Does the player have to show his cards???

[Tristan]

Nick,

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.

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.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you are saying.

What if:

There are 4 players in for all bets on the river;
B flips up a straight;
A tosses their cards forward but they do not go into the muck;
C says they want to see A's cards;
Dealer taps A's cards to the muck;
Dealer reveals A's cards;
A has a flush

Would you let A win the pot?

Do you think the dealer should or should not tap the cards to the muck in that situation?

Or are you saying that players should be protected from mucking winning hands in tournaments but not in that situation?

What if the dealer had not tapped them to the muck?

 

To me, it appears you are saying that you prefer the rules to not change because you are from the old school, but you are wanting it to change (further?) by making all cards be exposed.  Maybe I'm just reading it all wrong.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 You missed the important part of the proper procedure. I said: "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!"

 I do like the old rules, for cash games, which is where this thread originated. My concern for tournament poker is different because it affects every single participant and we need a guarantee that the pot goes to the player with the best hand. I'm not a big fan of many that have the twisted belief that "the player should know what he's doing or he shouldn't be playing or, if he can't read his own hand, he has no right to the pot."

[MikeB]

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!

So what you're describing above is basically "classic" RRoP treatment for asking to see a hand. The reason the TDA cannot adopt this is that there is a significant number of members who believe that all cards tabled at showdown, whether by the player, or by request are live. SO, for the moment the TDA does not take a position on it one way or the other.

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!

So you will show the cards upon request everytime, not just based on suspicion of collusion, or based on it being a request to see the last aggressive hand on the river. For you, any player at showdown can ask to see the cards of any other player at showdown and you will grant that request 100% of the time. So that's your house rule, no problem. There certainly are other TDA members who agree with that. But there are those also who feel that endlessly asking to see hands is a potential etiquette violation so they make it a privilege, not an absolute right. Yet others will only allow showing of a non-tabled hand for cause such as suspicion of collusion.

THEN, to compound it, some who agree with you that any hand must always be shown disagree with the idea of tapping it to the muck to kill it if the request is from other than the presumptive winner... they will make ALL cards tabled at showdown live...

So you can see this is an area where more work needs to be done IF POSSIBLE to get a tighter consensus. For the moment each house needs to have it's rules for these areas not yet covered by TDA guidelines.

 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.
 

Keep in mind there's also the school of thought that mis-reading your hand is part of the game. If I misread my hand and muck it face down at showdown, too bad. Remember that famous hand on the final table of the WSOP that Phil Ivey misread... from memory he didn't realize he had a flush and mucked his hand face down when an opponent showed ... a straight was it? Your writing seems to indicate you favor every hand being turned up at showdown every time. And there's definitely a contingent within the TDA that favors that... so this option becomes part of the on-going debate.

[MikeB]

Allow me to add to this thread my interpretation of what WAS agreed to at Summit VI regarding asking to see a hand, and what cards are live or dead at showdown.

1. To ask to see any hand, you must have either tabled your hand or retain your cards face down at showdown.   From TDA 2013, Rule 18.

2. If there is aggressive action on the final street of a hand, the players who call the last aggressor have an absolute right on request to see the hand they called.   This was confirmed over and over in the debate at Summit VI. It's not yet been put into a written rule for reasons covered in earlier posts.

3. If the hand that is requested to be shown is still in the possession of it's player, the hand is live if shown.    This wasn't extensively discussed at Summit VI, but Jesse Hollander called attention to it from the floor and there was no counter-argument to it. It is classic RRoP and I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with this. It also partially solves the tricky question of whether a hand is live if a tabled losing hand asks to see it... Answer: if the hand is still in possession of the player, it's live. What happens if it's been discarded is one of the areas of disagreement (see below).

4. If the presumptive winner asks to see a hand that has been discarded, that hand is live.   This was confirmed in TDA debate at least as far back as 2009 and is also classic RRoP, so again I'm presuming that the vast majority of the Association support it.

EVERYTHING ELSE: whether the winning hand must always be shown even if uncontested, whether other discarded hands other than in 4 above are live or not, whether asking to see a hand other than in 2 above is a guaranteed right or a privilege that can be denied... all those things are matters of house policy for the time being, so far as I understand.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 What I said was "the cards are retained by the dealer until the pot is awarded." Therefore, there is no pot to contest. The player who voluntarily surrendered their hand...already has a dead hand. It is a way to prevent a player from mucking, simply because he doesn't want to show his bluff, or weak hand, or how he plays!

 I mention protection for all tournament players. My thoughts: Why allow an undeserving winner, who has suddenly amassed an enormous chip lead, the firepower  to eliminate you on the next hand?

