Author Topic: Does the player have to show his cards???  (Read 25640 times)

elperro73

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Does the player have to show his cards???
« on: September 03, 2013, 08:27:34 AM »
2 players are left on the river.The 1st player checks and the 2nd player bets, the 1st player calls and the 2nd player instantly mucks straight into the muck pile. The dealer is telling the 1st player who is the ONLY PLAYER  left with cards, that he has to show his cards to win the pot. I was standing right next to the table and ruled that he DID NOT have to show his cards unless someone asked to see them. Am I correct??? Another Floor-person is saying that they should show his cards to avoid collusion.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2013, 10:20:24 AM »
Welcome elperro73,

 You were correct...he did not have to show his hand. Collusion is not considered in cash games and certainly not when only two players are involved.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2013, 03:00:00 PM »
Nick:  For the most part I agree, but I have a question.

Why do you say that collusion is not considered in cash games?  I personally know of 3 individuals that used to play as a team in cash games and it was not at all uncommon for them to pull all kinds of stunts and use all kinds of angle shots against other players, especially those with little or no experience. 

I think it is imperative that floor persons and dealers (but floor persons especially) protect the "rights" of all players and if there are some actions being taken or plays made that seem out of line, I certainly don't think it in the best interests of the game to let that go on.

Chet

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2013, 09:33:23 AM »
I would not force the player to show their hand unless collusion was strongly suspected...in which case you would have heard about it already from the players or it was the reason you were standing at the game.  So I see no problem with the ruling.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2013, 06:20:12 PM »
Tristan,

 This is a cash game and any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. How do you tell the dealer to stop the action, prevent the hand in question from being mucked, tell the dealer to call the floor because you suspect there's something shady going on, and then expect to make it through the parking lot to your car after leaving the game!       You have got to be kidding. ::)  I always thought it rather strange that millions of viewers could see everyone's hole cards on TV...but a player that paid to see the hands, can only do so if collusion is suspected.  

 I don't like it for tournament poker, and I don't like it (even more) for cash games. :D

 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 08:58:19 PM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2013, 11:23:11 AM »
I don't have a problem with the call.  There should be, and probably is, a house rule for the establishment on whether players can ask to see a hand.

Nick, I'm not sure if you read my responses all of the way through.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 01:06:03 PM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2013, 01:14:56 PM »
Tristan,
   Will you please find someone else to challenge. At least I respond to questions on this Forum. If you don't know  the difference between a player mucking his hand at the showdown, and the right to see a hand at the showdown...you have a serious problem.

 

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2013, 02:02:31 PM »
I would not force the player to show their hand unless collusion was strongly suspected...in which case you would have heard about it already from the players or it was the reason you were standing at the game.  So I see no problem with the ruling.

Tristan,

 This is a cash game and any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. How do you tell the dealer to stop the action, prevent the hand in question from being mucked, tell the dealer to call the floor because you suspect there's something shady going on, and then expect to make it through the parking lot to your car after leaving the game!       You have got to be kidding. ::)  It always thought it rather strange that millions of viewers could see everyone's hole cards on TV...but a player that paid to see the hands, can only do so if collusion is suspected. 

 I don't like it for tournament poker, and I don't like it (even more) for cash games. :D

Who started challenging?  I posted a short, precise answer to the question asked.  Collusion is not a non-issue in a cash game.  But absent a suspected collusion issue, I think he made the right call.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

alex

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2013, 02:15:33 PM »
Hi all,as far as i know ,the player who muck his hand at the showdown lost the privilege to see the hand of his opponent , & as i remember that an uncontested hand may not be revealed to the players unless the player want to reveal it .
On the other part, if there is a suspicion of collusion, I think the floor person should be the only one who has the right to see the winning hand.
NB: just in cash games . Ty
« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 02:17:46 PM by alex »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2013, 04:27:31 PM »
2 players are left on the river.The 1st player checks and the 2nd player bets, the 1st player calls and the 2nd player instantly mucks straight into the muck pile. The dealer is telling the 1st player who is the ONLY PLAYER  left with cards, that he has to show his cards to win the pot. I was standing right next to the table and ruled that he DID NOT have to show his cards unless someone asked to see them. Am I correct??? Another Floor-person is saying that they should show his cards to avoid collusion.

