Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused! - Page 2

Rick Nebiolo · #11 07-09-2006, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still trying to figure out why a hand was power-mucked in 600-700 pot when nobody had shown their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is very possible that the SB did not even have a pair and was fibbing regarding his hand. Or he had a small one he felt couldn't win.

~ Rick

Rick Nebiolo · #12 07-09-2006, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

As mentioned in the related thread I just posted, I'm being pulled off the computer by my Luddite friend. I'll be back tonight. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

~ Rick

NoMoreLurking · #13 07-09-2006, 04:19 PM

I would rule that Player A can NOT claim IWTSTH since he mucked and gave up that right. Another player in the hand might justifibly want to make sure there was no collusion and ask to see BOTH hands.

I am really hoping Player A had pocket K's or Q's and Player B had a missed draw and eventually shows.

That would be funny as hell and serve the [censored] for not wanting to show and then mucking.

HSB · #14 07-09-2006, 05:18 PM

My amateur opinion is to not show for the following reasons.

1) There is no reason to believe there is any collusion involved in the hand, and that is the intent of the IWTSTH rule.

2) People who don't abide by the nitty gritty details of the laws when they don't want to shouldn't be allowed to impose them on others at will.

3) There's an entire other can of worms that could be opened if the mucker sees that he mucked the winner.

NickMPK · #15 07-09-2006, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so what if Player A mucks, then a third party asks to see Player B's cards, and B responds by mucking?

mak15 · #16 07-09-2006, 05:30 PM

OP, i think where you are going with this is that player B doesn't have to show since when he asked to see player's A hand (rightfully) Player A refused to show.

personally, i still think Player B has to show.

steamraise · #17 07-09-2006, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
&#8220;How can you ask to see my hand given you didn&#8217;t show me yours when you were required to show first?&#8221;

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe player A was required to show first or muck.
He mucked (eventually). Dealer should show player B's hand.

If player B gets his hand past the dealer into the muck
he won't have to show his hand.

RR · #18 07-09-2006, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so what if Player A mucks, then a third party asks to see Player B's cards, and B responds by mucking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they are mucked (too bad the dealer didn't protect the muck). A plyer's action is to fold, not to muck; mucking refers to buring them in the muck so they can't be retrieved.

Rottersod · #19 07-09-2006, 05:49 PM

In LA a winning hand that has gone to a showdown has to be exposed, however there is the added twist that player A mucked his cards first. Seems to me if player A wanted to see his cards then all he had to do was turn his over first.

I'd bet almost any amount of money that if you asked 10 different floors in LA for a ruling you'd get different answers and reasons why they ruled that way from each of them. This all goes back to earlier posts about why there aren't standardized rules of poker that casino's follow, and more important, why do some casino's have rules but allow their floors to interpret them differently?

andyfox · #20 07-09-2006, 07:03 PM

First of all, what was the dealer doing during all of this, watching the soccer game?

Under the prevalent interpretation of the rules, and if, as a floorman, I chose to follow the letter of the rules, I would make player B show. I say "the prevalent intepretation" because I have read the Commerce rules and it says that if there is a call on the river, any player has the right to see all hands. This is interpreted by the casino as any player has the right to see all hands in any showdown. But the clear meaning of the words contradicts that; when it goes check-check there is no call.

However, now that I think about it, if player A was the only player demanding to see the hand, I would not make player B show. Interpreting the written rule to mean that in the event of a showdown, any player can see any hand, it would seem, at first glance, that he is entitled to see player B's hand. But since he mucked when it was his turn to act, there was not really a showdown. I think if the situation was reversed, player A checked, and then player B mucked, this would be clearer. But it's the same situation: the conversation is irrelevant; player A mucked when player B checked, thus no showdown.