Ruling on a hand
 

I don't know if this is the correct forum, but if anyone can help me out with the correct ruling I would appreciate it. Brick and mortar last night, limit holdem. I wasn't involved in the hand.

2 involved at the river. Player 1 checks, player 2 bets, player 1 calls. Player 2 says, "you got me" and mucks his cards. Player 1 throws his cards face down towards the dealer. I asked for the cards of the winning player to be turned over. Since it was a called hand on the river, I thought I had that right. The ruling by the dealer was the cards did not have to be turned over. What is the correct ruling?

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this is the correct forum, but if anyone can help me out with the correct ruling I would appreciate it. Brick and mortar last night, limit holdem. I wasn't involved in the hand.

2 involved at the river. Player 1 checks, player 2 bets, player 1 calls. Player 2 says, "you got me" and mucks his cards. Player 1 throws his cards face down towards the dealer. I asked for the cards of the winning player to be turned over. Since it was a called hand on the river, I thought I had that right. The ruling by the dealer was the cards did not have to be turned over. What is the correct ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on where you are. Most places allow you to ask, but it is rather rude to ask.

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

Did you suspect collusion? If not, then you should resist the urge to have hands turned up--unless you want somebody to ask about YOUR hands every time they get the chance.

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did you suspect collusion? If not, then you should resist the urge to have hands turned up--unless you want somebody to ask about YOUR hands every time they get the chance.

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't suspect collusion. I just wanted the information. I know it is generally not done, but my question was about the rule. I remember Daniel Negreanu calling for the hand to be shown in the exact same situation one time. He said since it was a called hand on the river, anybody had a right to call for the winning cards to be shown. I just wanted to know if that is correct, since I was told by the dealer that it wasn't.

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

In general you should only do this if you suspect collusion. If not than at most rooms it is still legal to ask but the floor has the option to take away this right at anytime if this is abused. If Daniel Negreanu asked to see a hand in the same situation and suggested anybody had the right to see those cards then he too was beeing rude if he did not suspect collusion and the floor could veto his right at anytime. Also by doing this you could really give the player whose hand you want to see a bigger motivation to crack the guy who wants to see this hand.

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

As mentioned, correct ruling in most places is you get to see the hand.

Here are enough links regarding this rule to make your eyes bleed. The top link is to an article written years ago by Tommy Angelo that should convince readers of this thread that it is a "right" that is best not excercised.

Note that some progressive thinking rooms (the Wynn I think) in fact don't easily allow you to see hands for informational purposes; that's why I said "most" above.

~ Rick

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't suspect collusion. I just wanted the information. I know it is generally not done, but my question was about the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule is there to prevent collusion. And if you use it with disregard for the spirit, be prepared to be asked to show your own cards a lot.


Many times, after a river bet and call, some idiot sings out, "I want to see both hands." Usually this request is made by the player least able to use any information he or she may obtain. And usually he or she will attempt to do this several times over the course of a session.

Once I got pissed off after a regular nit cried out "IWTSBH" for what seemed like the hundredth time, and after my opponent showed his rivered winner, I proceeded to shove my cards directly and unidentifiably into the middle of the muck.

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

I have been a staunch advocate of killing the "IWTSTH rule" precisely because it is almost exclusively used to get free information. I'm also all for disallowing anyone not involved in the showdown from EVER asking to see a hand. We could start a huge thread entitled "Tommy Angelo was right" but that would be beating a dead horse. Despite the dead horse having been beaten to a bloody pulp, the vast majority of cardroom personelle, particularly the ones writing the rulebooks, don't even know the issues raised in these debates, let alone exhibit progressive thinking on the matter.

Al

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
...the vast majority of cardroom personelle, particularly the ones writing the rulebooks, don't even know the issues raised in these debates, let alone exhibit progressive thinking on the matter. - Al

[/ QUOTE ]

sadly true IME

Re: Ruling on a hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't suspect collusion. I just wanted the information. I know it is generally not done, but my question was about the rule. I remember Daniel Negreanu calling for the hand to be shown in the exact same situation one time. He said since it was a called hand on the river, anybody had a right to call for the winning cards to be shown. I just wanted to know if that is correct, since I was told by the dealer that it wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I posted this yesterday, I couldn't remember where the Daniel N hand was from. I just watched it again on tonight's replay of HSP on GSN. The hand was between Ming Ly and Phil Laak. On a board of J-10-9-x-x Ly bet the river with his busted draw and Laak called with a set of 10's. Ly mucked his hand as did Laak, then Negreanu called for Laak's hand to be turned over. For what it's worth, Gabe Kaplan said it wasn't bad manners to ask to see the winning player's cards.