NOTE: I found this post by the "see recent posts" feature, not realizing it is in the cash game category. Comments below are regarding TDA tournament rules on the question. Hopefully it is still of some benefit >

Hi Perro: On the river, player 2 bets and Player 1 calls so by definition the hand is now at showdown so showdown rules apply at this point. The 2013 TDA Rules clearly do not require a single hand to be shown if all other players at showdown have mucked face down. However the rules do make allowance for a specific house rule that does require all winning hands to be shown (such as at the WSOP). Note TDA Rule 16: "....Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down. So if your house rule requires every winning hand to be shown, even when there's no other hand tabled at showdown, then it should be shown. But in the absence of such a rule the general TDA position is that it does not have to be.

Sounds like at the venue you were at there was no established house policy one way or the other so one person wants it shown and the other not shown.

There are a couple twists to this, also accommodated by the latitude of the TDA Rule:

1. You can have a venue (such as the EPT / GPTL) where the winning hand did not automatically have to be shown if nobody else tabled their cards, but another player at showdown can ask to see the hand at which point it must be shown (i.e. it's a right not a privilege to see the hand).

2. Then you can have venues that don't require the hand to be shown and if a player requests it be shown the floor may grant or deny the request (i.e. it is a privilege).

On the asking to see a hand (ATSAH) issue, the Association did agree in 2013 that the only players who have a right OR privilege to ask to see a hand are those who made it to showdown and either tabled their cards before mucking, or retain their cards face down (Rule 18).

As if that's enough to consider, another question is whether hands turned up under these different circumstances are live or not. Some venues are sticking with the "traditional" rule outlined in RRoP on the matter. Others are favoring all hands turned up at showdown, by whatever means or reason, to be live.

All of this is excellent material for TDA Summit VII in 2015 to see if further consensus can be achieved. For the time being I think it's advisable that each house clearly spell out in it's house rules A) which cards a player may ask to see by right (must be shown on request) and which are privileges to see (request may be granted or denied at TD discretion); B) Under what circumstances these cards are live or not; and C) whether the winning hand must always be shown.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 05:59:12 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2013, 09:31:54 PM »
Hello Mike,

 I'm sure you know how I feel about this rule. Coming from the "old school" I can't help but wonder, when and why the rule was ever changed. Paying to see a player's hand has always been a privilege extended to any player at the table. Most often, player's don't care...so the loser surrenders his or her hand, and the next hand is dealt.

 The major problems I have with what you've written is; a simple rule that was understood by all, has now become, unclear, confusing, different from casino to casino, and we must inquire as to what the policy is everywhere we play.

 I also have a problem with the method that we should use, when a player that has a right to see a called hand, requests to see the winner. How do you propose we accomplish showing only a select player or two?  Do we ask the other's to cover their eyes while we show the cards to the "privileged ones only?

 It's poker 101...if you bluff and get caught, you should be embarrassed. It goes hand-in-hand with rules of showdown: The last aggressor shows first. If I'm in a hand and Player A raised and was called by six player's, I want to see Player A's hand first. I don't appreciate an out of turn player exposing his winning hand prematurely. This could allow Player A to muck without ever showing his hand. I especially don't like it for tournament poker. It opens too many possibilities for foul play.

 What better way, to eliminate any suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown upon request. Oh, there's another issue I have a problem with...asking to see a player's hand because I think he is cheating! ::)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2013, 10:36:29 PM »
Nick: Not sure what "changes" you're talking about.

You reference repeatedly that a player who called the last aggressive bet has a right to see the hand he called. That was actually re-confirmed at Summit VI, including all board members. It just didn't find it's way into a specific TDA rule, as you say that's fairly well-established conventional poker law.

