I've got nothing. Well then, toss it in the muck.

[usaftrevor]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, she mucked and then you showed? Why the hell would you do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I handed my cards to the dealer face-down. IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object.

[usaftrevor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You left out the option, "if she's so desperate to not actually show her hand, she deserves to lose."

Verdict: IF she refuses to table her hand, it's no longer an angle. She should have seen that coming a freakin' mile away, yet was desperate to not give away her "expert" play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about this a little more and this is completely right. If she has so much as A or K high, she's gotta not instamuck. If I were her, and did not want to show my hand for whatever reason and I had A or K high, I would simply say "I have A high" and if my opponent told me he could beat me, I'd ask to see. If he beats me, I muck.
On the other hand, if he says "that's good, let me see," then I show him and take it down.
It seems pretty simple. I can't imagine someone mucking in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my angle. I think I said something along the lines of "How're you looking?" before she replied with "I've got nothing."

100% of the time if a player says "fug, I've got Ace high." If it's good I'll say "prove it" and when they show I'll muck. But when she said the words "I've got nothing" I did the only thing I could think to do.

[pa3lsvt]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't the case in certain AC casinos (Borgata, Trop). In these cardrooms, last aggressive action shows first. At Taj, they follow the (IMO) superior procedure you've desribed here.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I learned the Trop house rule the hard way. Bet TPTK flop from LP get called from a blind, bet the turn get called, check the river behind when the str8 and the flush both get there. The whole table is staring at me while I wait for the blind to table his hand. The dealer finally pointed at me and said "Showdown sir, you were last aggressive action."

We both chopped with our AQo, but that noob move got me good loose calls from the table until it broke.

IMO the "clockwise from the left of the button" rule is far superior.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can IWTSTH be "rightfully" invoked by a player not in the hand? And how can it be invoked at all unless you are suspected of collusion?

[xxx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IWTSTH was rightfully invoked by a player not in the hand. I didn't object.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can IWTSTH be "rightfully" invoked by a player not in the hand? And how can it be invoked at all unless you are suspected of collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, 2 other players were pushed out of a pot by a 9 high and a nothing - This might just raise a few eyebrows about collusion, right?

[mike l.]

"yes, you shot an angle by trying to win a pot with what you knew was the worst hand.
no, it's not that terrible b/c she obviously was a total n00b and needed to learn her lesson eventually.
maybe, it was your place to teach her that lesson."

your reasoning says "she had it coming!" now where i have i heard that before....

[neuroman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't the case in certain AC casinos (Borgata, Trop). In these cardrooms, last aggressive action shows first. At Taj, they follow the (IMO) superior procedure you've desribed here.

[/ QUOTE ]

(snip)

IMO the "clockwise from the left of the button" rule is far superior.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is clockwise from left "far superior?"

In terms of fairness, it seems that last aggressor is superior. The last aggressor is the one saying "I have the better hand" when he bets. Why shouldn't he show first? Why should bettors from late position continually have the benefit of mucking their hand without giving away information when a caller from early position is forced to show his hand first?

(Photoc, your example of "what happens when no one takes action" and a pot is checked down for 1 big blind apiece is easily dealt with--simply have the last person who voluntarily put money in the pot show first, then proceed clockwise.)

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


Hmmm, 2 other players were pushed out of a pot by a 9 high and a nothing - This might just raise a few eyebrows about collusion, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but as far as the story has been told, she mucked, and a player who wasn't in the pot wants to see his hand, and didn't use the word "collusion". If one of the players who was pushed out of the pot wanted to see both hands, I'd understand. A player not in the hand wanting to just see only the winning hand, is just a nit abusing IWTSTH.

I hate rewarding nits who try to abuse the IWTSTH just to gain information. And I don't mind being a little militant about it.

[Spook]

[ QUOTE ]
\she mucked, and a player who wasn't in the pot wants to see his hand

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you describe someone who wasn't in the hand as a player?

Unless the player is sitting out, they are in the hand and you have self excluding terms.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate rewarding nits who try to abuse the IWTSTH just to gain information. And I don't mind being a little militant about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not like it and I may not like it, but if it's the house rule, then the person "rightfully" made his request TSTH. If IWTSTH annoys you that much, don't play in rooms that allow it.