BB not to be reposted correctly and play to recommence as normal. Obviously, the originally intended utg raise gives out lots of info, but there's also the element that the player has the ultimate responsibility to be aware of their own blind position.

Does the verbal bet stand? Tricky: as a matter of honour, it should; as a matter of probablity, it will happen anyway; and strictly speaking, it is an 'announced bet', but is out off turn and hence doesn't stand. However if chips have crossed the line I would make rule that they stay over the line (if only as 'punishment, ....8< (snip), call it karma';)). Sorta similar to the scenario where a BB stupidly folds without having realised they should be posting, it is a fold out of turn and doesn't count, and is rewound, unless significant!? action has occured.

Them's what I would rule....
\r

bmc

Hmmm... An announced bet out of turn does stand.

BUT... I don't know what the ruling is if somebody raises into the guy who announced the raise out of position.

PERSONAL OPINION: He has only given indication that he wants to raise the BB, not indication that he will raise any bet... A bet into him IMO should nullify his verbal announcement in that case.



As for BB mucking his cards because he didn't realise... Tough luck. They're dead!

Degag

1. I actually never knew that you had to show your cards at showdown.... in fact i still am pretty sure that only the person who is called has to show their cards..... thats what we do in our home games anyway..... but i have been wrong before....

2. Don't know to be honest... i do know that if a raise is announced out of turn, it is binding, however if a person raises before he actually should speak and after he did. i presume he must put the minimum raise into the pot regardless of whether he is going to call the increased raise... again though that is only my perception.....

bmc

Tackle69 wrote:

1. I actually never knew that you had to show your cards at showdown.... in fact i still am pretty sure that only the person who is called has to show their cards..... thats what we do in our home games anyway..... but i have been wrong before.....

In the Fitz... If you are called or it is checked on the river, you have to show both cards to claim the pot.

If you call and it turns out you are behind, you can muck your cards, but if someone requests to see them (in case you are dumping chips to the "winner") they must be shown. It is considered bad etiquette to ask to see the mucked cards if you are doing it for information purposes only.

If it turns out that somebody has mucked their cards but actually would have won the pot - that's unfortunate, if they are mucked, they are dead. For cards to be officially "mucked" they must have touched the other dead cards... i.e. the other folded hands and/or the burnt cards. If they were thrown in but didn't touch the other cards and are obviously identifiable you can retrieve them and claim the pot.

Pokerevents

Lplate wrote:

Can any of you rules buffs sort out a couple of queries for me?

1. Action on flop and turn between 2 players, river checked down. Can pot winner ask to see losers hand if he wants to concede?

2. Guy dosen't realise he's in BB, thinks he's UTG and says raise before anything else has happened. Is he committed to at least a minimum raise when action comes round to him? If someone else raises on the way round does he have to reraise? Even if this puts him all in?

1.Player may ask if cards have not being mucked, it is not good etiquette to do so.
2.Player must pay minimum raise. It is harsh but if I'm BB and want to see a flop for free, a sure way is, to announce raise if I'm not committed to it. Even a monster hand will check with the intention of a re-raise or a certain call. Then it comes to me and I check, and get my free flop. Certainly not corect.

bmc

Pokerevents wrote:

1.Player may ask if cards have not being mucked, it is not good etiquette to do so.
2.Player must pay minimum raise. It is harsh but if I'm BB and want to see a flop for free, a sure way is, to announce raise if I'm not committed to it. Even a monster hand will check with the intention of a re-raise or a certain call. Then it comes to me and I check, and get my free flop. Certainly not corect.

What though, if the BB announces raise and somebody raises 5 X BB before it gets to him? Does BB have to make it 10 X BB?

ollyk1

Pokerevents wrote:

2.Player must pay minimum raise. It is harsh but if I'm BB and want to see a flop for free, a sure way is, to announce raise if I'm not committed to it. Even a monster hand will check with the intention of a re-raise or a certain call. Then it comes to me and I check, and get my free flop. Certainly not corect.

Certainly have to minimum raise and reopen the opportunity for others to reraise if everone playing just calls the BB, However if someone raises then I think he should be allowed put in a min raise bet and fold imho. i.e. if blinds were 100/200 and someone raises to 1000 he should be able to put in another 200 (400 in total) and fold his cards.

Pokerevents

bmc wrote:

What though, if the BB announces raise and somebody raises 5 X BB before it gets to him? Does BB have to make it 10 X BB?

Not at all. He can call or sacrifice the minimum raise. Unless He has announced raise after the 5x bb raise.

bmc

Pokerevents wrote:

Not at all. He can call or sacrifice the minimum raise. Unless He has announced raise after the 5x bb raise.

Sounds good.

