Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!

[steamboatin]

Here in Indiana, if I understand the rules correctly, in the event of a showdown, you have to show a hand in order to be awarded a pot. I think Caesar's IN uses the last agressive action rule.

I am rarely in this scenario because I flip them over unless the villian is a chronic slow roller, then if I called his bet, and I am weak, I will wait forever for him to show first. If I am strong, I flip them over and against 99% of my opponents, I flip them over quickly anyway. I want to keep the game fast and friendly.

[bigfishead]

Andy I understand what your trying to say. But we must look carefully at the action. They were all-in with a bet-call not a check-check. Under what y'all say are the rules of Commerce it seems glaringly clear whether we like the rule or not that player A still had the right to see player B's hand.

We must remember that it isnt about if we "like" or agree with the rule. But that it is properly enforced.

Now for the fun part! If the house also has rules posted that state anything to the effect of "Managements/Floorperson decisions are final". And/or "Decisions shall be made for the betterment of the game", Then as a floor person I may take the players cards myself and quietly place them in the muck and walk away.

Now when the "A" player goes ballistic I quietly pull him aside and tell him to not try to slowroll next time and just turn his cards over and there wont be any further problems. He can play that "what ya got" crap at his home game. This tends to bring them in line very quickly and the game continues on smoothly.

[youtalkfunny]

No controversy here. It's time for a showdown, somebody wants to see the hand. Turn it up, and take the money.

No need to change any rules, for something that happens once every 100 years, and isn't that big a deal when it does happen.

[RR]

I typed a long responce to this and then my power went out. My computer stuff still worked fine because I have a good backup, but the cable company appearantly does not becasue I was no longer connected to the internet. There is one thing that has not been mentioned.



[ QUOTE ]
Now Player B says one of two things (which one is in dispute, if you think it matters, state why):

Player B version 1: “Per the showdown rules you are required to show first.” (or something very similar)

Player B version 2: “Show me”

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is ruled version 2 occurred he is invoking IWTSTH. When player A mucks his cards instead of showing when being asks any attempt by him to invoke IWTSTH is going to be ruled against (if I am ruling). There is no written rule I am aware of covering this, but there is no way I am allowing a player to throw his hand away to conceal info and then abuse the same rule to get info.

[mak15]

i'm pretty sure i already mentioned that.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure i already mentioned that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post wasn't there and I didn't refresh my browser when the power came back up.

[IgorSmiles]

I would strangle player A and just beat the sh*t out of B. Get over yourself, show your cards, and move on to the next hand.

[andyfox]

At Commerce, there is indeed a rule that the hosue may make a ruling contradictory to the letter of the rules in the interst of the game.

[Rick Nebiolo]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I was Player B. I had A2 suited and my read was that Player B's big reraise was BS (if I were deeper I'm not sure I'd have the stomach for the read, that's why I avoid deep stack).

I think Player A had either a small pair or something like KQ and just figured he couldn't possible beat me after I called his reraise.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I work as floor/TD in Vienna and although we do not have the IWTSTH rule we have a rule that states "a winning hand must be shown to receive the pot". The rule is strictly enforced in tournaments while in cashgames I instruct the dealers to only enforce it when requested by other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon quick reflection, this rule appears to have merit (and I like the way you interpret it for cash games). Perhaps worth a thread of its own at some future date.


[ QUOTE ]
To answer your question under my rooms existing rules I would have the hand tabled. But I would rather rule that since player A did not show when he was supposed to he has forfeited his right to see player B's cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using the catch all "management reserves the right to make rulings not listed explicitly in the rulebook that reflect the spirit of fairness" was used by a couple of managers I've spoken with regarding this and a few other problems they are having. But its best to have an explicit rule if the situation comes up often and the rule is a good one.

~ Rick