Why exactly is it bad etiquette to ask to see a losing showdown hand?

[johnc]

The dinosaur to be put to rest is the idea that showing our cards has to be some huge ego buster or an act of shame. The simple situation of someone asking what a bettor has before calling (or after folding) frequently invokes the worn out statement "you gotta pay to see them". Well, if I pay the price (or my opponent pays the price), then I'm entitled to see the cards and I'm not going to get into some ego driven pissing contest with someone if they want to see my cards (if they've paid the price). I also believe that, esp at low-limit tables, most of the players will call just because they are curious and the info they get out of it is either misused or most often, not used at all to their benefit. The only time part of this rule is abused is when players not in the hand insist upon seeing the cards. In these circumstances it's typically some old fart who feels some overwhelming compulsion to exert control in anyway he can and wheezes "Waddit he have? Turn those cards over!". This is when it truly slows the game down and does aggrevate me, not due to some precious piece of info being taken from me, but because it can start to cut into my valuable playing time.

[sawseech]

basic premise is to not be a dick

you already have the pot. you want the table to see my hand on top of it?

i'm less bothered (or not bothered at all) if some fish wants my hand opened.

[Nuevo99]

[ QUOTE ]
The dinosaur to be put to rest is the idea that showing our cards has to be some huge ego buster or an act of shame. The simple situation of someone asking what a bettor has before calling (or after folding) frequently invokes the worn out statement "you gotta pay to see them". Well, if I pay the price (or my opponent pays the price), then I'm entitled to see the cards and I'm not going to get into some ego driven pissing contest with someone if they want to see my cards (if they've paid the price). I also believe that, esp at low-limit tables, most of the players will call just because they are curious and the info they get out of it is either misused or most often, not used at all to their benefit. The only time part of this rule is abused is when players not in the hand insist upon seeing the cards. In these circumstances it's typically some old fart who feels some overwhelming compulsion to exert control in anyway he can and wheezes "Waddit he have? Turn those cards over!". This is when it truly slows the game down and does aggrevate me, not due to some precious piece of info being taken from me, but because it can start to cut into my valuable playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, showing your cards shouldnt be some ego buster or act of shame. If you have to show, so be it.

But in your example where you pay the price, you shouldnt even have to invoke the rule because the bettor is supposed to show first by rule. That's just part of the game, anytime you are the aggressor with a weak hand, you should run the risk of having to show (unless you muck your hand instead before the other guy shows).

Then if he shows, then you have a right to muck your hand if you lost. It's not about ego, it's just the rules. Using the IWTSTH rule at that point becomes just rude.

Concealing information when you can is just as a part of the game as gaining information. The IWTSTH rule was never intended to be about gaining information so it's a bad rule. (otherwise the rule should be that everyone should just turn their hands up all at the same time, do you do this everytime?)

I do agree when a person who is not even in the hand uses the IWTSTH rule it's way worse. That's just beyond rude then. If the bettor asks to see my hand, I dont think it's right, but Im not nearly as annoyed as when it's someone that wasnt even playing in the hand (they didnt invest anything in it for one).

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, Player A is in the wrong for not just showing his hand. Player B only appears to be slowrolling because Player A (whose turn it is to show) refuses to show his hand. Had Player A showed his hand, Player B probally would of showed his right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my example, yes both players are being lame for slowing up the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Im going to be Player B all the time, not because I want to slowroll but because I have a right to see what Player A has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't slow up the game for everyone else. If Player A is hesitating, just table your winner and ask to see his hand. If you called him and he's hesitating, it's perfectly legal and ethical to do so.

Note: If you call him and he immediately mucks his cards, don't ask to see! That's lame. And don't table your hand either - no reason to give away info.

[ QUOTE ]
Dealer: (points to player A) Show your hand! (or muck)
Dealer: (points to player B) Show your hand or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish dealers would do this.

Anyway, "slowrolling" might not be the best term for my situation because it's not slowrolling in the truest sense of the word if Player B tables his nut hand immediately after Player A tables. It's similar to slowrolling, but not exactly.

But that doesn't mean Player B should be slowing up the game for everyone by demanding to see Player A's hand before showing his own when he has the nuts anyway. Player B knows he has the winner, he should table and keep the game moving.

