Ruling please....mucking on the river....

eddiehead

Im sure this has been posted here and sorted out plenty of times before, i just havn't seen it. When people say ''you must show both cards to claim a pot'', does this rule always apply?
Say there are 2 players in a pot, 1 flops a flush draw, the other flops to pair.
The guy with the draw bets out on the flop, top pr flat calls, same again on the turn. On the river the 1st guy misses his draw and decides hes not gona bluff at it, so he mucks his hand knowing he cant win. Does the remaining player have to show his cards to claim the pot?

I always say no he doesnt, as he is the last remaining player in the hand. It seems logical and very straightforward, but there always seems to be 1 argumentative tit who says otherwise. In particular, this (almost exact) situation happened in the IPO at my table, in which case, the dealer decided the guy had to turn over his hand, despite the other player mucking his.

Ruling please...........

Killme00

I dont think he should have to show. If he had bet and the othe rguy had folded he wouldnt have had to show and i think the same should apply here. It would be different if it went check check on the river in which case he would ahve to show to claim the pot.

Lazare

The guy with the missed draw should declare that he has a straight, and get the guy with the winning hand to muck.

Flushdraw

Lazare wrote: »

The guy with the missed draw should declare that he has a straight, and get the guy with the winning hand to muck.

Ahhh the first of many of this type of post

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Player does not have to show , Last man left in the pot and no other cards in play . He wins without showing .

ITT-Pat

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

Player does not have to show , Last man left in the pot and no other cards in play . He wins without showing .

I always thought that in this situation(ie the 1st player to act has mucked), that the 2nd player can just bet(i know, a bit pointless, since the player has mucked)

But lets say the player 1st to act has top pair and he checks, and then the player on the button who had the flush draw then decideds to muck, in this instance, i thought the player 1st to act would have to show

pkaces

ive seen where a player out of position missed there draw and they threw their hand over the line but the dealer did not place the hand into the muck, the other player tried to claim pot without showing but dealer made him show hand he had 4 high ( a missed flush draw) the player out of position then very quicky reclaimed their hand and won with a missed straight draw of 7 high. The hand was not declared dead as in had not being placed into the muck.

Lazare

pkaces wrote: »

ive seen where a player out of position missed there draw and they threw their hand over the line but the dealer did not place the hand into the muck, the other player tried to claim pot without showing but dealer made him show hand he had 4 high ( a missed flush draw) the player out of position then very quicky reclaimed their hand and won with a missed straight draw of 7 high. The hand was not declared dead as in had not being placed into the muck.

I can never understand people open folding, maybe they think it makes them look cool.

tylerdurden94

Lazare wrote: »

I can never understand people open folding, maybe they think it makes them look cool.

What u mean it doesnt?? :cool: Man i gotta stop doin that!

Lazare

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

What u mean it doesnt?? :cool: Man i gotta stop doin that!

Yeah Danny, you don't need to do that sh*t to look cool man! :cool:

Ace2007

Yes he does have to show his hand - otherwise it can be viewed as collusion....

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yes he does have to show his hand - otherwise it can be viewed as collusion....

Still does not have to show as it will prove absolurte nothing when he does show ?? If he has nothing the other guy can say u had me beat .

Once the other player folds the pot is his regardless last man standing .Two cards to claim the pot face up or face down ....

Thats my view on it anyhow

ozpoker

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yes he does have to show his hand - otherwise it can be viewed as collusion....

OK, I know this is what is parroted as a rational for this rule. But explain to me exactly how this rule stops collusion.

-Oz-

Mellor

If player A mucks BEFORE the river action has taken place, player B doesn't have to show. As he should of got a chance to bet and take it down.

If player A mucks AFTER the river action has taken place, player B must show. As is due to collusion, as has been pointed out. I take the point from Neil that showing proves nothing. And I agree on cards alone. But the situation needs to be assessed.
For example, final table of a tourney, Chipleader puts his mate all-in on river, mate calls, chipleader mucks. The rule that the player must show is there to prevent passing of chips between players. Granted it can still happen and the rule doesn't stop it, but it looks funny if the short player called the all-in with air. And players are less likely to do it if they have to show.

DeVore

At a "showdown" SOMEONE must show a hand to claim a pot. The clue is in the name...

DeV.

Flushdraw

ozpoker wrote: »

OK, I know this is what is parroted as a rational for this rule. But explain to me exactly how this rule stops collusion.

-Oz-

OK, theres 4 left in a tournament. Myself and say a good friend of mine, Wes, Fergus, Jay etc. and 2 others. Its a satellite and theres 2 tickets up for grabs. I have 60% of the chips in play and my buddy is shortstacked.

