blonde poker forum

In a NLH cash game two players end up HU in the pot and the river is checked down.

Now normally the player who's turn it is to act first should table his hand first, but in this instance the second player does.

Player one now says that player two's hand is good and goes to muck his hand.

Since it was player one's turn to show first are we (the other players at the table) entitled to ask player one to show his hand ?

Yes!

And the practice of trying to conceal one's hand at Showdown, in either Cash or Tourney, by waiting for the other to show & then mucking, should be deemed as unworthy conduct - almost everyone is doing it now, waiting for the other Player, & then quickly mucking.

Standards are dropping, & nobody cares, & folks get away with this antic 99 times out of 100. I'd have them Shot.

The "caller" Calls to SEE your Cards, &, win or lose, they have a right to see them, & thus, by default, BOTH sets of hands must be shown.

Getting all smart-arse & quickly mucking is as bad as farting in church.

What's up with farting in church?

only if you've got a dodgy rector.

Case rested. The young have no idea of behavioural standards. National Service is the answer, that's where it all went wrong.

I'd say church is where a lot of it went wrong.

Getting back to the cash-game..

This actually happened at DTD last week and to be fair to player one he was blameless as player two simply exposed his hand rather quickly, and when player one was going to muck, I suggested that he was obliged to show and the dealer agreed, and he showed with no argument.

The player to my right however was adamant that this was incorrect procedure "in a cash-game", and at least one other player at the table agreed with him, so I was wondering if I might have been wrong to insist that he had to show.

At least one old fart agrees with me ;)

I was always under impression that in a cash game if your shown a winning hand at showdown then you can muck if you know your hand is beat.

Trouble is, as I understand it, the ONLY person who can ask to see the hand is the other player in the pot.

That's because old farts, in general, try to play the game with some ethicacy, rather than exploit every possible loophole to gain an unfair advantage.

So, if that's the case, why should it be so?

Not universally applied, but in most cases, yes. And one can see why, though I think that's wrong.

I think I'm an old fart too then.   I always wonder why it's usually someone else not involved in the hand that gets uppity about these things, I really don't see the point.

Many think they have a right to because the paid to see - not going to argue with that.

Some think they have a right to, because if they were online they could see the hand in the hand history and want the same - I would argue with that...

AFAIAC, a third party demanding a mucked hand to be exposed is tantamount to saying 'I suspect foul play and exposing the hand will prove it.'  So I wouldn't ask as a third party.  If I had called, and part of the looking price was to see what they were playing with, I might ask to see, but if they 'tap out' and say "you've got it" then I think it is more +EV to spare them their blushes and increase the likelihood that they reload, so I would allow them to muck unseen.

Half decent article http://www.readybetgo.com/poker/rules/poker-showdown-rules-824.html

Surely the point is that had player two not acted out of turn by showing his hand then player one would have been obliged to show.

Why should he gain an advantage(debatable term) by the other player's acting out of turn.

After they both check he must show, end of imho.

Spot-on, & it encapsulates all the reasons.

if you read tommy angelo's book, he agrees with tikay about so many things, does the turn his hand over in cash games when all in thing, and would be the first to turn over his hand if checked on the river yet...


http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/i_want_to_see_that_hand.htm (http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/i_want_to_see_that_hand.htm)

what about a slightly different aspect of showing cards in a cash game:-

player A raises preflop and is called by the player to his left, who is on the button.

Its check/check on the flop and check/call on the turn. River puts four spades on board and player A looks to see how much player B has left and then bets about 2/3 of it. Player B tanks.

After about 1 minute, player A says "here, let me help you out" and exposes an off-suit six. Dealer says "woah, you can't do that", player A says "its about the fourth time i've done it tonight and no other dealer has said anything". Dealer calls the floor who say that the hand is not dead but please don't do that again.

Comments ?

This may look as though I am tring to play the devil's advocate here but this thought has just occurred:

What would have happened if player one had actually had the winning hand that he had misread and only discovered after a third party asked for the hand not to be mucked ?