[Nuevo99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, Player A is in the wrong for not just showing his hand. Player B only appears to be slowrolling because Player A (whose turn it is to show) refuses to show his hand. Had Player A showed his hand, Player B probally would of showed his right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my example, yes both players are being lame for slowing up the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Im going to be Player B all the time, not because I want to slowroll but because I have a right to see what Player A has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't slow up the game for everyone else. If Player A is hesitating, just table your winner and ask to see his hand. If you called him and he's hesitating, it's perfectly legal and ethical to do so.

Note: If you call him and he immediately mucks his cards, don't ask to see! That's lame. And don't table your hand either - no reason to give away info.

[ QUOTE ]
Dealer: (points to player A) Show your hand! (or muck)
Dealer: (points to player B) Show your hand or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish dealers would do this.

Anyway, "slowrolling" might not be the best term for my situation because it's not slowrolling in the truest sense of the word if Player B tables his nut hand immediately after Player A tables. It's similar to slowrolling, but not exactly.

But that doesn't mean Player B should be slowing up the game for everyone by demanding to see Player A's hand before showing his own when he has the nuts anyway. Player B knows he has the winner, he should table and keep the game moving.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do have a point about slowing up the game (but Id still slightly suggest that Player A is doing it, not Player B).

My newest tactic that I thought of last week is that Im going to just tell Player A, "just flip up your hand, it's your turn to do so!", and then Im going to look at the dealer while Im pointing at Player A. (who isnt really doing his job allowing the game to get stalled this way)

I thought this would be a good idea because a lot of times what happens is Player A will say what piece of the hand he has without showing "ie.."ive got a pair", hoping that you will just fold then without him having to show. (Ive even seen where Player A is angle shooting this way which only happens if the dealer doesnt make him show)

I just want to let him know it's not about whether he has me beat or not. (the hand is over so that part doesnt matter) I called him so I am certainly going to see his cards because I want to know what he has and gain an idea of how he plays.

Also in your case you have the nut hand, so turning your hand over isnt as bad for you as say when you know you likely have the losing hand. Im not going to turn over the losing hand if Player A was supposed to show first.

(also if you had the nuts, you would raise hopefully and become Player A yourself, not just call. If you have anything that is an almost lock, hopefully you raise for value and not just call. (im thinking limit here though))

[bav]

During the Caesars noon tourney yesterday a rules question arose, which then lead to further random discussion amongst the dealers and floors later on. The rules question that came up in the tourney was whether someone could conceed the hand after going all-in. I said no. Floor says "sure, he can always fold if he wants to". In this case we had QQ vs 66 on a Qxx board so 66 needed runner runner 6's to win so that particular ruling really didn't matter. But that's not the interesting and related what-if scenario.

During the break people are just yammering about this rules question and others when a dealer says the following came up. Three people are all in. Two guys have AK. Third guy on the river mucks his cards face down, so the AK's are going to split. One of the two AK guys invokes IWTSTH. Turns out that hand is the winner. Now what?

I claim the AK idiot who invoked IWTSTH gets 0, and the other two split the pot. Basically the AK IWTSTH's share goes to the guy who mucked the winner, while the other AK is not punished. This was not universally agreed upon by the dealers and floor people milling around. Several wanted to give it all to the guy who mucked the winner.

[AKQJ10]

bav's solution makes intuitive sense to me, but I'm interested in hearing the opposing arguments.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
During the break people are just yammering about this rules question and others when a dealer says the following came up. Three people are all in. Two guys have AK. Third guy on the river mucks his cards face down, so the AK's are going to split. One of the two AK guys invokes IWTSTH. Turns out that hand is the winner. Now what?

I claim the AK idiot who invoked IWTSTH gets 0, and the other two split the pot. Basically the AK IWTSTH's share goes to the guy who mucked the winner, while the other AK is not punished. This was not universally agreed upon by the dealers and floor people milling around. Several wanted to give it all to the guy who mucked the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a tournament the best hand gets the whole pot. I really like that solution for a cash game; however, I would not fault a floor for giving the whole pot to the best hand after an apparent winner makes his hand live.

[MrFizzbin]

Funny I remember someone earlier in this thread telling me a hand once dead it was dead. Cash or Tournament mucked is mucked ? or was I misinformed. Angus wanna chime in on this?!?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny I remember someone earlier in this thread telling me a hand once dead it was dead. Cash or Tournament mucked is mucked ? or was I misinformed. Angus wanna chime in on this?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not suprise me if someone said that. Almost every day I hear someone say "if it touches the muck it is dead." You hear a lot of people taht are wrong abotu a lot of things if you work in a poker room.