Author Topic: Live cards at showdown: loser asks to see hand, would split pot. How to handle?  (Read 1856 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Here's a very interesting case that circulated around the TDA recently.
************ start *************

Thought I’d ask the board about this one…

I wanted some opinions on a decision that I made this morning.   3 players in at the river, player 1 bets and both players 2 and 3 call, player 1 shows his hand then players 2 and 3 throw their cards toward the dealer, player 2 asks to see player 3's hand and player 1 (winner of the pot) says "yes thats a good idea I'd like to see it also", when the dealer turns player 3's hand over it turns out it would have been a split pot. We know the rule on players asking to see a losing hand, if the winner asks to see and it turns out to be the winner then that player is awarded the pot, but in this situation do you think player 1 by agreeing that he'd like to see the hand but not being the first one to ask is the same as not asking at all,  or do you think by saying what he said puts him at risk of losing the pot if it turns out that player has him beat. I think we could come up with good reasons for both sides.

Player 1 feels that if player 2 had not asked to see player 3’s hand, he would have won the pot and regardless of his agreement in what he considers AFTER THE FACT, the hand should be declared dead.

Others feel that the hand would have been declared dead, but changed when he agreed to see the hand.…….thoughts?

Name withheld
********************* end ***********************************

How would you have handled this situation and why? Note there's a wrinkle in that the presumptive winner said he'd like to see the hand after the loser asked to see it (does this matter?)...

What rule(s) support your decision, and are any amendments to existing rules needed?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 08:00:20 PM by MikeB »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Mike -

Wow. Tricky situation. I had to think a lot about this. I am very close to invoking Rule 1. Or at least using it as a backup to my thought process.


Whenever someone asks me to expose a mucked hand, (which is VERY rare), if they were the one being awarded the pot, I remind them that the mucked hand becomes live and could win if it's superior. I also state that this request is not a right, but a privilege that could be taken away if abused. I then ask them if they still want me to expose that hand.

Obviously, none of that happened with this hand.

I've also never had the situation where the mucked hand became the winner.

Frankly, I've always wondered why the privilege to see a mucked hand exists at all. If it's to discourage abuse, then simply refuse if it gets abused. If it's to identify collusion, then I would think that the hand should become live regardless of who asked to see it.


Back to this original scenario.

What if before the dealer or Player 1 had a chance to say or do anything, Player 3 had simply reached in, taken his cards back and flipped them himself. Would they become live? Do "cards speak" in that situation? Regardless of Player 2's request, couldn't Player 3 say that he initially mucked, but realized it was a chop and wanted to flip them anyway? Or maybe he intended to show his cards, but they flipped mid-air and landed face down. He was gonna reach over to flip them, but Players 2 and 1 spoke up too quickly.

Additionally, is Player 1's remark a genuine request. or just a comment or afterthought inspired by Player 2's request? I think the latter.

But in regards to a ruling, based upon the scenario described and the rules as they currently exist, I would rule that Player 2's request must be acted upon before any other requests are considered. Had Player 1 said he would like to see Player 2's hand, that request is live, but is acted upon after Player 3's had is exposed.

If you want to say that Player 1's comment is a genuine request, it should at the very least, be considered as Action Out Of Turn, and therefore is ignored.


Player 1 is awarded the pot.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Steven

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
17:  Asking to See a Hand
A: Players not still in possession of cards at showdown, or who have mucked their cards face down without tabling, lose any rights or privileges to ask to see any hand.
 
B: If there was a river bet, any caller has an inalienable right to see the last aggressor’s hand on request (“the hand he paid to see”) provided the caller retains or has tabled his cards. TDs discretion governs all other requests such as to see the hand of another caller, or if there was no river bet. See Illustration Addendum [adopted 2013].

 
Player 1 was the last aggressor ... They are asking to see Player 3's hand ... needs TD's discretion

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
17:  Asking to See a Hand
B: If there was a river bet, any caller has an inalienable right to see the last aggressor’s hand on request (“the hand he paid to see”) provided the caller retains or has tabled his cards. TDs discretion governs all other requests such as to see the hand of another caller, or if there was no river bet. See Illustration Addendum [adopted 2013].
Section 17B is new. I had forgotten about it.

I stand by my statements, for 2013 rules.

Player 1 was the last aggressor ... They are asking to see Player 3's hand ... needs TD's discretion
For 2015 rules, I agree with your reasoning.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Rule 17-A says that Player 2 lost any right or privilege to ask to see Player 3’s hand when Player 2 mucked face down.  Rule 17-B says that Player 1’s request to see Player 3’s hand should be  governed by TD’s discretion.  The dealer tabled Player 3’s hand (presumably with TD’s approval.)   Given that Player 3’s hand was properly tabled he is entitled to his share of the pot, as per Rule 13.

The two subtle points that Player 2’s request was invalid, and that Player 1’s request was subsequently stated, are both irrelevant.  Player 3’s hand was properly tabled and is entitled to split the pot. 

IMO: Rule 17 could explicitly grant the called player the right to see the calling players hand, without the need to receive TD’s approval.  “Paying to see the hand” should be defined as putting the necessary chips into the pot without regard to who put them first or last.  Also, it would be worthwhile to reference Rule 13 so it is clear that the tabled hand will be paid if it is a winner.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Bill -

In my opinion, that's not what rule 17A says. Player 2 DID have a live hand at the showdown. Even though he mucked after Player 1 showed a winning hand, he still has the right to see the third player's hand. In other words, you only lose the right if you fold when facing a bet.

Frankly, I think the rule should be one of two things: 1- You must show your own hand in order to ask to see anyone else's hand, or 2- Any player dealt in, even those that folded pre-flop, are entitled to ask to see a folded hand at showdown.

Also, the hand should be live regardless of who asks to see it.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Dave,

Please read the Illustration Addendum 2015 for a better understanding.  The language used in 17A is very specific and should be taken literally.

Regards,
B~

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
1) Bill, as soon as a player mucks his hand without tabling he loses the right to request another non-tabled hand be shown.  If the rule was about folding it wouldn't say "at showdown" because a fold is an action and at showdown all action is already finished.  Also, if MikeB says that's what it means, then that's what it means; he wrote it :)

2) To answer original question, regardless of who put the bug in the ear of the "would be winner" to ask to see that non-tabled hand, he did ask.  I would rule it live because it was requested and shown in accordance of our rules (with exception of possibly floor coming over first to show the hand).  If

Uniden32

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Tournament Director at the Isle Casino
Whether or not Player 2 requested to see Player 3's cards, Player 1 did in fact make a statement that he wanted to see them.  We don't actually know if he would have made this request without Player 2's statement.

Therefore, I'm ruling Player 3's hand live, and furthermore, if Player 2 decides that he wants to retrieve his hand, and somehow his hand is retrievable, I'm ruling that hand live as well.
Ralph Brandt
Tournament Coordinator
Isle Casino - Pompano Beach, FL
@uniden32