This scenario could very easily happen at Omaha, and I'm sure that player two would not feel too kindly towards the third party  ::)

Spot on, apart from those venues that decide to have a local rule that asks the player putting the last agressive action in to be first to show.  I couldn't now name a venue that does this, but somewhere must, because that is the view held by many during the showdown squabble.

I agree if people just opened up their hands on cue, it would be a blessing.  However, if say there are 4 players that check it around on the river and I was second to act with say top pair bad kicker that now looks golden, I would open up straight away, if only in the hopes of speeding up proceedings.  And as for the third party not in the hand about not getting to see all the hands, well to some extent they didn't pay any part of the looking price, so they can't feel too hard done by..

This one should be routine now.  If the dealer/TD agrees that there is sufficient reason to suspect foul play or it is local rule/custom that this is allowed, the dealer should take the folded hand, touch it in the muck and then expose it.  Even if it turns out to be a winner, the 'owner' has no claim on the pot.

Lol Tikay, im not sure if this is a joke. Im going to have to disagree with age being related to manners/ethics in poker. You and I both cut our teeth at Notts gala and the main perpatrators of angle shooting, poor manners and other things were in general the older group.

Maybe its the sample size of playing live mainly in Nottingham, but this is not my experience.

You're right, he's being ageist. 

Cards speak. If they haven't been mucked then they are live??

Well, I did say "in general", & I do agree with the point you made about Gala Notts.

My view, I believe, remains valid. It's become OK to display lack of manners & bad etiquette, because that's deemed OK these days. The oafs on TV do it, be it in poker or football or whatever, & "globalisation" does the rest. And so, now, we have players disingenously claiming they are "playing with passion", (witness that gormless, brain-dead, Argentinian idiot who destroyed Liverpool's chances last Sunday, effectively saying to his team-mates "I don't give a toss about you or the Team") when in fact they are just dumb, lacking grace, decorum, manners or dignity.  Sport & Games reveals the true inner character. An arse on the pitch or table is usually an arse off it, & all this "I'm just passionate" nonsense is just that - hogwash.

But I agree that there are many youngsters who are impeccably mannered, & behave with dignity & ethicacy, and some wrinklies do not. The errant wrinklies are just bad, through & through, whereas many of the errant youngsters do not realise they are doing anything wrong, due to shockingly low education standards, & these days, poor behaviour is seen almost as a badge of honour. Drug abuse, for example, is almost admired in society these days, when in fact it should be wholly & thoroughly condemned.

Holy shit, I sound like an old missog.

I think he was referring to the "old farts" on this thread.. ;whistle;

Ahh. That'd be you & me then Ralph.

So, what's with the goatee? You gotta young woman in tow?

still smoking tikay?

I read somewhere that heroin is less harmful to the human body than cigarettes and cannabis less harmful than aspirin. I can't really see that much difference morally between smoking/taking drugs/eating rubbish food/not doing any exercise. Is it because drugs are illegal and the others are not?

Yup, & I'm not much proud of myself for being such a wimp. But it IS Legal. "Recreational drugs" are not. Anarchy does not work, society eventully collapses.

Of course, as you well know, the idea that heroin is less harmful than ciggies is just fanciful. Heroin is much more addictive, "delivery" methods are exceptionally dangerous, & it's highly-addictive nature & extraodinary high cost is the cause of so much of the rising crime rates we are enduring. Drug-taking in poker, by the bye, is way, way, higher than most realise, & it does negatively affect how people behave.

I was just astonished to see it done so obviously at Blackpool-G recently, one individual toing & froing to the loo every half hour, & displaying all the classic snorting tics & characteristics. Powdering one's nose appears to have a new meaning. It's rife at Luton too, as most know.

Top advice/warning there, all those new to Omaha take heed especially those Blondes playing for the first time at the Blonde Bash.

Unless you are at my table..........

Karabiner proves that with age comes wisdom *

* Unless your name is Tony....

I actually agree with the problems we have with "respect" in our society, which is starts at home and in school. Having been at the coal face as it were (teacher) in the past, there is definitley a problem but it isn't just a problem in education, its a problem in society.

