Confirm a ruling.

connie147

Happened in the club last night.Two players involved in a pot at the river stage.player A bets,player B calls.players A mucks saying good call,player B wants pot without showing his cards as hes the only player left with cards.I tell him he has to show two cards to claim the pot.He's not happy (he was the original pre flop raiser) and felt he shouldnt have to show his cards as he had no opposition.Clarification please!

Also,while I'm on the subject,even though Ive told my regulars that its bad ethicate to ask to see the losers cards after a showdown,I've got one player who constantly asks to see them no matter how many times hes been told.He asked again the other night and the losing plasyer involved threw his cards in the muck and said smugly"sorry,I didnt hear what you said" when he obviously did.I'm not sure which of the two were the most wrong.

Mr. Flibble

11.08 REQUESTS TO SEE A CALLED HAND.
Players shall not be entitled to see a called hand except in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of collusion, in which case the floorperson shall be called over for examination of the called hand. This is contrary to the traditional rule. However the traditional rule, which was designed to prevent collusion, has not served its original purpose. Asking to see called hands slows down the game, causes resentment and impedes action. The first alternate rule continues to be the most prevalent, but in the interests of the game it should be completely done away with. (Alternate Rule. At the showdown, any player who was dealt into the hand has the right to ask to see any called hand. Before turning over the hand the dealer shall kill the hand by touching it to the muck. If the hand is not killed it is still live and eligible to win the pot. In high limit games, the right to see a called hand is limited to situations where a floorperson is present for the request. The purpose of this rule is to protect against collusion, not to satisfy a player's curiosity or get a read on a player's style of play, or worst of all to intentionally irritate a player. Abuse of this rule is very bad for poker as it kills action and causes resentment. Many people favor retention of this rule because it makes new players comfortable that they are not being cheated. Second Alternate Rule. Only players who have been in on the turn in hold em games, fifth street in stud games, and for the draw in draw games shall have the right to see a called hand; also, a winner cannot ask to see a loser's hand.) Where the right to see a called hand is the rule, continuous requests to see hands shall be considered a breach of poker etiquette and may be grounds for removal from the game. There is no right to see a called losing hand under any circumstances in head's up play.


http://www.poker1.com/mcu/rules/b_article11.asp

Pokerevents

In order to claim a pot at a showdown a player must show both his cards.

mewso

I'll let the experts chime in here but I would imagine if A has mucked then thats that B takes it.

Mr. Flibble

Pokerevents wrote:

In order to claim a pot at a showdown a player must show both his cards.

I think 'showdown' needs defining.
If everyone else has mucked their cards is it a showdown?

I agree with musician.

kickintheteeth

player b has to show cards to win pot

Mr. Flibble

kickintheteeth wrote:

player b has to show cards to win pot

And if he mucks too do you split the pot with everyone at the table?

Last player with live cards gets the pot.

Goodluck2me

Pokerevents wrote:

In order to claim a pot at a showdown a player must show both his cards.

This happened at the Citywest tournament as far as i can remember and Player A bet, and Player B called. Player A mucks and asks to see Player B's hand, Player a mucks her hand. Donal took her hand out of the muck and showed down both of the hands. happy to be corrected if im wrong, i seen this on the antes-up thread about the event, ill see if i can find the link. was wondering at the time why this happened?

Daithio

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

Goodluck2me

Daithio wrote:

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

that is easily the best reply to thi squestion i heard, wp.

fade2black

Daithio wrote:

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

But if someone has mucked, then there is nothing left he has to beat.

connie147

Daithio wrote:

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

This was my opinion too.Even the little bit of confusion this ruling is creating is further proof that a set of tournament rules urgently need to be drawn up.It'll save a lot of needless arguements.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

My understanding on the hand connie wd be if the player had held onto the cards on his bluff and showed , only then would player A have to show his hand ...As player B had folded on the belief he was beaten it meant there was no other player left at the table so Player A did not have to expose his hand giving information if the hand was folded ...

He was obviously ahead from what i can read of it ... But he was in the right on not showing his hand .... Thats from my ruling in the club and tour

The people who say Player A has to show his cards to claim the pot is crazy as what happens if he doesnt is it a split pot between everyone or the player who just folded ....

Its Called the Last man standing rule and can be seen used online when players fold around to a raise it is the exact same thing

nicnicnic

Daithio wrote:

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

technically this would seen correct, but logic/common sense says player A surrenders the hand.

as for the player who mucks the hand to the repeated wanna see the cards guy, difficult one but I'd do my best not to show as-well

Daithio

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote:

My understanding on the hand connie wd be if the player had held onto the cards on his bluff and showed , only then would player A have to show his hand ...As player B had folded on the belief he was beaten it meant there was no other player left at the table so Player A did not have to expose his hand giving information if the hand was folded ...

He was obviously ahead from what i can read of it ... But he was in the right on not showing his hand .... Thats from my ruling in the club and tour

The people who say Player A has to show his cards to claim the pot is crazy as what happens if he doesnt is it a split pot between everyone or the player who just folded ....

Its Called the Last man standing rule and can be seen used online when players fold around to a raise it is the exact same thing

But player A hasn't folded, he has mucked his cards. If somebody else mucks your cards you still have the right to play the board, so if you muck your cards yourself I don't see why this would be any different. I think a fold happens when you don't call a bet. If there is no bet to you you are technically still in the hand until a bet is made, I think.

Daithio

fade2black wrote:

But if someone has mucked, then there is nothing left he has to beat.

Apart from the board. The other player mucked, he didn't fold.

Daithio

connie147 wrote:

This was my opinion too.Even the little bit of confusion this ruling is creating is further proof that a set of tournament rules urgently need to be drawn up.It'll save a lot of needless arguements.

