Player out hand asked to see hole cards

[Irishmike]

Cash game, Action by multiple players, until turn, when all but two player fold. Heads up at show down. Player (a) bets, Player (b)calls. Player (b) shows hand and Player (a) folds without showing hole cards. Player not in final action asked to see Player (b)s hole cards. Do we show hole cards. Also, Flip flop situation do we show if Player (b) folds and Player (a) shows, same ruling.

[Dave_The_Maori]

Cash game, Action by multiple players, until turn, when all but two player fold. Heads up at show down. Player (a) bets, Player (b)calls. Player (b) shows hand and Player (a) folds without showing hole cards. Player not in final action asked to see Player (b)s hole cards. Do we show hole cards. Also, Flip flop situation do we show if Player (b) folds and Player (a) shows, same ruling.

Hi Mike. It's my understanding that in Tournament Play, the reason that any Player can ask to see a "Called" Hand during the Showdown is because there might be suspected Collusion involved. In Tournament Play, this called mean the difference between making the "Money Bubble" or better. The fact that this is a Cash Game changes things because each Player on the table is guaranteed a Cash Prize as long as they leave the table with chips.
I don't think a Player in a Cash Game can give you a reason good enough to suspect cheating so therefore, being me in that situation, I would over-rule it. It's not that I want to protect anyone or penalize anyone else, I just think that it would be fairer, less time consuming and in the Best Interests of the Game.

Hope this helps

[Nick C]

Irish Mike,
 Contrary to tournament poker, most cash games allow any player at the table the right to see a called hand. There is a local casino that took that privilege away because certain players abused it. This is what happened; during a "cash" no-limit game with blinds of $1 and $2 with a max $100 buy-in, a player lost his third pot by being outdrawn on the river, by the same player. To make the situation worse, after the winner asked to see what the opposing player was so proud of (because of all his aggressive betting during the hand), the player mucked his hand (in anger) and said to the dealer; " Every time that son of a, no good, lowdown, etc, etc, is in a called hand, I want to see it! That is what is known as abusing the rule.
 I repeat: Every player at the table has a right to see a called hand. The method for the dealer, if there is a request to see the mucked hand is to kill the hand by touching it to the muck before it is revealed. This is mearly a formality because the hand is already dead after it is surrendered by the owner. The best method is for the dealer to set the cards in question off to the side, award the pot to the winner and then expose the cards so, should the best hand prove to be the mucked hand, it is too late and there is no pot to dispute.
 If the declared winner of the hand asks to see the mucked hand and it turns out to be better than his, he (the would be winner) will lose the pot!
 Mike, I did want to mention that in your first example the correct order of showdown was not followed. Player A should have revealed his hand before Player B. This does occur on a regular basis, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is encouraged if the calling player knows he has the best hand. It prevents slowing down the game, but....it is not in compliance with the proper order of showdown. When Player A bets and is called, he (the player who initiated the bet) should turn his hand first.

[Irishmike]

Thanks for the input. We did expose players hand. He did protest. Not a regular player. But, we wanted to make sure we maide the right call.

Irish Mike,
 Contrary to tournament poker, most cash games allow any player at the table the right to see a called hand. There is a local casino that took that privilege away because certain players abused it. This is what happened; during a "cash" no-limit game with blinds of $1 and $2 with a max $100 buy-in, a player lost his third pot by being outdrawn on the river, by the same player. To make the situation worse, after the winner asked to see what the opposing player was so proud of (because of all his aggressive betting during the hand), the player mucked his hand (in anger) and said to the dealer; " Every time that son of a, no good, lowdown, etc, etc, is in a called hand, I want to see it! That is what is known as abusing the rule.
 I repeat: Every player at the table has a right to see a called hand. The method for the dealer, if there is a request to see the mucked hand is to kill the hand by touching it to the muck before it is revealed. This is mearly a formality because the hand is already dead after it is surrendered by the owner. The best method is for the dealer to set the cards in question off to the side, award the pot to the winner and then expose the cards so, should the best hand prove to be the mucked hand, it is too late and there is no pot to dispute.
 If the declared winner of the hand asks to see the mucked hand and it turns out to be better than his, he (the would be winner) will lose the pot!
 Mike, I did want to mention that in your first example the correct order of showdown was not followed. Player A should have revealed his hand before Player B. This does occur on a regular basis, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is encouraged if the calling player knows he has the best hand. It prevents slowing down the game, but....it is not in compliance with the proper order of showdown. When Player A bets and is called, he (the player who initiated the bet) should turn his hand first.

