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

[pig4bill]

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.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's your last hand at a casino before you move to a different city, and you bet and the opponent agonizes and folds, it's bad etiquette to reach into the muck to grab his hand and look at it (even though no recourse will really punish you).

[/ QUOTE ]
btw, just noticed this. wtf?

[sportbettor]

[ 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".

[mikech]

[ 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 ]
i was about to post nearly the exact same reply.

also, nate said earlier, "plenty of actions within the rules and within standard etiquette, like waiting for a called bettor to expose his hand first, are things you wouldn't want done to you"

i have no problem whatsoever with someone telling me/waiting for me to "show or muck." dem's the rules.

[Nuevo99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
i was about to post nearly the exact same reply.

also, nate said earlier, "plenty of actions within the rules and within standard etiquette, like waiting for a called bettor to expose his hand first, are things you wouldn't want done to you"

i have no problem whatsoever with someone telling me/waiting for me to "show or muck." dem's the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you are not in the hand, and the bettor refuses to show until the caller shows and then he mucks? Do you think it's okay to use the IWTSTH rule then? (this happens a lot at our casino because the dealers arent very consistant about who shows first)

I think everyone at the table really had a right to see that person's hand since he was supposed to show but most Internet players dont really understand that. However it's probally really against the rules since it's not for the reason of preventing collusion.

Ive done this in the past, but if it's the other way around and the bettor shows and the losing caller mucks, I think it's just plain rude to ask to see his hand. (it's happened to me a ton of times at our casino)

I saw one instance where the person who used the IWTSTH and admited it was just because he wanted to see what the player had, and then the dealer refused to invoke the rule for him anymore that day. That's probally about the only time Ive seen it refused though, it seems they have to oblige almost every time even though rarely is it about collusion.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's your last hand at a casino before you move to a different city, and you bet and the opponent agonizes and folds, it's bad etiquette to reach into the muck to grab his hand and look at it (even though no recourse will really punish you).

[/ QUOTE ]
btw, just noticed this. wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that it's a situation where there's no recourse available against you (in theory you don't care about getting a one-week ban from the casino or anthing because you're about to move). Still you (hypothetically) don't do it because it's improper.

Also, your point about rules vs. etiquette is well-taken, but in many cardrooms (Borgata, Casino Arizona) the rule is a carte-blanche* IWTSTH-is-OK and I think it's still improper to abuse it.

--Nate

*Either or both of these cardrooms might have policies in place to prevent excessive but neither, I believe, mentions collusion in the rules. In this way IWTSTH is similar to many other rights the player has but cannot be overused.

[sportbettor]

If you called a bet on the last street then the bettor has to show his hand. I would refuse to show my hand. I would not say "IWTSTH". I would say "I called, show or muck". If pressed I would say again "I called you must show or muck".

It gets tricky when everyone is allin befor the river. Different rooms have different rules but the common rule is last aggressive action (ie bet/raise) must show first but lots of rooms in LA especially do not follow this convention.

[Nate.]

[ 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 ]

Good post. But again, cardrooms are catering to the drooling masses and making it easy on their floorpeople and allowing IWTSTH carte blanche. I'd say it's still a breach of etiquette and inappropriate to IWTSTH purely for information.

--Nate

[sportbettor]

If someone asks to see another hand I usually ask "Do you think he is cheating?". They of course say "no". I then say you realize that you are accusing him of cheating when you ask to see his hand right?

[Nuevo99]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone asks to see another hand I usually ask "Do you think he is cheating?". They of course say "no". I then say you realize that you are accusing him of cheating when you ask to see his hand right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think that's a good ploy, because once he admits that he's not doing it for the purpose of collusion (saying 'no'), doesnt that make IWTSTH illegal. I know some dealers who would look at it that way.

Unfortuanlly most dealers as soon as someone asks to the see the hand will flip it over right away before anyone gets a chance to say anything.