Showing At Showdown

[EasilyFound]

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?

[pfapfap]

You're saying one person has live cards.

If you don't award him the pot, who gets it?

What if everyone folds on the turn to a bet? Does the bettor need to show?

Since it was at showdown, you could invoke IWTSTH, but that's a huge douche move.

To be clear, no, the person does not need to show. However, be warned that some cardrooms do strongly encourage you to show, and we have yet to get a definitive answer on what happens if the player refuses.

[EasilyFound]

The question is not about to whom to award the pot, but whether the person still in must show his or her hole cards for the dealer to award that person the pot. For instance, if the player shows his cards, but the mucker realizes he had a better hand, and the mucker's cards are easily identified in the muck and can be retrieved, do you award the pot to the mucker, who is the true winner?

Many people allow the player still in the hand to collect the pot without showing his or her hole cards, although there is a RROP that says "To win any part of a 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." See RROP, The Showdown, Rule 1, Version 7.

But look at another rule, which says that "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked." RROP, The Showdown, Rule 5. If this rule is meant to apply to a two-person showdown in which one player surrenders the pot by mucking, it seems that the other player does not have to show his or her hand to be awarded the pot, otherwise there would be no need for anyone to ever "request" to see the hand.

I understand that the latter rule is designed to prevent collusion and should not be abused, so I don't want to get into a debate about when such a request can be made and the rule enforced. I refer to it solely because the rule seems to acknowledge that a player is not required to show his or her cards to be awarded the pot if the other player or players surrender and muck.

At least that is how I interpret the rules. Maybe others have a different interpretation.

Personally, I think the better rule is that a player need not show his or her cards if the other player or players surrender the pot and muck their hands. The only exception would be if one player is making the request because that player has reason to suspect collusion.

[TrvChBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think the better rule is that a player need not show his or her cards if the other player or players surrender the pot and muck their hands. The only exception would be if one player is making the request because that player has reason to suspect collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and that is the clearly posted house rule at my home game.

[Small Fry]

I think it might come down to how you want to define showdown, as this is when showing your cards is required. If you think a showdown occurs immediately once either A) a player bets and is called, or B)the river gets checked down then at least one player must show cards to claim the pot, no matter what the other player(s)do. If you think a showdown is when more than one player has cards to contend for the pot at the conclusion of the hand then if only one player has cards (due to other player conceding and mucking)then he woulddn't need to show.

One real good reason to require players to show is in case of a fouled hand. What if a player never looked at his hand and he had a joker or the deck was bad and he had two of the same card. Sure the possibility is slim. Or maybe he did look and thinks if he can win he's good but if he loses he'll claim misdeal, so he's freerolling the hand.

Personally, I require players to show. And they need to show both cards. Also, once a player has conceded his hand is mucked and it is dead.

[pfapfap]

I really don't like the "make sure it's not a fouled hand" argument. For any hand that doesn't go to showdown, do you require the winner to show the hand to protect against a fouled hand?

So, SF, if you're at showdown and everybody mucks except for one person, and that person refuses to show, what happens?

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't like the "make sure it's not a fouled hand" argument. For any hand that doesn't go to showdown, do you require the winner to show the hand to protect against a fouled hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Good point. An obvious flaw in this argument. This is why you shouldn't watch 3-4 football games, referee the kids playing playstation and try to answer peoples questions....lol

[ QUOTE ]
So, SF, if you're at showdown and everybody mucks except for one person, and that person refuses to show, what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how somebody can refuse. They have to release the cards and when they do they simply get turned face up. Should they stuff them into the muck then there are certain penalties, if tourney, that could be applied and possible expulsion, if cash game.

But this makes me think of this question from another point of view. What if a player, or players, are playing the board? Do you require player(s) to show? I believe the rules say player(s) must still show their cards even if they elect to play the board? Why would they need to show?

Also, I believe I've seen an episode of HSP where this instance of a player conceding occurred and the other player was required to show to claim the pot.

[pfapfap]

Woo, finally someone able to take the house side in this eternal question! Okay, let's go... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

So, there's a penalty if the person turbo-mucks after having the only remaining hand. If everybody folds to me on the turn and I turbo-muck before getting shipped the pot (something I'd never do, but run with me), do I get a penalty? No? Okay, so, at showdown, I get a penalty? Then who gets the pot? I do? Okay, then, if the rules state I get the pot with the last live hand, why the penalty? What have I violated?

I know some casinos force you, I just think that's goofy. What are you doing other than satisfying curiosity, effectively forcing IWTSTH for the same silly reason everybody invokes it?

As to playing the board... we had this come up last week, someone mucked while saying, "I'm playing the board." I remember reading in some rulebook somewhere that this was valid, and I certainly considered it such.

[Small Fry]

The difference is "showdown". There can only be a showdown on the river. So see my previous post about what you might consider the point of showdown. I tend to agree with the former definition while you would appear to agree with the latter.

And even on the river if a player bets and all other players fold there is no showdown and no requirement to show.

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.

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

Can I assume we can agree to disagree on this one....lol

edit: you would get a penalty for turbo mucking at showdown and the reason would be for viloation of the above rule

[Lottery Larry]

[ 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 ]

Kill the idiot's cards, the other player can win without showing. IWTSTH doesn't apply, either- don't let someone do it.

However, if there is ANY small percentage that something illegal might be going on, I might be more of a hardass on the winning showing his cards.