Cash Table Rule Clarification..

BIG-SLICK-POKER

I Nearly know every rule possible for Tournaments and Cash Tables but i ran into a problem the other night at a 2/5 Blind cash table to which i was called to after they felt our floor manager dealt with incorrectly and we are looking for feedback from fellow poker players and Dealers/Directors


Its as simple as this i know there is different rules in different Casinos

Now

Hand is played out as normal and we are left with two players heads up on the cash table the river card is dealt and player (A) who is first to act throws in his cards ...Here comes the prob ,a few players want to see Player (b) cards but this player complains that the pot has been conceeded and that she does not have to show her cards where as the other players argue the point that she must show cards to claim the pot...

I can see the confusion here and my understanding looking at the hand is that if she is the last player standing as all other players folded why should she have to show

But on the other hand i see problems with collusion here and fully understand why the two cards shld be shown here , But i still need clarification on this rule from people here as i want to implement the rule that is used everywhere in this situation and not the different individual rules which are changed from casino to casino and club to club

Thanks
Neill
BSP

Lafortezza

He/she has to show because there's a chance he/she might have two Aces of Hearts. She has to show a legitimate hand to claim the pot. A joker and the 'Rules of Contract Bridge' usually doesn't suffice.

brianmc

lafortezza wrote:

He/she has to show because there's a chance he/she might have two Aces of Hearts. She has to show a legitimate hand to claim the pot. A joker and the 'Rules of Contract Bridge' usually doesn't suffice.

So anybody who ever wins a pot always has to show if asked?


I see the collusion problem though so perhaps ask the table if they suspect collusion. When they all reply "err... no." let her muck her hand but if someone says yes, well then fair enough, get her to show.

Sinfonia

i don't think player (b) should have to show.

example:
had player (a) checked,
player (b) bet,
and player (a) folded,
player (b) would not have to show their cards...

in BSP's situation player (a) has made the same action - fold.

if both players had checked and player (a) then mucked, then i agree player (b) would have to show.

but if all players fold, and one player is left, then why should they have to show, legitimate hand or not?
in the above example, we have no idea whether or not player (a)'s hand is legitimate.

and collusion is usually not a problem in cash games (ones i have been in anyway) because one player may hand another player money if they so wish...i know rules do vary on that one though.

EDIT: just saw your post brianmc, must have posted while i was typing. so same point really

super_furry

lafortezza wrote:

He/she has to show because there's a chance he/she might have two Aces of Hearts. She has to show a legitimate hand to claim the pot. A joker and the 'Rules of Contract Bridge' usually doesn't suffice.

What if Player A folded on the turn? If the pot's conceded, he shouldn't have to show if he doesn't want.

TheRock

As you say the rule varies.
My thinking and how I have usually seen it played out is, if the player is not called then they shouldn't have to show their cards. If I am not called in a pot I'll only show if I want to. Showing or not showing cards is part of the game. I cant remember coming across a situation where I had to show cards to claim an uncontested pot and this includes The Irish Open and any of Pokerevents tournies.

Found this on http://www.pokertop10.com/poker_rules.html but I'm not sure if it clears it up. It seems to say any player has the right to see a discarded hand upon request, but they shouldn't be doing it the whole time

THE SHOWDOWN
If betting is over, the players show their cards to determine who has the best hand and wins the pot. A player may discard a hand without showing it, but any player in the deal has the right to see a discarded hand upon request, even if it has touched the muck. (A player should wait until a hand has actually been thrown away before asking to see it.) A hand winning the pot at the showdown by virtue of the opponent discarding his own hand without waiting to see it should still be shown to the table before the pot is awarded. The right of any player to examine the contents of a discarded hand at the showdown is not to be abused. A player using this right as a method of irritation should be warned to stop. If he does not heed the warning, he is subject to having the right revoked by the management.

nicryan

well I've had that happen in games that I've delt a few times and I never have asked player B to show their hand...regularly player B will show anyway - but they don't have to...they have not yet acted in the hand so still have an option to bet so as not to have to show their hand...


Nic

Lafortezza

It depends on the card room and the managers decision obviously, but if it is a headsup pot, and the first player to act just throws his hand in the muck, I think the 2nd player has to show a hand to be awarded the pot.
Just because it's a rare occurence doesn't mean it's not the correct rule if a ruling is asked for.