Yeah for sure. If you're getting hassle Connie maybe order a copy of that book Mr.Flibble quoted from above, I didn't know it existed but Mike Caro is pretty well respected, and if players are causing hassle over rulings it would be handy to be able to pull out a book and get them to shut up.

connie147

Daithio wrote:

Apart from the board. The other player mucked, he didn't fold.

Actually,Im just thinking here,if both players muck without anyone showing,surely a split pot should be called with both players declaring the board as their hand. hmmmm,the plot thickens lol

NickyOD

He doesn't have to show his cards. He wins as the last player standing. He has cards, the other player has no cards. He wins!!!

Player A (the bettor on the last street) only has the right to see Player B's cards after he shows his own.

This situaiton actually came up in a hand I played in Vienna. I posted the hand here where I had a tough call after I was check raised on the river holding A-T and had only a pair of Tens. When I called he mucked his hand and the dealer simply awrded me the pot. I did not have to show my cards.

fade2black

Daithio wrote:

Apart from the board. The other player mucked, he didn't fold.

he doesn't have to beat the board...the board are his cards too. If one player mucks than there's only one player left. This situation seems fairly basic to me.

connie147

[cards after he shows his QUOTE=NickyOD]He doesn't have to show his cards. He wins as the last player standing. He has cards, the other player has no cards. He wins!!!



This situaiton actually came up in a hand I played in Vienna. I posted the hand here where I had a tough call after I was check raised on the river holding A-T and had only a pair of Tens. When I called he mucked his hand and the dealer simply awrded me the pot. I did not have to show my cards.[/QUOTE]


Hi Nicky,just playing devils advocate here,but what is to stop the player who mucked his cards first from declaring the board as his hand.Its already been proven that a player can win a pot without hole cards.So then player B would have to show.Is that not right?

fade2black

Hi Nicky,just playing devils advocate here,but what is to stop the player who mucked his cards first from declaring the board as his hand.Its already been proven that a player can win a pot without hole cards.So then player B would have to show.Is that not right?

Nothing of course but the situation here is that the player mucked.

NickyOD

connie147 wrote:

Hi Nicky,just playing devils advocate here,but what is to stop the player who mucked his cards first from declaring the board as his hand.Its already been proven that a player can win a pot without hole cards.So then player B would have to show.Is that not right?

How does a player win a pot without hole cards?. Even if your oponenent declares he is playing the board and you are too you must also show your cards to claim part of the pot.

Imposter

If someone's cards are in the muck surely that's the same as folding. Last person standing wins the pot.

If people are playing the board they still must show down both cards.

mewso

Not sure how anyone can say he can still play the board after he has mucked. Does that mean if I didn't call a bet on the river I can still say "I'm not calling that bet. Instead I'll play the board"?

Daithio

Nope, there was a bet to you muso, so you have to call or fold, and once you fold when a bet has been made to you you're out of the hand. If a players cards get accidentally mucked he still has the option to play the board, so in theory I don't think it should be any different if he mucks himself. As I see it folding is when you don't call a bet, and your hand is killed as a result. But if there is no bet made, but your cards have been mucked, by you or somebody else, I would have thought you still had the option to play the board. Not entirely certain, and most rulings I have seen go the other way, but this seems a bit more correct to me.

5starpool

Daithio wrote:

I would have thought that if player A mucks his hand player B still has to show his, as player A is still in the hand but playing the board. Player B has to show his hand to prove that he can beat the board and claim the pot rather than playing the board also and splitting it.

So are you saying that in this instance if Player B does show his hand anyhow in this situation and he was a total donk who had called with 23o and was in fact playing the boards that the pot would be split?

I can think of no reason why player B has to show his cards here. There is a likelyhood that I would not show my hands in this situation, and would strongly object if told i had to. Throwing your cards in the muck is surrendering, folding, whatever you want to call it. I would be amazed if there is a play the board option available here.

DeVore

IMHO Daithio is correct. I've seen people muck their hole cards declaring they were playing the house that was on the board. I dont like it and its why I warn players about mucking their hand preemtpively.

I also tell any dealers I work with that they should protect the muck. The players can fold their cards, but the dealer mucks them. That way if an opponent says (at a showdown) that they want to see his cards, they are entitled to see the folded cards (they paid the same amount as the loser, they should get the same amount of information he gets, including how his opponent played his cards).

DeV.

RoundTower

DeVore wrote:

IMHO Daithio is correct. I've seen people muck their hole cards declaring they were playing the house that was on the board. I dont like it and its why I warn players about mucking their hand preemtpively.

I also tell any dealers I work with that they should protect the muck. The players can fold their cards, but the dealer mucks them. That way if an opponent says (at a showdown) that they want to see his cards, they are entitled to see the folded cards (they paid the same amount as the loser, they should get the same amount of information he gets, including how his opponent played his cards).

DeV.

"Protecting the muck" is really silly IMO, give a player an honest chance to throw his cards away before anyone asks to see them. Usually the player who wants to see them will be a knob end so society is well served by this.

thenuts

Player B wins the pot. Player A has said fold and folded their hand, they did not say that they were playing the board. There is only one hand left in the game so how can anyone else win.

DeVore

RoundTower wrote:

"Protecting the muck" is really silly IMO, give a player an honest chance to throw his cards away before anyone asks to see them. Usually the player who wants to see them will be a knob end so society is well served by this.

wow, I can't believe you arent trolling here.

DeV.

RoundTower

I'm not, and I still agree with what I said.

DeVore

Forgive me, I thought you were pedantic about rules...

DeV.