Showing Hands. Rule interpretation HELP!!?

[Hammerhead]

Home game is ran by a Type A player, very rigid, very inflexible and never wants to show his hole cards.
This situation came up.
On the flop, I have 9T and I flopped the nut straight. on a Js Qs 8d board
I check, UTG +1 bets $2, He/button raises $6. I re-raise $20
UTG +1 folds, he calls. Turn brings a Ts, I check. He pushes all in and has me covered for $32.50 more. I made a very tough call.

I ask him ok, what you got? and flip my hand over. He says he don't have to show, then proceeds to deal the river. The river brought a blank and I won, I told him, I'd like to see your hand, and again he says he doesn't have to show. Well, needless to say this bothered me since we've got some history of this and he posted rules addressing my concerns about his imo, angle shooting by not showing his cards.

His rules are as follows verbatim off his website addressing this. He says that since I showed him my hand out of turn, he didnt have to show his hand and he had the option to muck it. I flipped my hand over at the same time as I was saying ok, what have you got?. AFTER I called his all in.

He then tries argument #2 saying that since NO action came on the river (we were all in), its the same as being checked down and it reverts back to we show our cards in the order of our seating arrangement. I feel more than a lil burned about this. Am I wrong?
Here's his rules posted.

At the showdown, the following rules apply:

1. If there has been no action on the final betting round, the order of show is the first player to the left of the button, and thereon.

2. If there has been action, the player who made the last bet or raise (and was called) shows first. The show proceeds from there to the left of that player.

3. Players may show out of order, but this gives the other player(s) the opportunity to muck without showing.

4. Any player can muck their cards without showing but that makes their hand immediately dead.

5. A player cannot refuse to show their cards first if it is required per the order of the show and no other player has shown their cards. Their only choices are to show or to muck.

6. The usual casino rule is that anyone who has been dealt in can request to see any hand mucked at showdown. The purpose of this rule is to prevent or stop collusion; it is not meant as a way for players to force other players to show their mucked cards for the purpose of learning about their betting. As collusion is of little concern at my games, it is my house rule that players cannot ask to see mucked cards. As TD/Room Manager, I reserve the right to view mucked cards in the case that I suspect cheating. If you, as a player, suspect cheating, please alert me.

7. If one or more players is all in during a betting round prior to the river and no more action is possible (i.e. only one player still in the action has uncommitted chips): For tournament play, all live hands are turned on their backs before any more cards are dealt. For cash game play, players are not obligated to turn their cards on their backs. The cash game player who is all in can still muck their hand at showdown in accord with the rules above.


Please help clear this up as I will be posting this link to him shortly.
Thanks In advance.

[PantsOnFire]

I think rule #3 clearly states that he does not have to show his hand and can muck.

If you hadn't flipped over your cards, the you could apply rule #2 and he would have to show first.

However, I disagree with his arguement for rule #1. The turn is considered the final betting round here. Rule #1 only applies if there are still chips behind on the river and it is checked around. In that case, the first checker shows and so on.

Just a note that in a cash game, all-in doesn't require players to flip over their cards. At showdown, rule #2 applies. In a tournament, all involved players MUST flip over their cards.

[Hammerhead]

Despite the fact that I requested to see his cards when I called him as I flipped my hand over? I didnt expose my hand, then ask, I did it at the same time.

[DavidNB]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the fact that I requested to see his cards when I called him as I flipped my hand over? I didnt expose my hand, then ask, I did it at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't show your cards out of order, wait for him to show first. That should solve the problem. If he beats you then muck your hand. When you guys go all in before the river, wait for him to flip first.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Home game is ran by a Type A player, very rigid, very inflexible

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you busting this guys chops to show you his losing hand? It's not enough for you to win the pot and his money--you want to possibly embarress him by making him reveal what might have been a bad decision on his part?

Also, do you really want to risk making this guy tighten up and play harder against you?

As far as flipping your cards on an All-In, I don't think that is mandatory either, except in certain games that specify it must be done.

Finally, although I didn't carefully read that list of rules you posted, the most widely accepted official rule is that a loser doesn't have to show his hand and shouldn't be asked to unless he is suspected of cheating. Do you think he was cheating? Are you trying to call him out on that?

It sounds to me like you are the type of player you describe this other guy to be.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the fact that I requested to see his cards when I called him as I flipped my hand over? I didnt expose my hand, then ask, I did it at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]
He does not have to follow your request, he just has to follow the rules. And frankly, he can wait until the river card is dealt if he wants to. He only has to show his hand if he wants to win the pot. If you expose your cards early and he sees he cannot win the pot, he can muck.

