Called river bet, showing cards dispute

[leo doc]

Playing at the Beau in Biloxi last Friday morning, LHE ring game. No one is "new" to live play. About 10 minutes before the following incident, I had called what turned out to be a bluff-raise on the river by the most aggressive player at the table. Dealer said, "OK boys, let's see 'em." The aggro player just looks at me (in what I felt was an obvious slowroll attempt). I said, "I called your bet. Let's see the cards." He silently turned over a missed nut flush draw.

Hand in question (I'm not in this one): Aggro player is HU with another experienced player on turn and river. He has bet and been called on both streets. Dealer says, "Somebody show me a winner." Aggro guy says, "I got nothin'" and threw his cards immediately in the muck. Caller, who had still not exposed his hand, and two other players told the dealer that they wanted to see his cards. His cards were touching the muck but easily identifed, and reaches for the guy's cards. Aggro guy goes ballistic and tells the dealer that his cards are dead since they've touched the muck. Whole table now chimes in and told the player he was called and that he must expose the cards, especially if asked. Floor is called, dealer explains what happened and tells floor that the bettor's cards are easily identified at the side of the muck. Floor says "turn 'em over" and walks off. Dealer does just that, much to everyone's satisfaction except the aggro dude who won't stop complaining that his cards are "irretrievably and forever dead once they hit the muck."

Is there any basis for his complaint?

[jeffnc]

Yes and no. Floor people still don't know how to play this, which is sad. When aggro mucks his cards they're mucked (not irretrievably, that's strictly a practical matter, not a technical one.) That means he gives up the pot and doesn't have to show his cards. You never have to show your cards if you don't want to. You can muck. You only have to show your cards if you make a claim to the pot, unless everyone else mucks, in which case they forfeit the pot to the only live hand left, which is you, and you don't need to show your cards to claim the pot if you're the only live hand left.

The only exception to this (and it is an exception) is the "show all hands" rule which can be invoked if you suspect cheating or collusion. But invoking, you are saying you suspect a player of cheating or collusion, and this is how the floor should enforce the rule. The floor should have said "Do you suspect this man of cheating?" When you answer no, then the floor says "His hand is mucked, you receive the pot, next hand."

But, floor people are either
1) clueless
2) want to make extra sure there is no image of possible cheating, so are very willing to expose cards even if most players don't get the rule (they err on the side of exposing cards to keep everything on the up and up.)

[Gonso]

I can't agree with all of that. There are a lot of cardrooms where aggro player would be required to show this hand down if requested by another player, it's common out here in AC. I can't speak to Vegas or elsewhere.

Cards being killed when the come into contact with the muck isn't automatic in a lot of houses, either.

The IWTSTH rule seriously needs to die, or at least become heavily restricted.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The IWTSTH rule seriously needs to die, or at least become heavily restricted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best way to fight against this on an individual level is through civil disobediance

[SNOWBALL]

The floor's main job should be to keep games going. Making action players feel uncomfortable may drive them to play less, or to play at another card room.

IMO, IWTSTH is very bad for poker. It slows the game down. It undermines the purpose of the game, because poker is a game of deception. It may cause a fish to feel uncomfortable if he makes a terrible call or a terrible bluff. And on top of that, it serves no compelling purpose. IWTSTH absolutely cannot prevent collusion.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
The IWTSTH rule seriously needs to die, or at least become heavily restricted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But that doesn't apply here. The caller asked to see the bettor's hand at showdown. He paid for the privilege of seeing it--not like IWTSTH invokers who were just dealt in.

[SNOWBALL]

Bulldog,

I disagree. There's no need for anyone to show their hand when the bluffer mucked. In effect, there is no showdown. The caller could have two blank cards, and he would still win. It's not like the bluffer refused to muck and demanded that the caller showdown first.

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
He paid for the privilege of seeing it

[/ QUOTE ]

No he didn't, he paid to win the pot.

Keep up these crazy nitty arguments, folks. That'll get us to electronic tables sooner.

I agree that IWTSTH is ridiculous in modern poker. However, I disagree with the aggro guy that his hand is dead. Since the winner asked to see it, if it turns out bluffer was ahead, he wins. However, I disagree that a dead hand can't be shown. That's just a silly argument to make.