And I don't see what is so unclear and confusing... the TDA hasn't changed anything that I'm aware of, besides perhaps requiring that to ask to see a hand you have to have either tabled your own hand or retain your cards at showdown.

There never was, to my knowledge, a firm rule regarding the "winning" hand... need it be shown if there's nobody else either asking to see it or tabling their hand? If there's a long-standing conventional rule on that somewhere, let me know.

I never suggested that only certain people get to see a hand exposed on request... of course if that request is granted by right or privilege the entire table sees it. That does leave open the question under which circumstances the hand is live or not.

You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise.

If you're in the hand with 6 players who all called the last aggressor, Player A on the final street, you want to see A's hand first. While I understand that, IMO the more well-established poker convention is that ALL hands should be ideally spontaneously tabled at showdown. And it's generally considered bad etiquette to slow-roll a monster hand although IMO at least the monster hand is in the right to hold back and ask to see the hand he called. But back to the ideal showdown: all hands are simultaneously tabled. The "order of show" (last aggressor first) is there for situations where players are reluctant to show their cards. Then the TD can ask for the cards shown starting with last aggressor.  This all said, ANY player who called that last aggressor, in the opinion of 99.9% of the Summit VI attendees, has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand they called. The sticky question however is, what if that hand is not in the player's possession at the time a request is made to see it? Is it still live? EVERYONE agrees that if the last aggressor retains his cards and he's asked to show, the hand must be shown and is live, but what if he's mucked it towards the center table?

"I want to see Player A's hand first..."  As I read your post you seem to be saying that in every case you want the last aggressors cards exposed. Well, that fits within the house rules exception "... except where house rules require a hand to be shown...".  But back to "poker 101", I don't know of a conventional rule that requires the last aggressive hand to be exposed everytime at showdown, even if nobody asks to see it, but if you know of one please link me to it.

"What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it.

Thanks for raising these important questions!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:15 AM »
Mike,
 First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to cover this subject. I will say that this would probably reach more members if it were moved from cash games to tournaments.

 When you said: "You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise."

 I agree, to a point. The problem that I have with this is: When the aggressor (who was probably bluffing), ditches his cards quickly, says "you win," and quickly ditches his cards. You say this is acceptable...so do I, but if the other player's request to see the mucked aggressors hand, they have the right! That is poker 101.

 I also do not understand all cards being tabled simultaneously at the showdown. :o If I bet, and you call, I will show first...If you bet, and I call do not ask me "what do you have?" I promise, you will never see my hand until yours is buried in the muck, or you've shown me your hand first!

 Even our TDA rule for all-ins should follow the "standard" procedure for; Order of Showdown.

Your next quote: "What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it."...How can you say; "nobody disputes that?" Every single discussion we have on this forum (regarding showdown) leads to the same arguments. So, once again, we have a controversial subject that; is not universal, and could be corrected by the simple old standard that can be found in Robert's Rules or The LVHRB, Rules of Poker by Chuck Ferry, R.O.P.E. written by our distinguished member Thomas McGee, and on and on.
 Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand! That's it! We enforce this rule (the TDA)...but only when an all-in situation exists. I don't get it.

 

 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 07:32:25 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2013, 09:48:02 AM »
Mike,
 First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to cover this subject. I will say that this would probably reach more members if it were moved from cash games to tournaments.

 When you said: "You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise."

 I agree, to a point. The problem that I have with this is: When the aggressor (who was probably bluffing), ditches his cards quickly, says "you win," and quickly ditches his cards. You say this is acceptable...so do I, but if the other player's request to see the mucked aggressors hand, they have the right! That is poker 101.


Everyone agrees with that. At Summit VI there were EXTENSIVE discussions about all aspects of asking to see hands, what hands are live, what hands must be shown, rights vs. privileges, etc. etc. One of the few things that EVERYONE agrees on is what you said above. It didn't find itself into a rule this year because for one, it's a fairly common conventional rule but more importantly after the dust settled the rule as written was just too cumbersome with rights and privileges and at the end of the day there wasn't super-majority support for which cards are live and which are dead if shown...