He would have been forced to show his hand first on the river if he wanted to win the pot and you hadn't exposed your cards. And actually, even he was first to expose on the river, he could still muck and give you the pot without anybody seeing any cards. It actually happens a lot when a guy gets caught bluffing with something like an OESD. The river is a blank and the guy has 7 high. He might just muck and give away the pot even though there is some chance the other guy has 6 high.

I'm not sure why this is bothering you so much. You obviously caught him bluffing, he probably had 7 or 8 high and just wanted to move on without being embarrassed, so collect your chips and let it go. Oh, and don't flip over your cards first if you want to see the other guy's cards.


I'm sorry for hammering on you but you are basically wrong here. You would be a real man and a great human being if you apologized to him the next time you see him. I don't know what your personal relationship is with this guy but admitting a mistake is usually a good building block and besides you'll sleep better at night by taking the high road.

[DakotaKid]

[ QUOTE ]
6. The usual casino rule is that anyone who has been dealt in can request to see any hand mucked at showdown. The purpose of this rule is to prevent or stop collusion; it is not meant as a way for players to force other players to show their mucked cards for the purpose of learning about their betting. As collusion is of little concern at my games, it is my house rule that players cannot ask to see mucked cards. As TD/Room Manager, I reserve the right to view mucked cards in the case that I suspect cheating. If you, as a player, suspect cheating, please alert me.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only rule I'm confused about. There must be some serious nits there if this long list of rules is necessary about something as simple as the order of exposing cards. Then to brush off something as serious as collusion with the clause "...collusion is of little concern at my games... players cannot ask to see mucked cards" (even if it really isn't a big concern) is weird to me.

[Small Fry]

Unfortunately it looks like you're wrong. He's following all "his" rules. The only exception is if this was a tournament then rule 7 should apply and cards are turned up. Cash game you were not required to turn your cards up. And even if you can get around rule #1 to say there was action and he initiated it so he needs to show first then there is always rule #4. His mucking is then protected from your seeing by rule #6. Obviously he hates to show his cards and has gone to great lengths to facilitate not showing them. In the event that you start playing by "his" rules and not letting him see your cards unless absolutely necessary then I would be prepared for the inevitable peeking at the muck by him, invoking rule 6, to "prevent cheeating".

[Rottersod]

If this is a cash game then no player is obligated to show their cards during the play. There are some Indian casino's that require both hands to be tabled during an all in but your typical Los Angeles card room doesn't require that and I personally prefer not to show my cards until I have a winner.

The fact that you decided to table your cards in no way forces your opponent to do the same and if your hand beats him he is entitled to muck his cards.

[Hammerhead]

I'm still confused, as to why since according to his rules, since I called him, and requested to see his cards, he doesnt have to show them to me? Keep in mind, this was on the turn when I called his all in, there was no action left and I would think that according to his rules, he would have to show or MUCK, but he can't NOT SHOW and still be live and drawing to cards. My problem with him is this is not a one time isolated event, he's the type of guy that in the past would be required to show first and would him and haw around and ask, what you got?, and basically drag his feet showing his hands All THE TIME, until the other players at the table grew tired of his nittish behaviour and just flip over the winning hands. He angle shoots this to death, he knows it and he knows that I know it, I bust his chops for it, because it's not right. My main problem with this is inconsistency, how can any one rule supercede another? He doesnt even accept the fact that he has to show his hand when he's called and I request it and all action is over? Was it the fact that I turned my cards over and expected him to do the same since I called him?
This seems so bush league and totally unneccesary. I've I'm wrong, I'll happily appologize, but according to our entire group, they were under the exact impression that I was, he was called, therefore he has to show. So support on this is widespread, he's the only one saying otherwise and unfortunately, he's the td/dealer/host. he's like yea I knew you had that straight.. I said of course you did, I turned it over once I called you because I expected you to have to do the same thing.
How about him saying that if your all in on the turn, then the river is the same as being checked down and regardless of who called who, it reverts back to you showing in position your sitting in. I mean you can see why I don't belive anything this guy says after using this kind of logic. He got called, and I have to show, because he has position on me? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I'm happy with the money, but I'm trying to get this guy to lighten up, he's killing the game, we have 300+ local members in our database and cant get over 7 players to play with us on weds night. Sorry to sound so wound up about this but It did bother me quite a bit, because I'm feeling cheated, and his total anal attitude towards the game is a real downer to the group.