Trying to claim pot with one card.

[DrVanNostrin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity. What if he doesn't. I mean lets suppose that another player and I go to the river, he fires off a bet on the river and when i call him, not wanting to show the bluff, he mucks his hand face down. Now I am the only one with a hand, what happens i toss my cards into the muck in a manner which makes them irretrievable? Who gets the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
You do. Some players will bet then muck when called on the river (there's nothing wrong with this, btw). If they do this it's your pot and you don't have to show.

[/ QUOTE ]

The prior poster claimed that Canterbury had a rule " even if the other player has already mucked his hand; the winner still has to fully show down. " your post would seem to be inconsistent with that rule actually existing, unless there is a claim the rule would be enforced some other way (like throwing the player out of the game for mucking his hand).

[/ QUOTE ]
It was the obligation of EP to show, not the obligation of LP. If EP mucks, he loses. Had LP bet and EP called and both of them mucked EP wins, because it would have been LP's obligation to show (the call-muck is an underused line, IMO).

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]

Question for those around longer than I... before online poker, were people so passionate about "I paid to see!"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely. Back in the 80's, this was always a hot topic on a well-known poker-oriented usenet forum that will cause the mods to insta-edit my post if I dare to mention it - for whatever reason. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[amrpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to show both cards at showdown to get the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity. What if he doesn't. I mean lets suppose that another player and I go to the river, he fires off a bet on the river and when i call him, not wanting to show the bluff, he mucks his hand face down. Now I am the only one with a hand, what happens i toss my cards into the muck in a manner which makes them irretrievable? Who gets the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
You do. Some players will bet then muck when called on the river (there's nothing wrong with this, btw). If they do this it's your pot and you don't have to show.

[/ QUOTE ]

The prior poster claimed that Canterbury had a rule " even if the other player has already mucked his hand; the winner still has to fully show down. " your post would seem to be inconsistent with that rule actually existing, unless there is a claim the rule would be enforced some other way (like throwing the player out of the game for mucking his hand).

[/ QUOTE ]
It was the obligation of EP to show, not the obligation of LP. If EP mucks, he loses. Had LP bet and EP called and both of them mucked EP wins, because it would have been LP's obligation to show (the call-muck is an underused line, IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I must be reading two different threads.

[redfisher]

I purchase a couple of decks of cards identical to the local casinos. I begin palming some of these cards in and out of my hand for fun and profit.

In this particular hand I'm dealt Ac2d, but I just happen to have palmed the Qc. I palm it in and palm out the 2d. Then I am unfortunate enough to see the Qc hit the river on a AsKc5c8cQc board.

I palm the Qc out of my hand, or jam it under the rail, or whatever. I've now got a 1 card hand. I try to show it down and win.

As an alternate, I now attempt to just show the Ac and hope that nobody actually makes me show both cards. I may not even be palming cards. I rationalize the fact that I played straight, made the nuts, got X number of players AI, I win. I don't accept that a fouled deck should void my hand.

The rule that you must show both cards and have the correct number of cards are straight out of the era when cheating was rampant in poker. Unlike IWTSTH, these rules actually work to some extent.

I thought this was common knowledge. Maybe I'm just a dirty, cheating angleshooter at heart.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The rule that you must show both cards and have the correct number of cards are straight out of the era when cheating was rampant in poker. Unlike IWTSTH, these rules actually work to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think real origin of this rule is most likely in draw or stud the person they wanted to lose the hand came up short a card so they killed his hand. If someone is short a card it is a very good policy to take the deck off the table.