Your thoughts on this showdown situation...

[PantsOnFire]

I'll start off with the overall scene. This is a new home tourney game I have played about six times now with some regulars and some new faces. Only me and villain are in the pot, all cards are out, the board is showing a straight and it's showdown time. I flip my cards and say I play the board. Villain slides his cards face down into the muck and says so do I. I am not happy for two reasons.

Here are the details. Villains raises 3x UTG+1 after UTG fold. Fold to me in CO and I hold J10s and call and BB calls. Flop is J98 rainbow. It is checked around to me and I bet 2/3 pot. BB goes away and villain calls. Now my hand reading kicks in. His preflop raise is likely to mean what it implies. I put him on 1010+ and AQ+. Some unlikely but possible hands include KQs, 99 and AJs. He's about 50% for continuation bets although that's heads up and BB was in the hand at the time. I start to eliminate hands and begin with 1010, AJ, AA, KK, QQ. I am almost certain he would not have checked those hands. He may be slowplaying JJ or 99 or could have missed with AK or AQ or KQ.

The turn brings a 10. Good news bad news. Thank god I have position. He checks. Well that's interesting. I now discount 99 and JJ. As well, I am fairly certain he is betting here if he has a Q. I have been fairly tough in these games and I don't think he has put me on a hand at this point so I have no reason to believe he would check a made hand in this spot. I decide to check behind. If he does have the straight I am already beat a need one of my four outs. If he has AK, I am risking a Q showing up on the river but I'll chance it because if an A or K shows up I will likely win one more bet.

River is a 7. He bets into me!! It is a half pot bet and I know he is capable of doing this. I am almost certain he has AK and thinks I am also playing the board because I would have bet the turn if I had a Q. I call and this brings us to the original scenario. He says boards and mucks and starts collecting half the chips. I am not happy that he mucked his cards since I did such a thorough hand reading exercise here I want to see the results.

I say out loud to nobody in particular, don't you have to show two cards face up to win any part of a pot at showdown? Villain was clearly agitated and there was no support from dealer or host. I made a joke about him having 72 off and let it go. I felt things might have detiorated at this otherwise friendly game and after all we did both play the board. In a casino I would have forced the dealer to make the call but the dealer at this game was just an average Joe who looked like a deer in the headlights.

Any comments on this situation? Do you also think he had exactly AK?

[flatline]

Of course he should have showed his hand. But in home games it is usually best not to rock the boat. Just tell him not to do that again.

[Lottery Larry]

"I made a joke about him having 72 off "

You should have said "I bet you had the 7 of (whatever the suit of the 7 on board is) and you got busted, didn't you?"

Then, just refuse to show your hand after that for any board-plays pots... and if you want to be a nit, for any hands that you win (unless you're forced to).

[Richard Tanner]

Sadly, his play is fine here. At any time (during a showdown) you can say "board/I play the board" and not show your cards because in effect you already have.
Frustrating I know, but I'm off the mind that mucking shouldn't be allowed ever (unless a bet wasn't called). You both paid for the info, just because your hand is better shouldn't prevent you from knowing his hand. But I'm a dreamer.

Cody

[Alvination]

"How many cards must I show?

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 3 - The Showdown

6. A player must show all cards in the hand face-up on the table to win any part of the pot.

Unless every other player folds, you must show both hole cards to win any part of a pot."

He should have showed, you were right.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
"How many cards must I show?

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 3 - The Showdown

6. A player must show all cards in the hand face-up on the table to win any part of the pot.

Unless every other player folds, you must show both hole cards to win any part of a pot."

He should have showed, you were right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this rule does not apply to this situation sincovert's rules has another rule 5-9 "9. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away. Otherwise, you relinquish all claim to the pot."

That being said many cardrroms use the rule that you must show your hand even if playing the board.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said many cardrroms use the rule that you must show your hand even if playing the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

QUIZ TIME- The reason they do that is because....

(actually, it might be a BETTER reason to do it at home games, but whatever)

Clock is ticking... can psandman pass the test?

[psandman]

Well i assume its insure that the players hand is not fouled such as duplicate cards, this is the general reason I have heard for this rule, but I don't really think that is a good reason.

[FireStorm]

It is because of potential collusion or duplicate cards in the deck.

This is a cardroom specific rule. Player doesn't necessarily have to show his hand if he announces that he's playing the board beforehand. Note 1998 WSOP final hand, McBride announces, I call, I play the board, without exposing his hand.

Don't rock the boat in a home game, no reason to throw a fit about this.

No, I don't think he has exactly AK, this would make little sense with a smooth call on the flop, followed by a half assed post oak bluff on the river attempting to avoid a split. Maybe he has AJ or TT, altho TT is unlikely.

I have a question here. If you are "almost certain" he has AK, and are sure he DOESN'T have a Q, why not raise the river to turn a chop into a win?

[lippy]

I know at my cardroom (Canterbury), you MUST show both hole cards on a chop pot boards (4444A or something like that). No show, no money.