Edit: Ok maybe people are picking me up wrong. It the pot is headsup and one player bets and the other folds then the player who bets wins the pot without having to show.
If one person just simply folds when there is no bet by the opponent, then I think the rule is that the hand must be shown. It's a rule that is rarely enforced though.

I've never worked in a cardroom btw, but I think it's the same deal if say at a showdown at the river, Player A checks, Player B checks behind but realises that the dealer has mucked his hand, Player A still has to show his cards to claim the pot.

horsebokks

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote:

I Nearly know every rule possible for Tournaments and Cash Tables but i ran into a problem the other night at a 2/5 Blind cash table to which i was called to after they felt our floor manager dealt with incorrectly and we are looking for feedback from fellow poker players and Dealers/Directors


Its as simple as this i know there is different rules in different Casinos

Now

Hand is played out as normal and we are left with two players heads up on the cash table the river card is dealt and player (A) who is first to act throws in his cards ...Here comes the prob ,a few players want to see Player (b) cards but this player complains that the pot has been conceeded and that she does not have to show her cards where as the other players argue the point that she must show cards to claim the pot...

I can see the confusion here and my understanding looking at the hand is that if she is the last player standing as all other players folded why should she have to show

But on the other hand i see problems with collusion here and fully understand why the two cards shld be shown here , But i still need clarification on this rule from people here as i want to implement the rule that is used everywhere in this situation and not the different individual rules which are changed from casino to casino and club to club

Thanks
Neill
BSP

richie from big slick here....i was called to make the ruling here so this is exactly what happened & how i ruled on it
river is dealt
two players left
action is on player 6
he bets €50
player 8 calls €50
player 6 mucks immediatley
pot is awarded to player 8
players 4 & 9 ask to see player 8's cards & she refuses
i am called to make a ruling....
i rule that player 6 mucked & therefore conceeds the pot & as the pot was CONCEEDED player 8 doesnt have to show her cards
(i then remind the players b4 the next deal that in order to CLAIM a pot they must show both cards).
connie147 posted something similar recently & again it presented much debate ...so i think its a fairly common occurence & each individual case must be dealt with on its own merits...

horsebokks

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote:

I Nearly know every rule possible for Tournaments and Cash Tables but i ran into a problem the other night at a 2/5 Blind cash table to which i was called to after they felt our floor manager dealt with incorrectly and we are looking for feedback from fellow poker players and Dealers/Directors


Its as simple as this i know there is different rules in different Casinos

Now

Hand is played out as normal and we are left with two players heads up on the cash table the river card is dealt and player (A) who is first to act throws in his cards ...Here comes the prob ,a few players want to see Player (b) cards but this player complains that the pot has been conceeded and that she does not have to show her cards where as the other players argue the point that she must show cards to claim the pot...

I can see the confusion here and my understanding looking at the hand is that if she is the last player standing as all other players folded why should she have to show

But on the other hand i see problems with collusion here and fully understand why the two cards shld be shown here , But i still need clarification on this rule from people here as i want to implement the rule that is used everywhere in this situation and not the different individual rules which are changed from casino to casino and club to club

Thanks
Neill
BSP

hi,richie from big slick here ....i was called to make the ruling here ...neills description of the action isnt exact so here what happened
the river card is dealt
two players left
action is on player 6
he bets €50
player 8 calls€50
player 6 immediatley throws his cards in the muck
pot is awarded to player 8
players 4 & 9 ask to see player 8s hand
she refuses & i am called by the dealer for a ruling
the action is described to me & i rule that the pot was CONCEEDED & therefore she doesnt have to show.....
#i appreciate that players are entitled to ask to see anothers hand when called but in my opinion the hand was conceeded by the only player left in the hand so in this situation it diidnt have to be shown

DeVore

The hand must be shown. There is no ambiguity about this. To claim a pot at a showdown you must show a hand.

DeV.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

And this is how i instructed the overruling and told the players for the next hands and floor managers were instructed to let each cash table know

Thanks Dev

Mr. Flibble

This came up (numerous times) before here. I searched around the first time and found this.
This is from From Caro & Cooke's Rules of Real Poker.

----
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.
----

These are the rules I prefer - whereby you only have to show cards for cheating prevention purposes.

I have seen rules agreeing to what DeVore says

The hand must be shown. There is no ambiguity about this. To claim a pot at a showdown you must show a hand.

, but these don't really work.

In the example you give in this thread, what happens if the last player with cards throws them in the muck, split pot for all involved in the hand

or if you say he must show his cards after everyone else has mucked infront of him, then he can just say raise, chuck in a fiver and then what do you do? You certainly don't get to see the cards of someone who has raised and everyone else has folded.