 The mistake you mention is not possible when a player is all-in, correct? In an all-in situation, all cards must be tabled and the best hand gets the pot. You said "Keep in mind there's also the school of thought that mis-reading your hand is part of the game." If I misread my hand and muck it face down at showdown, too bad. Remember that famous hand during the WSOP that Phil Ivey misread... from memory he didn't realize he had a flush and mucked his hand face down when an opponent showed ... a straight was it? Your writing seems to indicate you favor every hand being turned up at showdown every time. And there's definitely a contingent within the TDA that favors that... so this option becomes part of the on-going debate."

 Let's take a deeper look at Phil Ivey's hand. If there were an all-in player in that hand, Phil would have won the hand. Phil would have had more chips and the player that was awarded the pot...should not have! My guess is, it could have had a serious impact on the final outcome.

 Now this is another serious issue to consider: Could Phil have intentionally dumped his chips? I would say that based on his integrity, he did no such thing. However, if it were another player this could have easily been the assumption. I might be digging a little too deed here but, I will always be in the "camp" of those that favor the best hand winning, when in for all bets...at least for tournament poker.

Mike, This is one of the problems:  You wrote: "If there is aggressive action on the final street of a hand, the players who call the last aggressor have an absolute right on request to see the hand they called.   This was confirmed over and over in the debate at Summit VI. It's not yet been put into a written rule for reasons covered in earlier posts.

[MikeB]

.... yes, and it's not been put into a rule mainly because it is just one piece of the equation. Covering just that one circumstance under asking to see a hand could easily leave the impression that is the only circumstance when there are so many other important possibilities. Better to try and cover it all in one comprehensive rule. Hopefully progress can be made on that in 2015.

[Tristan]

Tristan,

 You missed the important part of the proper procedure. I said: "If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck.

Not true Nick.  You didn't read my whole post.  I started off with that exact quote from you...I even bolded it! 

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 When a player surrenders their hand, the hand should be DEAD. When another player asks to see the hand, the dealer will not turn the hand over until the pot has been awarded. Therefore, there is no pot to contest.  However, the hand is still exposed.  If the player who is about to receive the pot asks to see the folded hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins. Is that more clear?

[Tristan]

When a player surrenders their hand, the hand should be DEAD

If the player who is about to receive the pot asks to see the folded hand, both hands are live

Not really! 

In all seriousness Nick, I am really asking you your opinion.

3 players in the hand at showdown. Player A bet, B and C both called on the river.

Player A surrenders, the cards are forward but not in the muck pile.
Player B shows a straight.
Player C asks to see A's hand before revealing. (For example's sake lets say C has a higher straight)

Does C have the right to ask since they are in for all bets and want to make sure they have all of the info before revealing their hand?
Should the dealer expose A's hand?
If the dealer does and Player A has a flush, who wins the pot?
Should the dealer tap them to the muck and then expose them?
If the dealer taps them to the muck and exposes them and A has a flush does the pot still go to C?
Should they tell Player C no they can't see it?
Should Player C have to expose their hand first?

What are your opinions on these?  These are some of the core thoughts behind right vs privilege and I would like to hear what you think.

I know that a lot of this could be prevented by the dealer mucking those cards right away...but in this case they didn't.

[MikeB]

3 players in the hand at showdown. Player A bet, B and C both called on the river.

Player A surrenders, the cards are forward but not in the muck pile.
Player B shows a straight.
Player C asks to see A's hand before revealing. (For example's sake lets say C has a higher straight)

Does C have the right to ask since they are in for all bets and want to make sure they have all of the info before revealing their hand?
Should the dealer expose A's hand?
If the dealer does and Player A has a flush, who wins the pot?
Should the dealer tap them to the muck and then expose them?
If the dealer taps them to the muck and exposes them and A has a flush does the pot still go to C?
Should they tell Player C no they can't see it?
Should Player C have to expose their hand first?

These are some of the core thoughts behind right vs privilege....

I'd like to hear all opinions on Tristan's example above.... as he says it contains alot of questions related to right vs. privilege, it also includes a sub-plot on two players who called the last aggressor on the river, etc... very good example...

Opinions please...

[K-Lo]

By now, I think most of you know that I am of the school that all cards that are not in the muck should remain live.  I never liked this artificial tapping cards to the muck ritual.  And I feel it's really artificial to enforce -- a dead hand if someone other than the pot winner asks, live if the pot winner asks (though I can appreciate that this has a basis in tradition).  

In my view, I prefer that either you don't allow people to see the exposed hand at all (except at TD's discretion) or you allow players (in the new rule this is limited to players that have exposed their own hand or still have a live hand) to see it if requested and the cards play.  