I raise PF and he calls. I bet the flop and he calls. I check the turn and he checks. i hit a miracle runner runner gutshot straight on the river. I dont want to win the hand this way and cripple my mate so i muck my hand and he shows TPTK.

I still have half the chips in play and now he has almost a double up. We are both on our way to tickets. Collusion??

** These events are 100% fictional and just used to serve as an example to Oz. I'd never partake in this behaviour!

Caboose

No he doesnt have to show.
The player with the draw surrendered the pot.
Keep things simple but consistent I say.

Caboose

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Caboose wrote: »

No he doesnt have to show.
The player with the draw surrendered the pot.
Keep things simple but consistent I say.

Caboose

Thank god a man on my level at last .. people really need to learn the rules ....:D

BIG-SLICK-POKER

DeVore wrote: »

At a "showdown" SOMEONE must show a hand to claim a pot. The clue is in the name...

DeV.

not if a player has folded before the showdown and there is only one hand left in play ??? wheter that hand is face up or face down it does not matter he is last player standing. Hand has been conceeded and player may take in the pot and then fold ...

mdwexford

Im with DeVore on this one.

kryogen

a showdown and somebody conceding the pot are very different, if somebody open folds the other player doesnt have to show his hand as nobody is left to challenge his claim to the pot, its his by default. very very simple. his hand is the only live hand therefore he must be awarded the pot.

a showdown is where there is a river bet called, or if the river is checked by all players in the pot. then the winning hand must take the pot so the full hand must be shown

connie147

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

not if there is only one hand left in play ??? wheter that hand is face up or face down it does not matter he is last player standing. Hand has been conceeded and player may take in the pot and then fold ...

Im with DeV also. If the action on the river goes check check, both players are playing the board until one of them shows a hand to beat it.Is that not so? At a showdown in our club,somebody has to show a hand to claim the pot.

kryogen

ok, maybe my reply was too complicated, or not read...

ill try make it seem easier to read

a showdown involves at least 2 hands.

if there is only one player remaining, he is the winner. there can be no showdown as there is only one live hand

1 hand = no showdown
2 or more hands = showdown

Caboose

I'll go with Kyrogen on this.

Showdown = all active players revealing their hands so the winner can be determined.

As soon as The player with the draw folded his hand there was no contest. He surrendered and the other player becomes the winner by default.


Two greatest words in the english language....DE - Fault!!!!

Macspower

I learnt this the hard way a long time ago.... it's back to the old swop pot for cards rule.......

Villan bets river I call he insta mucks (ob bluffing) Dealer is pushing the pot to me and I muck my cards.......

The villan claims that I should have shown and gets a ruling... pot is split!!!

angle shoot FTW!!

ruling was prob correct as nobody showed cards and technically we both mucked

BIG-SLICK-POKER

connie147 wrote: »

Im with DeV also. If the action on the river goes check check, both players are playing the board until one of them shows a hand to beat it.Is that not so? At a showdown in our club,somebody has to show a hand to claim the pot.

Im with myself and Graham on this one . A player cannot be asked to turn his cards up if he the last man left with cards . No other player can win the pot at the table regardless as the betting has been complete and a player has conceeded to the remaining player in the pot . I have ruled this way since Day 1 running events same as Macau and Poker Events from previous tournaments .

Neill K

Macspower

connie147 wrote: »

Im with DeV also. If the action on the river goes check check, both players are playing the board until one of them shows a hand to beat it.Is that not so? At a showdown in our club,somebody has to show a hand to claim the pot.

not so really Connie..... he doesn't have to beat the board...but he does have to showdown if someone has called the river....

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Macspower wrote: »

I learnt this the hard way a long time ago.... it's back to the old swop pot for cards rule.......

Villan bets river I call he insta mucks (ob bluffing) Dealer is pushing the pot to me and I muck my cards.......

The villan claims that I should have shown and gets a ruling... pot is split!!!

angle shoot FTW!!

ruling was prob correct as nobody showed cards and technically we both mucked

u are still last player with cards and pot has to be awarded

Macspower

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

Im with myself and Graham on this one . A player cannot be asked to turn his cards up if he the last man left with cards . No other player can win the pot at the table regardless as the betting has been complete and a player has conceeded to the remaining player in the pot .

it is the same thing as small bilnd big blind and small blind conceeds the pot does the Big Blind have to show to claim the pot . Nope . I have ruled this way since Day 1 running events same as Macau and Poker Events from previous tournaments .

Neill K

not the same as blind vs blind Neil...

think of it this way... the sb concedes the pot by folding the bb doesn't have to show... because his big bet wasn't called.....

