Should this player have to show ?

[Karabiner]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[byronkincaid]

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...

IWTSTH allows, and even encourages, petty behavior that ranges from bad etiquette to unethical to just plain rude. This is bad for poker, present and future.

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

[Nibbles]

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 ?

[Karabiner]

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  

[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.

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.

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..

[Simon Galloway]

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  

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.

[Longy]

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.

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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. 

[GlasgowBandit]

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  

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

[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.

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.

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.

[Karabiner]

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

[tikay]

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

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

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

[byronkincaid]

Drug abuse, for example, is almost admired in society these days, when in fact it should be wholly & thoroughly condemned.

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?

[tikay]

Drug abuse, for example, is almost admired in society these days, when in fact it should be wholly & thoroughly condemned.

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.