Ruling Debate ?

[doubleup]

Look you guys can prattle on about what should be and what might be as much as you like, but it is the rule in some cardrooms e.g. the aviation club, that if the other player mucks on a check/check river, in a tournament, you have to show your cards to get the pot.  I specifically queried this and was told that it was the rule by the dealer and this was confirmed by other players. 

it wasnt check checked

its river dealt MUCK before final person gets chance to act

Doesn't make a difference.  In clubs that have this rule, if one player mucks to avoid a showdown or mucks out of turn the other player still has to show to get the pot. 

I have just remembered the specific action in the Aviation club - the player in question was a Russian calling station with a huge stack who was seated immediately to my left.  I checked the river, he bet and I called.  He then mucked.  I had to show down although I was the only one with cards.  I was about to start a debate with the dealer as to who was going to get the pot other than me, but it seemed a bit pointless as he was adamant about the rule. 

[Ironside]

which can be used for getting cheap information on river and the rule chould be changed

ie you miss your draw and you want to see what i have been betting with you muck before i get a chance to bet

you get free info and is just plain wrong

ofcourse we know i had the nuts from start to finish but its still free info you wouldnt of got if i had been allowed to make my river bet

[MANTIS01]

Obviously if a hand is mucked after a bet then the winner doesn't have to show...but on the river if no additional money is put into the pot then you have reached a showdown situation. If your opponent doesn't want to show a hand down to claim the pot then some casinos require you to do so.

Couple of interesting questions. What would happen to the pot if you mucked as well? What would happen if you were required to show a hand and you were actually playing the board?

[Ironside]

easy way round this is once the guy mucks and your the only one left you still have the right to raise move all in

no showdown needed

stupid but fairer

[celtic]

Obviously if a hand is mucked after a bet then the winner doesn't have to show...but on the river if no additional money is put into the pot then you have reached a showdown situation. If your opponent doesn't want to show a hand down to claim the pot then some casinos require you to do so.

Couple of interesting questions. What would happen to the pot if you mucked as well? What would happen if you were required to show a hand and you were actually playing the board?

Something like this happened at Luton a couple of months ago Board was   

There was a bet on the turn after check check on the flop, river came and and it went check check and the first to act mucked his hand which was     . Other guy had to show his hand to clain the pot which was     .

In answer to your question Mantis if he was playing the board, its tough coause the other guy mucked his hand.

[Ironside]

that case is easier the TD can recover the cards from the muck as they were requireed to be shown

but as they were mucked they have no claim on any part of the pot

[doubleup]

that case is easier the TD can recover the cards from the muck as they were requireed to be shown

but as they were mucked they have no claim on any part of the pot

To add to the debate on strange rules.  I was in the concorde a few years ago and the flop was TTx with one club and I checked to the raiser who went all in.  I called with AT or whatever and he threw his cards in facedown.  The dealer picked them up and turned them over 67cc because you must showdown in the concorde when a player is allin.  Needlesss to say the turn and river were clubs (ok they weren't but the turn was lol).

[Irishdenis]

I have had this very situation in Luton when a clever sod checked the river. As I was picking up chips to bet he chucked his cards and asked to see mine. As I had not bet the house said I had to show. I pointed out that he had acted out of turn by checking and then folding before I could act, and that it was my  turn to act.  They again ruled his hand dead and turned my cards over.  The player in question laughed at me and admitted that it was a deliberate act. The only consolation was that he thought it was funny while I saw him for what he really was. A complete pr...

[dik9]

To add to the debate on strange rules. 

If a player is all-in with cards to come and there are no more chips to bet against, then both sets of cards should be on thier backs, once cards are on thier backs ONLY the dealer is allowed to kill them, so I think this rule is standard

Regarding the OP you shouldn't have to show if a player has mucked their hand, but if those are the rules in the poker room you go to then you should follow them, doesn't stop it being wrong though.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: celtic

In answer to your question Mantis if he was playing the board, its tough coause the other guy mucked his hand.

Funny though because if it goes check check on the river and one player mucks after announcing he is playing the board how can his "hand" be dead? The best 5 card poker hand he can make after all betting has finished is on display and his pocket cards are obviously redundant.

The need to display your hole cards in this type of situation would mean that if a player mucks on the river then you MUST show in order to claim the pot. I think Ironside has a good point in so much as by just betting after the mucker has "acted out of turn" should mean a hand needn't be displayed. But if you don't bet and can't beat the board then there must be a case for a split pot because you can't claim the pot with either a winning bet or a winning hand. You're opponent isn't actually mucking he's just playing the board and throwing away his irrelevant hole cards.

[dazzaster]

Taken From www.Boards.ie

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...........



I said i would get the opinion of the Blonde Forum also on this

no need to show, not table 75 was it?

I was on table 75 and we did question this ruling, but was told by the TD that to take the pot the  hole cards had to be shown. Personally I think if it is obvious that one person has mucked his card then he has no entitlement to the pot therefore no showdown is necessary.
Personally I would never muck my cards on the river before a bet. Regardless if there was a chance I would have to show rubbish giving my opponents info. Theres always a chance you may have the best hand or the board plays.

[snoopy1239]

If this had been on the turn then you wouldn't need to show, so I don't see why you should on the river. It isn't a showdown if he has folded - it is his right to so if he turns down the option to bet or check.

[TEX FITZ]

surely if someone mucks his/her hole cards stating "play the board" then anyone still left in could state "all-in", then the origonal "mucker" must call the bet or "fold the board".  I would do this as at worst it's a split pot - yes 

[masterjackblack]

surely if someone mucks his/her hole cards stating "play the board" then anyone still left in could state "all-in", then the origonal "mucker" must call the bet or "fold the board".  I would do this as at worst it's a split pot - yes 

No reputable card room will let you play the board without cards, or call a bet without any cards. Any players(s) left with hole cards and play the board for the best hand after action has been completed take the pot/part pot and cannot split with a player who has mucked. Some cardrooms will let you play the board with no cards but they are frankly donktastic.

As for the original debate, I can't believe that most of you believe that you should be able to win the pot after action has been checked round on the river without a showdown. To clarify, with two players left the first player to act open mucks, the second player can muck and take down the pot. But if the action goes check, check and the first player mucks, then the second player has to show to win the pot. After the action goes check, check it is an automatic showdown. In addition the losing player mucking may do so unless requested to show by any player at the table. Any cardroom that does not enforce these rules is behind the times, not having to showdown promotes soft play, chip dumping and yes a hand can be mucked that would otherwise be ineligible to win a pot through having a duplicate card, the incorrect number of cards etc. The Aviation, Concord, Crown AUS, and virtually every Vegas Cardroom including the Bellagio all rule this way. Sorry to go against the flow of guys particularly Ironside, but I believe that you are looking at this rule from the point of view of a player not wanting to give away unnecessary information, rather than a TD trying to run a quality setup.

[dik9]

The original debate wasn't a check check, it was a missed board that he mucked before both players had an opportunity to act. Hence no showdown.