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Macspower wrote: »

not the same as blind vs blind Neil...

think of it this way... the sb concedes the pot by folding the bb doesn't have to show... because his big bet wasn't called.....

i erased that lol before someone replyed u were 2 quick mac

mdwexford

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

Im with myself and Graham on this one . A player cannot be asked to turn his cards up if he the last man left with cards . No other player can win the pot at the table regardless as the betting has been complete and a player has conceeded to the remaining player in the pot .

it is the same thing as small bilnd big blind and small blind conceeds the pot does the Big Blind have to show to claim the pot . Nope . I have ruled this way since Day 1 running events same as Macau and Poker Events from previous tournaments .

Neill K

It is not nearly the same as the small blind folding to the big blind. In that case there is an uncalled bet that the SB has decided not to call so the BB does not have to show a hand.

Personally i think a hand should have to shown to claim a pot on the river but the rule differs in different places as per usual.


edit, Neill is a donk

Macspower

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

u are still last player with cards and pot has to be awarded

I agree... but do I have to show?

more ammo for the standard rules........

Ace2007

how is it the same as small blind big blind????

AFAIK(90% sure) if the river comes and it goes check check - cards must be shown in order for the pot to be won. If one player folds the other still has to show to stop collisioin, you may say how does this stop it - well in these circumstances any player at the table can wish to view either hand( i have seen this done in a couple of casions). there if 2 friends are together and 7 high no draw wins.. its obv whats going on.

Now situation 2 - if 2 players left in hand, and the first player to act open folds, then the second play need only bet and he does not then have to show his hand....

hopefully this is plain and simple...

Macspower

never mind the showdown thing..... wtf are we doing cross posting at 5am in the morning....

much more important methinks!

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Macspower wrote: »

I agree... but do I have to show?

more ammo for the standard rules........

Ill get shot at an event soon i reckon ..

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Macspower wrote: »

never mind the showdown thing..... wtf are we doing cross posting at 5am in the morning....

much more important methinks!

Supermarket sweep is comin on gotta go dale winton is mick dorans hero and idol

tricky D

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

Im with myself and Graham on this one . A player cannot be asked to turn his cards up if he the last man left with cards . No other player can win the pot at the table regardless as the betting has been complete and a player has conceeded to the remaining player in the pot . I have ruled this way since Day 1 running events same as Macau and Poker Events from previous tournaments .

Neill K

Wrong, just plain wrong. Reasons aleady given. \sigh

mdwexford

My personal life is nobodys business on here, i want Neill Kellys post removed or i will threaten solicitors and the like. My reputation could be damaged for life.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

tricky D wrote: »

Wrong, just plain wrong. Reasons aleady given. \sigh

It cant be wrong if its in the rules set by the T,D and casino and they differ throughout the country . As i said this is Big Slicks Ruling on it . The rest can follow suit or rule in what way they like . I set the rules for our events and after that im happy

kinaldo

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

It cant be wrong if its in the rules set by the T,D and casino and they differ throughout the country .

Well it's fúcking stupid.

I was dealing the other night to two regulars, a lot of dodgy speech play going on and all that, anyway they went check check on the river and player B last to act tries to muck his cards while player A demands the pot without showing. I had to get a ruling such was their determination in not showing their cards. Showdown was ruled, player A was given the pot with Jack high despite player B holding King high, since his cards had touched the muck before the showdown.

Maybe they were colluding or maybe they're just idiots, probably the latter, but at least they were shown up by being forced to turn over their cards.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

kinaldo wrote: »

Well it's fúcking stupid.

I was dealiang the other night to two regulars, a lot of dodgy speech play going on and all that, anyway they went check check on the river and player B last to act tries to muck his cards while player A demands the pot without showing. I had to get a ruling such was their determination in not showing their cards. Showdown was ruled, player A was given the pot with Jack high despite player B holding King high, since his cards had touched the muck before the showdown.

Maybe they were colluding or maybe they're just idiots, probably the latter, but at least they were shown up by being forced to turn over their cards.

Ok take this for instance then . Small blind just knocled out .Button in the hole and the Big blind only is out . all players fold around . Does he have to show to win his own Big Blind ?? Nope he doesnt as he is the only player at the table still live and thus wins the pot

This is one rule that is just a diferance of opinion , I knoe the scenario changes slightly with a called and uncalled bet but can u see my point

kinaldo

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

Ok take this for instance then . Small blind just knocled out .Button in the hole and the Big blind is only left in play . all players fold around . Does he have to show to win his own Big Blind ?? Nope he doesn't as he is the only player at the table still live and thus wins the pot which is his own BB

That's different, if everyone folds around to him there can be no "showdown". In the other case you're not really meant to open fold. There could be rules in some places where he has to show the cards but that would be pretty pointless as it's a scenario much less open to suspicion of collusion, for obvious reasons.

