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

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
It just is. I don't mean to be dismissive or to imply that the etiquette is inappropriate or misguided.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about not replying in so long...I actually forgot about this topic, but I'll read through the replies and discuss them now.

This is kinda what I always thought- that there was no rational reason behind it, but it just existed because its "tradition." Imo, this is a horrible reason. I have grown to dislike major league baseball partially for this reason- sticking to tradition rather than trying to improve.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason the "I want to see the hand" rule exists is to prevent collusion - 2 comrades raising and reraising junk hands to steal money from a 3rd player. If you bet heads up, and your opponent folds (or calls and mucks), you are not entitled to the info of what they had.

-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that it only exists to prevent collusion....my question is "why is that?" Why shouldn't you be allowed to see the hand of an opponent at SHOWDOWN. Isn't the very definition of 'showdown' mean showing your hands? It just seems unfair that one opponent should have to give away info while the other doesn't.

As an aside, I think its very unfair that "etiquette" says that you should show your hand if you're 99% sure you'll win even if your opponent made the last action.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone explain to me the basis behind the etiquette here?

[/ QUOTE ]
the golden rule. if you get caught bluffing with a busted draw would YOU want to show your 9-high? or, if you get sucked out on by a gutshot against your top set, would you like it if he says, "what'd you have anyway? aces? kings? a set? i wanna see the hand, dealer." as he's dragging a $10k pot or something, no less; how would you like that? not so much? ok then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I like it when the etiquette favors me(and I don't have to show my bluff) and I dislike it when the etiquette doesn't favor me(my opponent doesn't have to show).

But I don't see what that proves. I could just switch it around, couldn't I? Here, following that same logic:

Its the "golden rule." You want to see your opponents hand when he calls you, so shouldn't you have to show it when you call him?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Making everybody show their hands at showdown is going to cause many players to play better. They often know that they are making bad plays but comfort themselves with the knowledge that only THEY know it. Making them embarrassed in front of the table is not a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting point. I guess I was basing my argument on playing against good aggressive players that don't really care if they look bad on a few hands becuase they're confident in their overall ability...those are the types of players whom I fear most and whom I would gain the most from being able to see their hands.

I agree with you guys that even if it wasn't poor etiquette, I still might not ask a calling station to see his hand every time because theres no need to embarrass him.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
"politeness" is essentially the same reason as not embarrassing your opponents/the golden rule. i think it's more than that, actually. quite simply, it's the rules of the game--example:

if i go all-in on the river with the nuts, and get called, i must show first. after i show, my opponent can show his hand too if he wishes (some guys will do that in a "look, i also had a big hand" sorta way), but usually he will just muck. if he chooses to muck, then--according to the rules of the game--I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SEE HIS HAND UNLESS I SUSPECT COLLUSION.

i think calling it "etiquette" is a mistake; it's not etiquette, it's the RULE. having the option to withhold information, even at showdown, is the rule in live poker. the opposite is true on the internet: for the integrity of their games, it's a necessity for online poker sites to display all showndown hands in hand histories. that online rule has in turn created misunderstanding with the live-game rule.

[/ QUOTE ]insightful post..thanks. I guess it still doesn't answer my question of 'why' though?

Furthermore since so many players are coming up online like me, do you think that the rule might change in live play one day?(assuming of course online poker stays legal and popular).

[AKQJ10]

I understand your point about tradition, except that the order of showdown is not tradition. The order of showdown is a rule. The slight addendum to the rule allowing mucked hands to be shown was made for a specific purpose (collusion). Following the order of showdown isn't "just tradition" any more than a flush beating a straight or five cards counting rather than four or six is tradition. It's just a rule of the game.

Maybe the societal pressure to not ask to see mucked hands out of curiosity could be considered adherence to tradition, but it's more a "spirit of the law" understanding of the reasoning behind the rule. A baseball analogy would involve the umpire not enforcing some rule in a way that runs plainly contrary to the intent of the rule.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've used it when the player is supposed to show but won't. There are a few of these types where I play the most. I've called his bet or it was check-check on the river, and his order on the table dictates he show first. The dealer tells him to show but he refuses, and he won't muck either. So I tell the dealer IWTSTH and then show mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not really a situation of IWTSTH. He is obligated to show his hand or muck. In situations like this you have every right to see his hand since you called (or he can muck forfeiting the pot). If I dont like the guy I will just sit there not show my hand and simply say "show or muck".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you guys think it is bad etiquette to make your opponent show first if you called his all in bet with the nuts?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have to ask this question you are a douchebag

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

So because I came up playing internet poker instead of live poker and am used to those rules I am a douchebag?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it'd kill the action from the fish a little if every player had to show their hands at showdown. It also slows the game down.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the first time someone has mentioned this, so let me clarify my point:

Perhaps it is good for the better players to have the etiquette as it is now because it keeps the fish playing bad. But we all know that all poker rules/etiquette aren't set up to help the good players(in fact, the casino would probably rather have it so that the money stays fairly even than to bankrupt the bad players quickly).

So I'm not talking about this from the good player's perspective. I'm talking about this from a very general perspective where you're trying to make the rules and etiquette most fair and good for everyone as possible...in this case, why is the etiquette the way it is?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
You might find Tommy Angelo's IWTSTH essay helpful.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]nice article. One part stuck out though: The one that said that savy colluders would obviously avoid being caught by not having all colluding parties in the hand at showdown. And I think this is key.

Has anyone here ever caught a colluder by asking to see the hand? And if not, then either you shouldn't be able to ask at all or we should consider it perfectly fine etiquette to ask. JMHO.