 I think the problem has come about due to the fact that living in the UK is pretty much easy street for the majority these days, no war, mass poverty and therefore life is relatively easy, therefore there is little need for communities to pull together, its every man for themselves.

google tells me that tobacco is more addictive than heroin. if cigarettes were made illegal tomorrow the price would shoot up and cause people to commit crimes to feed their addiction. If heroin were made legal tomorrow the price would drop and there would be much less crime.

I don't take any drugs btw cos I want to have a long healthy life. seems like 95% of the people in this country are trying to achieve a slow painful early death and are proud of it.

"you could get run over by a bus tomorrow!" LOL

Indeed, most probaly a "Route Master" to boot......

not going to read everyone elses take on this before I say what i think.

in a cash game it is not neccessary for a player to show his hand. If any player on the table requests to see it then it must be shown. It is very bad ettiquette for players to request the losing players hand to be shown- why the hell do you need to see the hand? it just just slows the game down and makes someone show an inferior hand. It can also lead to problems where he shows his hand to find he has missread and he was going to muck the winner. Unless that hand has touched the muck or the muck has been destroyed the hand is still live and has a claim on the pot. If somone wants to muck his hand at showdown just let him- the first time you have someone show a winning hand that he didnt know he had will make you understand why (I have seen this happen 3 times over the years especially in omaha). If you want to see a hand that has in effect been mucked the dealer should touch the muck with it and/or destroy the flop meaning no claim can be then made on the pot.

So you prefer to sit & talk amongst yourselves, maybe go take a walk, or get a haircut, while some selfish oaf, who won't reveal his hand, amuses himself with that trick that even 7 year olds would find boring & juvenile - "squeezing" his hand to see what he's got, then assessing it slowly, looking at the Board, then back at his hand, a humph & a harph, a dwell, and then, eventually, mucking or tabling?

1)  The order for showing is last to bet or raise shows first e.g. bet/call on river the bettor shows.  If river goes check check, then the person who last bet shows first.

2) Anyone in the game can ask to see a showdown hand, but it is poor etiquette to ask.

3) If a player involved in the pot at showdown asks to see a hand that is being mucked, that hand is live and will take the pot if it is a winner.  If a player not involved at showdown asks to see, the hand is not live (dealer should touch the muck with it and then show)

if someone is messing aout and doing all that by all means ask them to show their hand and say you will do so every time they want to slow things down. The original poster seemed to say at showdown it went check check and the 2nd man flipped over the winner hand and player one mucked- no messing or carloesque dwells- he was beat he just wanted to muck the losing hand. Why does anyone need to see it?

i still mantain it is poor ettiquette in a cash game to ask to see someones hand who is wanting to muck. The only time i would consider it good manners to do so would be if there is a suspision that 2 players are squeezing someone out of the pot and working together, this would be evident by betting patterns etc. You would be asking to see the hand then to let them know you are onto them in effect.

unfortunately many dealers dont know this rule and flip the hand over- I would say less than 20% of dealers know to touch the muck or destroy the flop before exposing someones hand. Ive had dealers flip my hand over at showdown because they "thought" someone asked to see when nobody had. It may be the thing to do at other casinos but up here it is seriously frowned upon to ask to see the losing players hand that he is trying to muck. Its almost a rubdown.

There are no set rules in cash games most are just common sense and the ettiquette side of things has been formed over the years. Asking to see someone elses hand is just poor form however you look at it.

why not just have a rule that you have to show or muck within 5 seconds?

err see number 2

same reason we dont have rules to say no beards allowed or anyone over the age of 65 will not be allowed hot chocolate after 11pm. You cant have a rule to cover every eventuality. Its meant to be a gentlemans sport/game and players should act that way. ASking to see someones hand after they have tried to muck it comes under the conduct unbecoming rule for me (anyone who used to play cricket/hockey/rugby etc will know what I am saying- not like these footballers who roll around and swear at the ref).