Thanks.

azzeretti

bmc wrote:

It is considered bad etiquette to ask to see the mucked cards if you are doing it for information purposes only.

I know everyone says this but I have no problem asking to see someone cards, especially when its for information purposes. I know I am always cribbing about this one but, to me, gaining information about players, however small, will only ever help me out in the next round. I will always want to see the mucked cards of a player if they call me down, or I called him down. Even more so if the player has raised 3-4XBB UTG or UTG+1, I REALLY want to see that hand everytime, bad etiquette or no

Culchie

azzeretti wrote:

I know everyone says this but I have no problem asking to see someone cards, especially when its for information purposes. I know I am always cribbing about this one but, to me, gaining information about players, however small, will only ever help me out in the next round. I will always want to see the mucked cards of a player if they call me down, or I called him down. Even more so if the player has raised 3-4XBB UTG or UTG+1, I REALLY want to see that hand everytime, bad etiquette or no

I've a feeling the 'bad ettiquette' part of the equation is decreasing now anyway.

It's more the norm for players to see the cards now, and so it's not an unusual occurence anymore, and therefore not seen as out of the ordinary.

Of course there are people who will not like it, and will use the 'bad etiquette' undertone to try and dissuade players from asking.

Fair game as far as I'm concerned, if you've paid the money, you are entitled.

Paladin

Re 2:

Pokerevents is quite right.
Verbal bets/announcements are binding. If the BB announces raise without realising he is BB, and nobody raises until it gets to him he must put in the raise.
If someone raises before it gets back to him he must either:

1: Put in the minimum raise and fold.
2: Call
3: Re-Raise

Wombatman

Saw something in a similar vain happen in the Westwood in Galway one night.
Two players left in the pot. Bet and called all the way down to the river.
When the river card came down the bluffer, to act, put in a big bet.
Bluffer was called.
Bluffer said you got me and threw down cards (not yet muck).
Caller threw down cards and raked in chips.
Nither showed what cards they had.
Dealer mucked both hands and started shuffling next hand.
A player at the table said "Surely someone should have shown cards there."
Another player said something like: "Yeah. You can't win a pot on the without showing cards if no one has folded."
Bluffer thinks they might be onto something and asks for a ruling.
What was it?

Crumbs

Wombatman wrote:

Bluffer said you got me and threw down cards (not yet muck).
Caller threw down cards and raked in chips.
Nither showed what cards they had.
Dealer mucked both hands and started shuffling next hand.

The only thing that's wrong here is that the player shouldn't rake in the pot but wait for the dealer to award it to them.

biteme

Wombatman wrote:

Saw something in a similar vain happen in the Westwood in Galway one night.
Two players left in the pot. Bet and called all the way down to the river.
When the river card came down the bluffer, to act, put in a big bet.
Bluffer was called.
Bluffer said you got me and threw down cards (not yet muck).
Caller threw down cards and raked in chips.
Nither showed what cards they had.
Dealer mucked both hands and started shuffling next hand.
A player at the table said "Surely someone should have shown cards there."
Another player said something like: "Yeah. You can't win a pot on the without showing cards if no one has folded."
Bluffer thinks they might be onto something and asks for a ruling.
What was it?

ruling here should be that the bluffer has indicated and mucked his cards. I presume that by the player raking in the pot you mean the dealer has awarded the pot to the player. The original winner of the hand should still win. I've a bad feeling though that after the ruling they chopped the pot because no hand had been declared and both players were playing the board.

However to me this is the same situation as someone bluffing on the river and getting called. Bluffer then mucks his cards and person left in the pot wins. They do not need to show their cards to win as they are the last person in the hand

jem

wambat, the player who raked in the chips was the only person in the pot at the time, the bluffer had folded and therefore it wouldnt matter if the other player had 7/2off and hadn't hit he still wins and wouldn't need to show his cards.

fixer

An article in the latest Card Player discussing how some card rooms are beginning to change the rule on seeing the mucked cards to keep action more in line with the intent of the rule. Intent originally being to prevent collusion, as has been stated here, but not for purposes of information.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15227&m_id=65581

In 2004, I wrote two columns titled “I Want to See That Hand.” In them, I discussed the need to redefine the rule that allows players to ask to see called hands. Since writing those columns, several cardrooms have redefined the rule and are using it as it was intended. As I stated in those previous columns, the rule as it exists today should be modified to read:

“Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent’s hand or the winning hand has been mucked. This rule is intended to detect possible collusion, and the requesting player must be able to substantiate the reason for asking to see a hand.”

tricky D

bmc wrote:

Hmmm... An announced bet out of turn does stand.

I agree, but Googling 'announced bet' doesn't..... ho hum. Y
It's your mistake, you should pay.