Ruling question

corblimey · 30-07-2006 5:33pm #1

Here's one that popped up in my cardroom on Friday and we got several different 'resolutions'.

2 players in the pot, they get to the river. One bets out, the other calls. The bettor immediately mucks and the dealer moves the pot to the other guy. A few people at the table want to see what the winner was playing with.

Now we have a written rule that to win a pot in a showdown, you must show both cards to claim the pot. In this instance, there was a split between whether this was a showdown or not. By calling, some felt that the second player had initiated a showdown. Others thought that because the first player insta-mucked, no showdown took place, so the winner could keep his cards face down.

Any thoughts?

connie147 · 30-07-2006 5:56pm

This thread was aired only last week with lots of answers.Generally it was felt if a player mucks,the other player should get to claim the pot without showing his cards.But my thoughts on it are that even though a player threw in his cards it was at the showdown stage,and isnt this player now allowed to use the board as his hand? If thats the case,player b then has to show to claim the pot (proving he can beat the board.)

nicryan · 30-07-2006 6:01pm

well this situation is a slightly different situation then the one last week...in the one last week there was no action on the river and when the first player was in a position to check or bet then he mucked...

once there's a bet and a call it is very definatly a showdown so the hand must be shown. Someone has paid to see the hand so it must be shown.

In the situation last week there is a very big grey area. there is not in this one.

-Nic

Poker & Pints · 30-07-2006 6:48pm

In my experience, mostly in Vegas, If the cards hit the muck or the dealer pulls them into the muck(basically, if any card touches the muck)..They are DEAD! Even if the dealer can pull the cards back out exactly. Now if they have not touched the muck or been pulled in they are still live. If the cards are asked to be shown then they can be, if for some reason these cards are the winners then thats the way it goes. The only nuance I have seen in this situation is that the pplayer must grab his own cards and turn them over(not the dealer).

cooker3 · 30-07-2006 7:29pm

As Nic said, there has been a bet called on river which means there is a showdown so player has to show his cards to claim the pot.

Mellor · 30-07-2006 10:33pm

nicryan wrote:

well this situation is a slightly different situation then the one last week...in the one last week there was no action on the river and when the first player was in a position to check or bet then he mucked...

once there's a bet and a call it is very definatly a showdown so the hand must be shown. Someone has paid to see the hand so it must be shown.

In the situation last week there is a very big grey area. there is not in this one.

-Nic

True there has been a bet and a call, and so must be a show down, BUT the bettor is supposed to show first, and remain players show if they can beat it, if they can't beat i they dont need to show. but this time the bettor didnt show. And even if he has the best hand after seeing the second hand, he is out of the pot and cannot take back his hand to claim it.

nicryan · 30-07-2006 10:46pm

at a showdown all hands must be shown...its common practice that the loosing player doesn't have to show but anyone at the table is entitled to see the hand. It is bad etiquite(sp?) to ask but they are entitled to see it.

this is why most poker sites allow you to see the hand by checking the hand history...

-Nic

Mr. Flibble · 30-07-2006 11:31pm

nicryan wrote:

at a showdown all hands must be shown...its common practice that the loosing player doesn't have to show but anyone at the table is entitled to see the hand. It is bad etiquite(sp?) to ask but they are entitled to see it.

this is why most poker sites allow you to see the hand by checking the hand history...

-Nic

I think the bettor should be allowd to muck their cards. I don't agree with this paid to see carry on, you paid in hope to win the pot, not to see someones cards.
Think of the following: if the bettor throws their cards to the muck you think they should be retrieved for a showdown, yes? I think if he throws his cards he is forgoing his option for a showdown therefore no showdown (involving him) occurs. If you think a showdown must occur then his cards cannot be ruled dead even tho they hit the muck for how can dead cards partake in a showdown? But cards thrown in the muck are dead. And were stuck in a loop and the universe will explode. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

nicryan · 30-07-2006 11:49pm

well that may be the case in some places...but in the fitz if there is a bet at the end then people can request to see the cards...even if they've touched the muck (as long as its still easily identifyable which cards they are...

-Nic

Mr. Flibble · 31-07-2006 12:18am

Alrighty, fair enough. I think this is an anticollusion rule being abused. But if the dealer lets it be abused abused it will be.

nicryan · 31-07-2006 12:46am

no I don't think thats the case...its the fact that if a bet is called on the river then there is a showdown. period. at a showdown all cards are to be shown, a player can surrender their hand and give up their right to win the pot by throwing their cards in and if a player at the table (doesn't have to be involved in the pot) wants to see the hand then the dealer will kill the hand (touch it off the muck) and show it...they touch it off the muck so that even if it is a winning hand/splitting hand the player in question can NOT recieve anything because they gave up that right.

with all that being said, its rude to ask to see em.