[Kendalizor]

I'm just curious if anyone has seen this prove collusion before and what the outcome was.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Irish,  this is widely dependant on your own house policy or Cash Game Manager's stance on the subject, my stance is the hand is done, it's not a tournament so collusion/chip dumping are not (usually) an issue.  With that in mind my stance is that those that want to win the hand should table their cards and those that wish to concede can muck without showing.  I do not favour allowing players to see called hands or any other hands, they are just fishing for information, and it is slowing the game, and therefore slowing down the rake.

I do support Nick's stance about tabling cards, it is fair and just, but for me, and my cash games, it's a no-can see.

Regards
Stuart

[JasperToo]

I happen to believe that the rules for seeing a called hand by players out of the hand are the same for tournaments and cash games.  The rule is very specific in RROP and the new TDA rules simply make it very clear that it is intended to ferret out collusion (well, RROP does a good job of making that clear to....)

The point is that it is something that is part of the rules, so you did right by showing the hand, but it needs to be clear to the players that it is meant to protect them from collusion.  What a lot of players (as nick demonstrated) do is use it to find information about an opponents play.  that's not what it is for.

In a cash game, it is meant to protect against team play (two players squeezing another then folding to their buddy).  I have seen it actually reveal the POSSIBILITY of collusion between players at a game in a casino once.  They never really proved it but the players didn't stay around very long after....

The best way to stop the abuse of the rule is to ask the requesting player if he suspects the other players of collusion.  That puts them on the spot to use the rule correctly.  Of course, I have seen some jerks say "yes" and expose the hand and be really wrong.  While that causes a problem between them, these are generally folks that don't spend much time in any particular card room for very long....

[Nick C]

Sorry I don't see it as a way to prevent collusion, in fact, I think the opposite. If players were conspiring, not showing the cards is the best way to keep it a secret. I want someone to explain to me, how, not showing a called hand prevents collusion? Most of the time, in cash games, players are not interested in the other players hands, especially when they're not involved in the hand. However, if they do have an interest and the rules say they have the right, then they should be allowed. If it pisses someone off, too bad.

[DCJ001]

Sorry I don't see it as a way to prevent collusion, in fact, I think the opposit. If players were conspiring, not showing the cards is the best way to keep it a secret. I want someone to explain to me, how, not showing a called hand prevents collusion? Most of the time, in cash games, players are not interested in the other players hands, especially when they're not involved in the hand. However, if they do have an interest and the rules say they have the right, then they should be allowed. If it pisses someone off, too bad.

Nick has found another issue about which to be confused.

It would be great if someone could find the words that would enlighten someone of Nick's thirty plus years of experience in poker as to what IWTSTH has to do with exposing collusion.

I wonder how many rebuttal questions will be posed by Nick, and I wonder how many times he will say that he disagrees or just doesn't understand.

Surely, Nick has taught thousands of dealers about this. Right?

[Nick C]

Not thousands, only hundreds.

[JasperToo]

DCJ001 your tongue's PH has got to be somewhere near 3.0 but at the moment I have to agree.  The rule has been around for a very long time and the idea behind it is simple enough.

Nick is right, though, when he said "Not showing a hand is the best way to keep it a secret".  So I don't have to explain to him how not showing cards prevents collusion.  I am sure he just misspoke there in one part of that post.  I just don't know which part....

That's the point Nick, there are a few situations where team play (in a cash game or tourney) could be exposed by being allowed to see someones hand.  Squeeze play with a subsequent muck by the aggressor is the usual. 

Nick also says that most of the time players are not interested in other players hands.  Especially when they aren't involved in the hand.

Well, that is simply not true.  Very many players are interested in other players hands.  I am one of them.  But I know that the only time I get to see them is when they have exposed them (there is a rule for that).  I know that I am not supposed to be asking to see a players hand just anytime I want  BECAUSE THE RULE EXPLICITLY SAYS YOU SHOULD ONLY BE DOING IT WHEN YOU SUSPECT COLLUSION and abuse of the rule should/will not be allowed....both in RROP and now TDA....

[Nick C]

JasperToo,

 This is from RROP Version 11:

 Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

 Perhaps you have a different version. The way I understand it is and I quote the first line. "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked".....If the same idiot player asks to see players cards all the time, that is abuse of the rule. The rule is clear if you ask me.

 You are posting in a cash game section and trying to impose a new TDA rule. The first line of which states: Except where house policy provides an express right to see a hand...