Sticky Showdown Conundrum – I’m genuinely confused!

[Rick Nebiolo]

3-5 blind NL game at a B&M casino in LA. A few players limp for $5 and Player A in the SB raises to about $15 or so. Player B (UTG) and a couple of other limpers call.

Flop comes A-x-x. Player A bets out about $30. Player B raises to $60 or so. All other players fold. Player A (about $250 deep) quickly re-raises “all-in”. Player B (about $230 deep) goes into a short “tank” and calls. Turn and river are two blanks.

Note that using the latest Los Angeles/nationwide rule (if no river action, showdown starts clockwise from the button) or the old Las Vegas rule (if no river action, last aggressor from a previous round shows first) Player A is supposed to show his hand first. This isn’t in dispute for the purposes of this post.

Player A asks: “What do you have?”

Player B responds: “I called your all-in raise.”

Player A repeats: “What do you have?”

Player B continues: “With no river action, the showdown starts clockwise from the button.”

(Note that the dialog above and below was a bit more colorful, but I’ll keep it “Dragnet style” for the purposes of this post) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Player A says: “I’ve got a pair”, still holding his cards face down.

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”

Instead of showing down, Player A now bullet mucks his cards. The dealer stacks off the all-ins, pushes this part of the pot to Player B (who is still protecting his hand) and now starts to push the remaining part of the pot (the pre-flop action) to Player B.

Player A now asks: “I want to see that hand.”

Note that if Player B had bullet folded after Player A mucked, this post wouldn’t even have been written. However, Player B is the careful type who wants possession of the pot before he releases his hand. Also note that if a third party dealt in had asked to see Player B’s hand, he would clearly have to show it under the existing “IWTSTH” rules.

Anyway, Player B responds: “How can you ask to see my hand given you didn’t show me yours when you were required to show first?”

Player A repeats, “I want to see your hand”.

Player B asks for a decision regarding whether he has to show his hand from a nearby floorman who wasn’t very busy. When the floorman comes, the facts are explained as above (though in short form).

You are the floorman. What is your decision under your cardroom’s existing rules?

Bonus. If you are uncomfortable with the rule you had to apply, how would you change it?

I won’t be going out today until 1:00 pm PST, so I’ll post a little follow up and a related post later.

All comments appreciated.

~ Rick

[RR]

As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[RegBarclay]

Hi Rick

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.

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.

Regards,
RegBarclay

[SynSid]

[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that rule only apply to hands that reach the river - or do you have to show a hand after a blind-steal (or even if it's folded to your BB)? And do you have to show your hand even if you bet on the river and noone calls?

[RegBarclay]

Sorry if this was unclear, the rule applies only in showdown situations. Here is the full text:

"All cards of a called hand must be shown face-up on the table in order to win any part of a pot in a showdown. Players must expose their cards in order to play the board."

Regards,
RegBarclay

[slavic]

I think the player has to table the hand, if you want to rewrite the rule to take care of this situation then I would say that a player does not have to show a hand if the other players at showdown surrender, the problem is that it does open you up to some form of collusion.

[Masquerade]

I really, really hate [censored] nits who make a bet, get called, and then start a long convoluted series of "What do you have?" "Can you beat a pair?" etc etc questions instead of tabling their hand.

Under the rules Player B has to show as he's collecting a pot and Player A's actions have no bearing on that. The house rule should be that everyone at the table gets to administer a kick in the nuts to Player A.

[WackityWhiz]

I'm still trying to figure out why a hand was power-mucked in 600-700 pot when nobody had shown their cards.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to I would rule that he has to show (assuming I was in LA, the room I currently work in does not have IWTSTH, so here I would rule he does not have to show). My wife is calling, I might make a longer reply later.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you rule if Player A mucks, then Player B mucks, then some third party invokes IWTSTH?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they both muck the cards are in the muck and there is nothing to see. If he still has them and somebody asks to see them they get to see them (in a room/game where IWTSTH is permitted).