Another problem, if the TDA just said "if there is aggressive action on the final street, any player calling the last aggressor has an inalienable right to see his cards on request"... the problem is that might leave the impression that there aren't any other conditions where a player has a right or privilege to ask to see, so it was basically dropped until it can be comprehensively reviewed at Summit VII.



I also do not understand all cards being tabled simultaneously at the showdown. :o If I bet, and you call, I will show first...If you bet, and I call do not ask me "what do you have?" I promise, you will never see my hand until yours is buried in the muck, or you've shown me your hand first!

Even our TDA rule for all-ins should follow the "standard" procedure for; Order of Showdown.

True, but the Order of Showdown really comes into effect if players do not spontaneously table their cards. We don't want to have to go through the order of show every showdown if players are forthcoming on their own.

Your next quote: "What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it."

...How can you say; "nobody disputes that?" Every single discussion we have on this forum (regarding showdown) leads to the same arguments. So, once again, we have a controversial subject that; is not universal, and could be corrected by the simple old standard that can be found in Robert's Rules or The LVHRB, Rules of Poker by Chuck Ferry, R.O.P.E. written by our distinguished member Thomas McGee, and on and on.

Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand! That's it! We enforce this rule (the TDA)...but only when an all-in situation exists. I don't get it.

See above, I don't know anyone who thinks you don't have an inalienable right to see the last aggressive hand if there was action on the final street. That was discussed over and over at Summit VI. If someone is confused about it I don't know why because it's just common sense. As Jack Effel said from the podium "that's information you paid for". It was further confirmed on video that if you play 50 hands in a row and each hand there is action on the river, and you call the last aggressor and each one of those 50 times you ask to see the hand you called, you have the right to see in each of those 50 hands... that's a right not a privilege.

NOW, what isn't so certain is the following situation: A bets on the river and B, C and D call him. At showdown B and C spontaneously table and B has the better hand. A and D then toss their cards face down towards the center table. NOW, if B, who is the presumed winner, asks to see the discarded hand he called (A's hand), most of us would agree the hand is live. But what if C (the tabled losing hand) asks to see the hand he called (A's hand). Well if A retains his cards most of us would agree that A's hand is live. But A didn't retain his cards here... he tossed them. So now C (the loser) asks to see A's discarded cards. Are they live and can they beat B? "Classic" RRoP reads as though they are dead in that situation. However there's a large contingent within the TDA that would like to see ALL HANDS TABLED AT SHOWDOWN BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE LIVE.... We just couldn't reach super-majority consensus on that one at Summit VI, and there were great arguments on both sides.

Yes this thread should probably be moved to tourney board. Will do so shortly.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Does the player have to show his cards???
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2013, 11:05:46 AM »
Mike,
 There is a specific procedure that dealers are taught to comply with showing of hands at the showdown.

 Step by step: The aggressor (or first to act on the checked final round) must show first. This process continues clockwise. When player's have a hand that is beat, they generally muck their cards. They do not keep their cards, they are surrendered to the dealer or released in the direction of the muck. If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!

 The exceptions are when a player (not last to act) only calls, hoping for a raise because he has a nut hand. In this situation, it is logical for the nut hand to show first, rather than waste time. However, this does not exclude any player from requesting to see one, or all of the losing hands. I don't know the difference between a right or a privilege, but if a player requests to see a hand at showdown, in for all bets..to me they are entitled!

 Tournament poker should offer more protection for all contestants. That's correct, protection...from mucking a winning hand, to chip dumping...or anything that will award the pot to the wrong player! To me, this is inexcusable and can easily be corrected.

 The only time we have a guarantee that the "rightful" winner is awarded the pot, is when an all-in player is involved in a hand. Period! Beyond that, with our current methods for showdown procedures, the wrong player's are awarded the pot every day, whether by accident, or (even worse) intentionally.