Should this player have to show ?

[Karabiner]

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 ?

[tikay]

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.

[kinboshi]

What's up with farting in church?

[TightEnd]

What's up with farting in church?

only if you've got a dodgy rector.

[tikay]

What's up with farting in church?

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

[kinboshi]

What's up with farting in church?

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.

[Karabiner]

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

[GlasgowBandit]

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.

[M3boy]

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

[tikay]

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

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.

[tikay]

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.

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

[tikay]

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

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

[Graham C]

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.

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.

[Simon Galloway]

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

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

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.

[GlasgowBandit]

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