To Muck or not to Muck ..... that is the question ?

opr

With all the other threads flying around about dealers playing in clubs , poker players morals and talking money off the table thought i would add another.

Its something thats bugged me for a while.

Why is it a generally excepted rule that when a player shows the winning hand the other player can muck his cards without having to show it as the losing hand ? Now i know the other player can insist on seeing his hand but this seems to be generally frowned upon.

Two main problems i have with this.

First i have paid just as much into the pot as the other player and lose out on valuable information by not seeing his cards ?

Second it makes colusion at the poker table much easier for players !!!

The best reason i have been given for it so far is be happy to have won the pot and don't kick a man when he is down.

I have bit my tougue and always allow players to muck but to be honest its not something i like doing. I really dont think the above is good enough reason ....... Are thier any other reasons for this being generally excepted ?

Opr

ecksor

I think the reason it is frowned upon is that winning players want losing players to feel comfortable in the game. People may not like to show what they called with. If some guy calls with bottom pair then he may be pretty embarrassed if you show him a fairly obviously played flush. I certainly wouldn't like him to be too embarrassed to call with a marginal hand next time I have the nuts but while someone may be willing to risk some money that you're bluffing, they might not be willing to risk the loss of face that they would perceive from having to show what they called with.

Mellor

opr wrote:

First i have paid just as much into the pot as the other player and lose out on valuable information by not seeing his cards ?

Second it makes colusion at the poker table much easier for players !!!

You have played just as much into the pot, but all the other players at the table haven't, but they'd still get this information if the cards were shown. And what you lost in information you gained in chips.

opr

ecksor wrote:

I think the reason it is frowned upon is that winning players want losing players to feel comfortable in the game. People may not like to show what they called with. If some guy calls with bottom pair then he may be pretty embarrassed if you show him a fairly obviously played flush. I certainly wouldn't like him to be too embarrassed to call with a marginal hand next time I have the nuts but while someone may be willing to risk some money that you're bluffing, they might not be willing to risk the loss of face that they would perceive from having to show what they called with.

Fair point but .......

The reason this came into my head cause for the last few nights was playing in club outside Dublin and in nearly all the hands the losing player would also throw over his losing cards.
In terms of getting information and reads on player i thought it was great.

And on the losing player thing most of them didn't seem to mind throwing over bad hand after bad hand after bad hand

I would normally play in one particular club in Dublin so not sure if it is just their this is common pratice or do most clubs in Dublin generally see this as the acepted norm ??

Opr

opr

Mellor wrote:

You have played just as much into the pot, but all the other players at the table haven't, but they'd still get this information if the cards were shown. And what you lost in information you gained in chips.

The other players at the table haven't paid to see my cards if i win but they still get that information.

bman

opr wrote:

The other players at the table haven't paid to see my cards if i win but they still get that information.

Yeah, but you get the money:D

I think the rule is (and i could be wrong) that if there has been a raise on the river then the player that raised must show and if the caller is beat they don't have to show. But if there has been no raise on the river then everyone has to show their hand.

opr

bman wrote:

Yeah, but you get the money:D

I think the rule is (and i could be wrong) that if there has been a raise on the river then the player that raised must show and if the caller is beat they don't have to show. But if there has been no raise on the river then everyone has to show their hand.

Yeah that is the way it is but its not actually a rule just a generally accepted thing if you want you can ask that the losing player still show his cards.

I know what your saying that i got his money and thats the reason every one gives for not asking for his cards to be shown ....you have already knocked him to the floor why kick him again

I am just not sure this is a good enough reason not to see them.

Mr. Flibble

Opr, my understanding of the situation is that teh reason you may ask to see an other players cards at showdown is *only* if you suspect cheating - not just to have a look at what they are playing. So if someone insists to see the opponants cards it should be frowned upon as they are abusing a rult designed to stop cheating. All this 'paying to see' is irrelevent.
You must only show your cards if you wish to claim the pot and you aren't already the last player with cards.

So if your opponant shows you their cards and you know you are beat you can muck your cards. Also, if you bluff the river and get called you again can just muck your cards.

This is how I understand the rules, can anyone verify?

ecksor

opr wrote:

The reason this came into my head cause for the last few nights was playing in club outside Dublin and in nearly all the hands the losing player would also throw over his losing cards.
In terms of getting information and reads on player i thought it was great.

Great, you got the information and the players you were beating didn't mind. Perfect.

If you honestly think that the information you gain will compensate for anything you might lose due to a player not calling your bet on the end, or not wanting to play a pot with you, or simply not wanting to play at all then fine, but I suspect that if you start to ask to see the hand that was destined for the muck then the reaction will be negative.

Mr. Flibble

Mr. Flibble wrote:

can anyone verify?

Yes, Mr. Flibble.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51377645&posted=1#post51377645

Goodluck2me

bman wrote:

Yeah, but you get the money:D

I think the rule is (and i could be wrong) that if there has been a raise on the river then the player that raised must show and if the caller is beat they don't have to show. But if there has been no raise on the river then everyone has to show their hand.

not quite, it starts from the SB and follows around. the sB showing first and you only show then if you can beat the Sb and so on...

opr

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Yes, Mr. Flibble.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51377645&posted=1#post51377645

Thanks for that ........ i just wanted to know that thier is an actual rule on it out thier and its not just something we generally accept.

Many times the boot has been on the other foot and i have been very happy to fire my cards into the muck

In any case i think that soemthing needs to be done in regards to this rule as the situation still arises where a player could keep asking to see the cards time after time and they have to be shown.

I also take it that anyone at the table can ask that the losing player show his hand not just the other player involved in the pot ??

Opr