-Nic

DeVore · 31-07-2006 2:01am

If someone persistently mucks their cards to deny me the information they got from me for the same money/chips I want the floor to warn or eject them. Simply as.

Showdown = all cards shown, its a courtesy to others to allow others to fold unhumiliated, a courtesy I rescind if the player is slowrolling or clearly not willing to show first at any showdown.

My understanding is that cards are shown from the dealer clockwise. Neh?

DeV.

nicryan · 31-07-2006 2:38am

not exactly...they're shown from the player who made the last aggressive action on the river...if there is no action on the river then its from the button.

-Nic

Mr. Flibble · 31-07-2006 6:23am

Nic and DeV, I agree to disagree

Your way is one ruling mine another. Neither is set in stone and there are no standard rules to go by.

corblimey · 31-07-2006 11:00am

Yeah, half the people at the table thought one way, the other half thought the other way. We called over the TD and the casino manager and both disagreed with each other. As it was, the dealer still had her hands on the winner's hand and was able to show it -- it hadn't hit the muck.

If the winner had shown first and then the original bettor mucked, no issue, but it was the manner of the winner not showing his cards to claim the pot that caught most people off guard.

Sinfonia · 31-07-2006 11:05am

where exactly does the "muck" begin and end?

nicryan · 31-07-2006 1:41pm

in the pile of discards.

DeVore · 01-08-2006 8:05am

This is NOT and never has been in doubt anywhere but in unprofessionally run casinos. You must show a hand to claim a pot. End of. If you are the only one, you still must show a hand. Seriously, this is completely and utterly clear in every cardroom I've ever been in. Only in Ireland is it ever questioned.

To claim a pot you MUST show a hand even if everyone else has folded blind (another idiotic thing that is done here I might add).

DeV.

Mr. Flibble · 01-08-2006 8:11am

Are you seriously saying that if I go all in on the turn and everyone folds I have to show my hand to get the pot? No chance!

Can you imagine the looks you'd get from the players (and the TD) if you are thinking of calling an all in preflop and decide to fold but demand to see the other players cards.

Should all those pots I lost online been divided between me and the other players at the table because the winner didn't show his hand when everybody folded?

fuzzbox · 01-08-2006 8:16am

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Are you seriously saying that if I go all in on the turn and everyone folds I have to show my hand to get the pot? No chance!

Can you imagine the looks you'd get from the players (and the TD) if you are thinking of calling an all in preflop and decide to fold but demand to see the other players cards.

No he isnt.

He is saying that if you get to the showdown stage (e.g. the river was checked down, or there was a bet and at least one call), then at LEAST one players hand must be shown.

Mr. Flibble · 01-08-2006 8:25am

Ok, misunderstood this part.

DeVore wrote:

To claim a pot you MUST show a hand even if everyone else has folded blind (another idiotic thing that is done here I might add).

Thought he was alluding to a walk for some reason. I take it back Dev. Still wouldn't have that rule if I had a say in it.

TheDuck32 · 01-08-2006 9:27am

It is clear that if the other players ask to see the winning hand in this case, technically they have the right to see it.

but I think every club, having their own set of rules should handle these situations better

In this case when the player holding the hand refused and asked for a ruling, I think the director should have asked the player('s) who were requesting to see the hand if they thought the was collusion going on or if they were simply looking for free information.
If they do not think that collusion is afoot then they should be told that the club does not condone any abuse of the rules and the hand should not be shown.

antomadness · 01-08-2006 9:52am

If i call a river bet and the better imediately mucks his cards can i demand to see them.
I presume i can cos i called his bet
not 100% sure though

Mr. Flibble · 01-08-2006 10:01am

TheDuck32 wrote:

but I think every club, having their own set of rules should handle these situations better

In this case when the player holding the hand refused and asked for a ruling, I think the director should have asked the player('s) who were requesting to see the hand if they thought the was collusion going on or if they were simply looking for free information.
If they do not think that collusion is afoot then they should be told that the club does not condone any abuse of the rules and the hand should not be shown.

This I agree with.

TheDuck32 · 01-08-2006 10:02am

If i call a river bet and the better imediately mucks his cards can i demand to see them.
I presume i can cos i called his bet
not 100% sure though

I feel that if they hit the muck they cannot be retrieved, but you are certainly the only player at the table that should ask to see the cards or be allowed to ask, unless collusion is suspected, as the info you are getting was not free.

Ruling question

Comments