Showing At Showdown

[pfapfap]

Yeah, I can see how "showdown" is its own special situation.

Okay... I'd get a penalty, but I still get the pot? So the rule isn't so much that I need to show a hand to win, then. So if that's not the rule, how am I violating it? The rule seems more, "when you win, you need to show your hand", as the winning happens regardless. But if I've won, why do I need to show? What does that satisfy?

Oooh, twisty! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And know that I'm doing this for sheer curiosity on how this rule reconciles with itself. I can't fault anybody for having a "must show" rule, really, and I often show down my winners first even out of position, so you won't have this problem with me.

[Small Fry]

I understand where you're coming from so no worries there.

And I must admit I am having a hard time explaining the rule, which concerns me. Because if I cannot clearly explain the reasoning / logic behind a decision / rule then perhaps it is not as clear as it could be.

But I might interpret the rule to be "to win" rather than your "when you win". But again if you refuse to show I cannot see the pot going to another player. Only recourse would be a penalty or kicking you out. Which means you are correct that you still get the pot.

I have no problem with not requiring a player to show as there ultimatley doesn't appear to be a reason for it. Other than the fact that there's a rule. But the question is then why is there a rule?

And yes, you still win the pot so showing only satisfies the rule. (No way could I ever see ruling that failing to show results in you forfeiting the pot.) But why does one need to satisfy the rule? Just because? Seems like a pretty silly answer. Is the rule old and outdated then?

Good discussion however. THanks pfapfap....keep up the good work.

Perhaps I can trouble you to answer a question? Let me preface it by first making sure that you agree with me that if there is a showdown then a player must show his cards to win. If we agree on that then my question for you is, in your opinion, when does a showdown occur?

[pfapfap]

When is showdown? In olden days, if two gunslingers were goin' at it on the street, when did the showdown start? If someone ran away, was it still a showdown? Not sure.

I'd say the showdown starts when the first player claims the pot by displaying cards. If someone wishes to contest that claim, they can show down for it. If everybody mucks before cards are revealed, the showdown was aborted during the staging period.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
But you've made me curious and this is what Robert's says in rule#1 under Showdown (This is from version 10):

To win any part of the pot, a player must show all of his cards face up on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not

I read the part about used in the final hand or not to apply to either playing the board or only using one card from your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The confusion regarding this rule stems from the "show one, show all" rule. In that rule it should be written as "(secretly) show one (other player your cards), show all (other players your cards at the first opportune time)". This rule has been mistakely applied as follows "show one (card at showdown), show all (cards at showdown)".

The above rule from Robert's regarding showing both cards at showdown works as follows. If a pot is being contested at showdown, you must show both your hole cards to claim the pot. For example, you bet on the river and I call. You show an A for top pair. I will state that you must show your other card. For an example of this rule can be misapplied: I bet on the river, you fold. I show a single A which means I had the goods and wasn't bluffing. Jimmy, the rules-challenged newbie, says hey he has to show his other cards "show one, show all". Uggh.

There is that little confusing part though "...whether they were used in the final hand played or not". Remember though that at this point in Robert's these rules are generic so you have to keep in mind all the different games this is trying to apply to, not just holdem. There is another rule in the Holdem Section 5: "9. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away. Otherwise, you relinquish all claim to the pot. (The rule for tournament play is you must retain your hand and show it if asked, in order to win part of the pot.)". I would interpret this as you can declare you are playing the board and muck your cards face down. Of course, anyone has the "privilege" to invoke the IWTSTH rule.

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess this brings us back to when is there a "showdown"

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a "showdown" when the betting is over and there is more than one player left with cards. It's as simple as that. And for every player left with cards, the IWTSTH rule can be invoked on them.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this has been asked many times, but . . . If the action has ended on the river, and one player clearly surrenders the pot, such by saying, "I fold," or "You win," and mucking the cards face down, do you require the other player to show his or her cards to win the pot or do you just award it to that player and allow that player to muck without showing?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are the only one with cards left, then you have no requirement to show them. However, we all know that anyone dealt into the hand can ask to see them.

[Small Fry]

Some people confuse show one show all with show one show both. Show one show both is a dumb rule. Anyways....

Scenario #1: You bet the river and I call. We both have cards. So now you need to show. I will only need to show if my hand beats yours, otherwise I can muck without showing. Pretty basic.

Scenario #2: You bet river. I call. We both have cards. Now instead of showing you say "It's yours" and muck. I can now claim the pot without showing as I'm the only one with cards left.

Sound right? I don't have a problem with this at all.

But, You say a showdown occurs "when betting is over and two players have cards left". AND at showdown a player must show their cards to claim the pot. In scenario #2 above when betting ends (my call ends the betting) we both still have cards. Therefore, somebody must show to claim the pot. It doesn't say anything about what action the other player takes.

Or does a showdown only happen if more than one player has cards to show. In this case I would say showdown doesn't occur at the end of betting with more than one player having cards but it occurs at the point when cards must be shown to assert your claim to the pot.

The process now has multiple steps. The final round of betting is the first step. Next comes the showdown. Actions taken by players inbetween these two steps can alter them. Example: Betting is complete and two players have cards. Step one is over. We now move to the showdown phase but before we get there one player mucks. So now with only one player having cards there is no showdown phase.