BIG-SLICK-POKER

kinaldo wrote: »

That's different, if everyone folds around to him there can be no "showdown". In the other case you're not really meant to open fold. There could be rules in some places where he has to show the cards but that would be pretty pointless as it's a scenario much less open to suspicion of collusion, for obvious reasons.

But there also can be no Showdown if a player has mucked ? This is just one of them fckin rules that wrecks heads .. I am open to change always anyhow

kinaldo

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

But there also can be no Showdown if a player has mucked ? This is just one of them fckin rules that wrecks heads .. I am open to change always anyhow

When it gets to showdown he shouldn't be allowed to muck, and it's not hard for the dealer to protect the muck.

Caboose

BIG-SLICK-POKER wrote: »

But there also can be no Showdown if a player has mucked ? This is just one of them fckin rules that wrecks heads .. I am open to change always anyhow

I stick to my guns lads in this particular case. Thats the way I have made that ruling for a few years now.

Someone mentioned collusion. If thats the case the dealer and TD should be watching for it and thats a whole other rule book for trying to prove that.

He who bets shows first...fine if all players are still active. It cant be a showdown when only one hand is still in play.

In the interest of fairness the other player could show as extremely good etiquette and being a gentleman/lady but they dont have to.

My other 2 cents.....

BIG-SLICK-POKER

kinaldo wrote: »

When it gets to showdown he shouldn't be allowed to muck, and it's not hard for the dealer to protect the muck.

So Players have to protect there cards and try hit the muck and dealers have to protect the muck now also ???? ... Thats new to me .If a player mucks he mucks the dealer should not be exposing a Mucked hand at any stage of the game as it is the players right to conceed a pot if he wants to ..

U are trying to tell me that you would block me mucking my hand.Thats the worst thing is have ever heard ?? I would crack up at teh table if a dealer blocked my hand from being mucked and then exposed it .

RoundTower

Killme00 wrote: »

I dont think he should have to show. If he had bet and the othe rguy had folded he wouldnt have had to show and i think the same should apply here. It would be different if it went check check on the river in which case he would ahve to show to claim the pot.

this is the right answer.

DeV and others -- you are 100% wrong, this is not a showdown. If I am first to act on the river, if I check and you bet and I fold no one gets to see your cards. Why should I get the right to see your cards just by open mucking instead?

RoundTower

and it's not close or debatable btw.

Flushdraw

RoundTower wrote: »

if I check and you bet and I fold no one gets to see your cards. Why should I get the right to see your cards just by open mucking instead?

Not really sure why this is so hard to understand. Its quite simple

River is dealt.......

Player A open folds, player B wins pot - No show required
Player A checks, player B bets, player A folds - No show required
Player A checks, players B checks, player A folds - Showdown

coillcam

Flushdraw wrote: »

Not really sure why this is so hard to understand. Its quite simple

River is dealt.......

Player A open folds, player B wins pot - No show required
Player A checks, player B bets, player A folds - No show required
Player A checks, players B checks, player A folds - Showdown

.

I'm definitely with FD & RT, I'd safely assume it's just a misunderstanding of what originally happened IMO.

Player with draw open mucked on the blank river, no significant action has occurred so no showdown required for the guy with top pair. Although check/check as above by Flushdraw a hand must be declared/defined faceup as this is significant action IMO.

As an aside some clubs will always say a showdown must always happen before a pot is awarded. Some other clubs will let you flash one card ie. "my ace is good, you have your shíte if your seeing my other card."

I don't like this showing only 1 card, if there is a "showdown" I feel both cards must be face up IMHO to win the pot.

But if you win the pot uncontested, I feel you should be able to flash a card(or both) at your own discretion as D.Negreanu was on about in HSP a while back. You have won the pot uncontested and are under no obligation to show anything but can show what you want, I remember the hand DN was up against Todd Brunson and DN folded his Nut Flush on the river with a paired board and 4 D's as he held the Ad because Brunson "played it like a monster" according to D.N.
Brunson then proceeded to flash what was a completely unrelated 6c/7c I think to needle D.N. Quite funny hand indeed.

Seperate to that the hand where Sammy and D.N. were at it, with DN saying he had 9dTd and turning over the Td on the flop was pure gold and an example of where cash games rules are a little more leniant/ambiguous than the ole' tourneys.

connie147

RoundTower wrote: »

this is the right answer.

DeV and others -- you are 100% wrong, this is not a showdown. If I am first to act on the river, if I check and you bet and I fold no one gets to see your cards. Why should I get the right to see your cards just by open mucking instead?

RT,I dont think DeV is disagreeing with you. Obviously if someone mucks on the river when they're 1st to act then the pot is not a showdown. The debate on whether cards should be shown is coming from the example where the river action is check-check . This is now a showdown situation. If one player then decides to muck his hand then I think his opponnent must show his cards to claim the pot.