Will the player who thought he won the pot be pissed because someone else who potentially misread their hand ends up winning the pot because the third opponent asked to see the hand?  Yes, perhaps.  But in a tournament setting, I find it hard to justify giving the pot to a player who I now know does not in fact have the best hand.  To protect others in the tournament, I'd rather give the pot to the player with the best hand, and a corresponding (severe) penalty if there's any possibility of chip dumping.  

[Nick C]

Tristan & Mike,

 The example Tristan gives is a perfect example of what's wrong with tournament poker rules. In a cash game, at showdown, the dealer would ask Player A to show first. If Player A elects to muck, he may...that's it... the hand is dead! In Tristan's example, Player C has a right to see Player A's hand but, the hand is tapped to the muck and dead...he can only have a live hand if Player B (holding the presumed winner with his straight) asks to see Player A's mucked hand.

 There is an obvious difference, (as it should be) between cash and tournament play.

 Cash poker allows for player's to throw winning hands away, any time they want!

 Tournament poker should protect all of us from any pot ever being awarded to the wrong player, if the best hand is in for all bets!

 I don't like the idea that the only player that has to show his hand is the winner...It opens the door for every kind of collusion, and chip dumping imaginable.

 Forcing all player's to show their hands at showdown, for tournament poker, is the only answer.

 Tristan, if this will help you better follow the point I'm trying to make; The excellent example you gave should be the best argument for showing all hands at showdown in tournaments...there is no issue, no problem, no question about the winner, no thought of chip dumping, and no opportunity for undisclosed collusion. The best hand gets the pot!
 One more explanation; in your example, If Player A were all-in...the situation you describe is impossible.

I hope I've explained it better this time. If you need more on dealer procedure in this situation, I'll keep trying.
Thanks for the great example.

 I just read Ken's reply and I'd like to say that I do not agree. In cash games, you can muck your hand. When you do...it's dead. In a tournament, we must be allowed to see every called hand at showdown...just the way we do when there's an all-in.

[K-Lo]

I just read Ken's reply and I'd like to say that I do not agree. In cash games, you can muck your hand. When you do...it's dead. In a tournament, we must be allowed to see every called hand at showdown...just the way we do when there's an all-in.

Now I am confused. Nick, I know that you would like all hands at any showdown to be shown, even non-all-ins, and I think Jack Effel would be on your side about that one!  I'm not necessarily against that, although that isn't the current rule.

My reply was directed to Mike's/Tristan's question - where he is asking (I think) what should you do under the current rule if a hand that isn't in the muck gets turned over.  So my answer is how I feel the current rule should be applied to those situations. Namely, if someone asks to see the hand, and it's not in the muck, the hand should be live (unless you have an overriding forward motion folding rule).

I think you guys need to be clear whether you are talking about how the current rule should be applied, or whether we are simply critiquing problems with the current rule, before others jump into the conversation. 

[Tristan]

Good point.  I actually would like to hear both!  What you would do currently and how you think it should be.

[MikeB]

I think you guys need to be clear whether you are talking about how the current rule should be applied, or whether we are simply critiquing problems with the current rule, before others jump into the conversation.  

For me it's most interesting to discuss individual house policies here because not all of Tristan's example (or any example) is fully covered by TDA at this point.

To summarize Tristan's example: A bets, B and C call, B shows a straight, A releases his cards face down towards center table but still identifiable, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. So this involves alot of issues.

#1: Does C have a right or a privilege to ask to see A's hand. It's not a written TDA rule, but all the dialogue at Summit VI confirms that C has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand he called on the final street, so no debate there. BUT...

#2: A has released his cards, so if they are turned up here are they live or dead? Per RRoP they are clearly dead. [Update / clarify: Dead if C's hand proves to be weaker than B's] ... However, many but not a super-majority of TDA members at Summit VI think all cards tabled at showdown should be live.... The TDA does not take a position on this as of yet. What's is everyone's house rule here?

#3: Add another dimension, what if C has turned up a lesser hand than B? So you have a known loser asking to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor, a hand he has an inalienable right to see... does this affect whether A's hand is live or dead per your house rules? RRoP again is clear that the hand is dead because it was discarded AND being shown at the request of a known loser.

#4: Yet another dimension... it's checked around on the river. So B shows a straight, A discards, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. A was not the last aggressor in this example, so do you show his cards? By right or privilege? If by privilege how do you decide when to and when not to show? Will you accommodate the first few requests then consider it an etiquette violation? Or will you only grant the privilege if you suspect collusion or? Are A's cards live or dead in this variation? What if C had first shown a losing hand then asked to see A's cards, would that make a difference?

So the question is really about how your house fills in the blanks not yet covered by TDA rules on the matter.