It seems obvious that a lot of the stalling is because there is a difference of opinion as to the proper order on the river.  Regardless of who is right or wrong, while these diametrically opposed views are held, there will always be situations where both players are waiting for their opponent to correctly show first.

In cash games I've got no strong feelings one way or the other on this, but I do think that any player at the table should be entitled to ask to see both hands at showdown in a tournament.  This is something that's come up a couple of times when I've been playing tournaments at DTD - their house rule is that a player may muck their cards if the other player shows a better hand (regardless of position).  The trouble with this is I think it's open to abuse and makes chip dumping possible - how is mateyboy who is not involved in the pot to know that Mr Big Stack hasn't just mucked the nuts after seeing his short-stacked pal turn over his hand?

I think its fine for someone who has no real chance of winning to say similar to what they might say on High Stakes Poker or Poker After Dark if its them to show first.
They often say "No Pair" or "one Pair - Fours" and if the opponent turns over better i think its perfectly fine for them to muck.

Similarily, if the player with the best hand is to turn first, the loser should be able to muck showing nothing at all.

if people want to dump chips they arent gonna let it go to showdown are they? far easier way of dumping chips if you want to be a cheat.

But then you get the idiots dwelling, asking if 'one pair is good' (when there's a pair on the board), and then turning over one card, and the other player turning over the same card, so now the kickers need to be shown (and both cards need to be shown to win a showdown anyway), and it all takes too long and it's boring.

Yeah but where i play no1 ever does that. But i see where you are coming from.

They should be shot imo.

Be interesting to get a dealer's perspective on this...

That's SO annoying! They faff about, whilst we all sing songs & whistle to amuse ourselves for 10 minutes.

I saw an really odd thing at Blackpool (in a Tourney) last month, & neither player did it intentionally, it was deffo NOT angle-shooting, or improper, but Simon Zach & The Cumbrian (I think) got tangled up. It was a Q high board, & neither was keen to show, they both waited for the other, quite reasonably, as it was clear they both had spanners. Simon said "Queen?" but Cumbrian thought he said "Queen" - (note the subtle difference) & Cumbrian, holding 2nd Pair, promptly mucked. Simon was still not keen to show - "do I have to, he Mucked?", but Cumbrian is keen to see, as he's entitled, I feel, & Simon turns over 5 or 6 high for a Busted straight draw! A classic poker moment.

Personally, I think both hands should be obliged to be tabled here. I don't see that as bad etiquette, not at all.

Errrrrrrrrrmmmm, regardless of my thoughts on this, at DTD there is an order of showdown, last aggressive action shows first, in a check check situation however, left of the button shows first. At DTD no one has the right to ask to see the cards.
i.e. If you called to see, then the aggressor must show first, BUT if the caller turns his cards out of order and tables a winning hand, they forfeit the right to see the aggressors hand if the aggressor now mucks.

I am now going to hide behind a sofa  ;scarymoment;

Before I started at DTD, the rule I used was the caller could request. Some places used the anyone at the table could request (which I think is bollox btw)
DTD's rule on this actually makes sense to me now.

*Waits for the "what happens if you think someone is colluding" replies*

I think we should ask the camel and robs' for their input, they seem knowledgeable on the subject.

sounds like my reluctance to turn over my Jack high at equal chance when I didn't realise I'd hit a straight.  Felt terrible for the other woman in the pot who thought she'd won with her top pair.  I apologised embarrassedly.  Tikay spoke up for me though:  "I know Claire, she wouldn't do that on purpose..........she's not that clever"

Like you said, it's not the same as elsewhere, but it makes sense.  Not saying it makes more or less sense than elsewhere, but it makes sense to me.


What happens though, if you think, for example, that someone is colluding?

:dontask:

Call the TD :)

This is ok, but if after a minute they dont show their hand and they muck it, I then turn over the nuts then I am labled as "slowroller" which is wrong imo.

I like the rule if the DEALER turns over the cards that should be turned over first, therefore no arguments/no delays etc...

