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

[hornpout]

etiquette is a fiber of respectful play. if you know you have the winner at showdown, table it immediately. its quite simply respect for the game regardless of who you are in a showdown with. the losing hand is probably what you thought it was when you called or bet. do unto others....

[Nuevo99]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be wrong, at least in our card room. A subset of the IWTSTH rule is that if you are in the hand and you invoke it one someone, his mucked hand now becomes live.

That's the risk you take for doing that.

I see the hard part here you are screwing someone else by doing that unfortuanlly, but oh well. Perhaps they can take it out to the parking lot...

[AKQJ10]

Did you catch the point of bav's post? The rule you cite is 100% standard when the pot isn't chopped.

[Nuevo99]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you catch the point of bav's post? The rule you cite is 100% standard when the pot isn't chopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do get the point of it. But unless someone knows of some rule out there, his solution isnt the correct one even if it might be more fair. The dealer and the floor cant just make up a rule on the fly, they have to adhear to whatever the rules are.

Which to means only two possibilitys:

1) The guy that mucked his hand now has a live hand, and he wins the whole pot. (the second AK guy gets screwed, I understand that but it wont be the first time someone gets screwed...)

2) For whatever reason the subset of IWTSTH rule doesnt apply, the guy who mucked his hand doesnt win the pot, and the two AK's chop the pot.

If you pay one of the AK's, you have to pay the other one, I dont believe there is any rule that would allow anything else to happen. (even though one of them is a moron for invoking IWTSTH)

I doubt there are too many cases where the mucker doesnt end up with the pot, although it could of been avoided had the dealer taken his hand and put in the muck like I think he's supposed to.

It's bad enough we have dealers and floors that change the interpetion of the rules daily, without having them make up totally new ones on their own no matter how fair they are.

[PokerFink]

I'm with Nuevo on this one. Chopping the pot between the mucker and the non-idiot AK is a logical idea, but it's not what the rules say. Rules aren't always fair. The mucker should get the pot (and the non-idiot AK should beat the crap out of the idiot AK).

[that_pope]

One of the comments is that the rule is in your favor when you are bluffing and get caught...

When I bet the river and am called on a complete bluff, I turn over my cards proudly, just like I do when I know I have a winner. If I have a straight draw or something, my opponent may notice my body language and missread the board and think he is beat and muck (I hate it when the dealer announces "ten high" or something like that).

I am more apt to show my bluffs because I think it helps me get paid off if people see my one or two bluffs (that don't work) in an 8 hour session.

If you are a strong player, you want to show your bluffs, and muck your very strong hands that got gutshotted on the river.

But yeah, I hate it when I make a call with a weak hand and the other player refuses to show. If I have the nuts, but am afraid to raise the river because I think calling will get 3 more people behind me, but raising will only get me one more bet, I will flat call with the nuts (usually a flush) and then instantly turn my hand over when action is complete.

When playing live, especially in a non-rake game, slowing the game down is just costing you value. The more hands you get in, the better off you are.

[0evg0]

Final 3 of an MTT

BB has 220k
SB has 30k
Button has 50k
Blinds are 8k/16k/1k

SB and BB know each other and are friendly. Button did not agree to chop earlier when both suggested it. There has been some flared tempers between Button and BB. There have been some questionable (in Button's eyes) plays between the two since 3-handed including BB checking behind on all streets in unraised pot when he flopped TPGK. There have also been two seperate occassions where BB folded to SB's push getting odds good enough for a smart player to know to call, and good enough odds for even a poor player to likely understand he needs to call.

Button folds
SB moves all-in for 30k total
BB folds

Button asks to see BB's mucked hand.

Is there a set rule? Does this change depending on venue? Is it the Floor's discretion?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Rules aren't always fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually in poker the rules generally are fair.
[ QUOTE ]
Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every rulebook I have looked at has some version of the above rule in the front of it.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a set rule? Does this change depending on venue? Is it the Floor's discretion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the written rule in this spot, but I would definitely stop the game, call the floorman and invoke the rule saying "I am suspecting collusion and IWTSTH." Because it's pretty clear that button is getting screwed.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every rulebook I have looked at has some version of the above rule in the front of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, good point.