Last player with live cards gets the pot unless cheating is suspected.

Lafortezza

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote:

And this is how i instructed the overruling and told the players for the next hands and floor managers were instructed to let each cash table know

Thanks Dev

No problem, any time

DeVore

lol...

There is no question in my mind that this is the right ruling and also the *proper* ruling. I dont like the idea of having to call over a floormanager and ask for a hand to be shown if I suspect collusion (which I have on occasion in Ireland). It puts me in a very awkward situation as its practically an accusation in itself. This rule is fair for everyone, stops any such collusion dead in its tracks (there would be a lot more if it werent there) and doesnt force anyone to have to pluck up the courage to ask.

Imho, when there is a showdown ALL cards should be turned over and noone should be allowed muck unseen. If I've paid the same amount into a pot as you, then I want as much information as you get, but this last paragraph is my opinion and not the generally accepted rules.

DeV.

Mr. Flibble

DeVore wrote:

lol...
There is no question in my mind that this is the right ruling and also the *proper* ruling.

Even if collusion/cheating isn't mentioned (which it doesn't seem to be in this case) do you think he must show his cards? - just because people want to have info on how he played his hand?

edit: just saw 'Imho, when there is a showdown ALL cards should be turned over and noone should be allowed muck unseen.' Thats a yes

nicryan

horsebokks wrote:

hi,richie from big slick here ....i was called to make the ruling here ...neills description of the action isnt exact so here what happened
the river card is dealt
two players left
action is on player 6
he bets €50
player 8 calls€50
player 6 immediatley throws his cards in the muck
pot is awarded to player 8
players 4 & 9 ask to see player 8s hand
she refuses & i am called by the dealer for a ruling
the action is described to me & i rule that the pot was CONCEEDED & therefore she doesnt have to show.....
#i appreciate that players are entitled to ask to see anothers hand when called but in my opinion the hand was conceeded by the only player left in the hand so in this situation it diidnt have to be shown

from what I gather thats a slightly different ruling question...in that situation there *is* a showdown so the hand must be shown.

but in the initial question the first player mucks before the second player gets a chance to act. If I'm dealing in a game and the 2 people bet a 3rd out of the pot on the turn, then one mucks right after the river I'll usually state something along the lines of 'well you've gotta show to claim the pot' or similar - just for the collusion aspect. But if its been just the 2 of them betting against each other and then one mucks after the river I'll usually let em get away with not showing - and if it was specifically asked for I'd call for a ruling from Luke - simply so that the other players / player who is forced to show depending on how he rules, get frustrated at Luke and not at me ^_^.

before tonight I said that I thought the other player didn't have to show, but according to Denise they do. I forgot to ask Luke about it when he got in but I reckon Denise is prolly right (she does have a fair bit more experience then my measly 3 years).

-Nic

5starpool

I agree with Nic (but then again I would, being from the same Fitz cloth, albeit non-dealerish cloth). In the first scenario when no bet came on the river and no checks took place but one conceded, then unless someone cites possible collusion then the hand would in no way have to be shown.

In the second scenario then yes I believe that the hand must be shown upon request.

Goodluck2me

how does this stop collusion?? all player B has to do is min-raise and Player A could fold and there fore have the same effect? this rule is ridiculous imo, if player A can muck his hand and i cant see what he has why should he be able to see mine?

ocallagh

In Vegas she would not have to show and I agree with that ruling, the bettor shouldnt have mucked if he didnt want to see the losing hand - however anyone should be able to ask to see both hands. Oscar.

Scotty #

DeVore wrote:

Imho, when there is a showdown ALL cards should be turned over and noone should be allowed muck unseen. If I've paid the same amount into a pot as you, then I want as much information as you get, but this last paragraph is my opinion and not the generally accepted rules.

DeV.

I agree 1000%!!! Nothing annoys more than to call a big bet, show my hand, and my opponent mucks.:mad: :mad: :mad: I'VE PAID TO SEE YOUR CARDS!!

I am aware he is not obliged to.

OT: Also it annoys me when the "show one show all" rule is called when someone wins a pot uncontested and shows one card. The rule is to show one person, show all people. Nothing to do with cards!!

While we're on the subject (or not:) ) winning a pot at showdown and showing one card at a time really pisses me of as well.

Aghhh!! Glad to get that off my chest!!