If the other player in the pot asks to see the hand the dealer can turn the hand face up and it is still live. If another player at the table asks to see the hand as Ariston is saying the dealer should tap the muck with the hand so it is dead then flip it over.

If you had the nuts, wouldn't you be making the last aggressive action?

I think the dealers should be more proactive in all this. In some places they just sit there and the players not in the hand are shouting at the players in the hand to turn their hands over.  Dealers should be more interative and tell players to turn their hands over. It's sooo slow otherwise.

Not if he's gone for a check-raise that hasn't quite gone according to plan.

If a check-raise hasn't gone to plan its a check check, in which case you follow the order from the button, but if you had the nuts in this situation it is "etiquette to show first"

Incorrect sir - it is the last player to bet or raise in the hand.

That is wrong and the managers of that establishment should be flogged. 

I don't agree sir,

If someone raised pre flop, action has then been checked on the flop, turn and river, makes that rule a mockery, the caller is not calling to see they are calling to remain eligable to win the pot, how is the dealer supposed to know who originally raised 3 streets ago?

I made the point earlier in this thread that 2 schools of thought exist on this - and hence the stalling.  Surely there is a realisation that both practices exist, and if they are the accepted rules for that cardroom, then they are right?  (even if they are daft, or plain wrong!)

If you are called, you show, if its checked down you reveal from the small blind seems to be the more widely held opinion and the easier to administer.

As for a player asking to see cards on the grounds of collusion, I think it was in a US cardplayer that I read a TD asked the player to explain his reasons why he thought they had colluded.  The player couldn't, and the TD refused the request.  Nice!

cos the dealer should be paying attention on pain of a flogging from their managers!

Just another symptom of the breakdown in society.


ps I'n not that bothered, but I am right.  The point is anyway that whatever method is chosen the dealer should turn to the appropriate person to showdown.  If another player shows a winning hand fine, but the whole process should be pretty much automatic and without any fannying about.

 

Totally agree

I remember being in a similar position in a £100 PLH game at The Vic and I believe that blonde "dealerfromhell" was dealing. Slight difference was that one player was allin.

After the river he instructed the player who was sat to the left of the button that it was his turn to show, and then on to the next. I always assumed afterwards that that was the accepted, and correct procedure, obviously wrongly

As someone mentioned earlier, a pro-active dealer speeds the game up.

I had exactly this same thing happen last night at DTD and it was deemed that its not enforceable by the dealer to ask the person who last bet to reveal their cards which is just maddening.  Last night me and a few others were getting more and more wound up by a chap who was doing all the betting then mucking his cards when it came to showdown.

I think that its up to the dealer to enforce the action of the player to table their cards after they've been called down for a showdown.  

I think this rule needs updating at DTD (please)  

That sounds like a dream, how can you be upset by this :)

I agree, though the perspective & Posts offered by Simon Galloway & dik9 have been particularly clear, concise & eloquent, as have many others, with the notably rambling & ranting exception of one's goodself.

A great debate, swerving from subject to subject, in true blonde style. Nice Thread, Karabiner. You are truly a Golden Oldie.

Lots of people getting mixed up between cash games and tourneys here. in a tourney if it goes check check after the river both hands should be shown, in a cash game its not neccesary.

As far as I am aware pretty much everywhere in the world you can muck your hand in a cash game if you want to and it is always considered bad ettiquette to ask to see the losers hand if he is trying to muck it. I have witnessed many arguments over this as it really is nothing more than a rubdown imo. I have witnessed people not in the pot asking to see a hand and it being shown when they have in fact tried to pass the winner and they have then been awarded the pot as the cards were still live. I have also seen many people table what they think is a losing hand to be informed its actually the winner. If anybody at the table notices a mistake being made and the cards are tabled they should speak up- its again an ettiquette/duty to the game situation.

...but this misses a parallel point I made - WHY should it be different in Tourneys & Cash Games? 

eh?

why does rugby league and rugby union have different rules? they are both rugby after all.

cash and tourney poker is completely different in so many ways so need different rules to govern them.