Mucking and showing hands

[CraigJ]

Player 1 bets on the river. Player 2 calls. Player 2 shows his hand first and player 1 mucks his hand declaring player 2 the winner. Player 2 says he wants to see player 1's cards. Player 2 argues he paid to see the cards. Player 1 argues as long as he declares player 2 the winner he doesn't have to show his cards. Who is correct? Is there any set rule for this or does it depend on individual table rules?

[metsandfinsfan]

at a casino, all called hands can ask to be shown -- player 1 would have to show

[thrasher789]

Every casino or just most? It seems like that could be a rule that varies from place to place. I know that in most homegames if you make it to the river everyone will want you to show.

[SellingtheDrama]

Casino rules are generally that a hand must be shown to win a pot, losing hands may be asked to be seen in the event collusion is suspected.

It is generally permissable to ask to see a hand, however it is considered extremely rude.

[Mazzinger]

Player 2 paid to see the cards. He should be able to see the cards.

[SellingtheDrama]

[ QUOTE ]
Player 2 paid to see the cards. He should be able to see the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he didn't. He paid to try and win the pot, which he did.

It is NOT worth making a scene over this (I'm a B&M player exclusively) - all you're going to do is piss off the entire table and it is not worth the minimal information gained.

[Small Fry]

If player 2 wanted to see player 1's cards he shouldn't have shown first. Rules require player 1 to show first. While it is good for the game to turn over your hand as quickly as possible, if you feel you have the winner, and to avoid slow rolling, player 1 still was required to show first and player 2 could have waited.

Asking to see another players cards is extremely rude although it too is within the rules. Typically the rule states any player dealt into a hand has the right to request to see a players hand. The rule also states that if the winner of the hand requests to see the hand, the hand is still live. So, in your example if player 1 misread his hand and player 2 requests to see it, it is still live when turned over and can be declared the winner. So be careful what you ask for.

[Foghatlive]

What difference does it make who shows first? It still doesn't change the fact p2 paid to see p1's cards.

If anyone is guilty of bad form, it's p1.

[GinaSD]

At oceans, it goes like this...

The two people at showdown: One Bet, One called.

The one who bet shows cards first. The one who calls has option to fold. If the BETTER asks to see cards, the callers cards are kept live and shown. If the callers cards make the best hand, they win.

If a PLAYER uninvolved in showdown (rude azz) asks to see callers cards, then the callers cards are killed (touch the muck) and exposed. Then if callers cards would have won, they are dead- and bettor takes the pot.

If I am either bettor or caller in a showdown and someone asks to see my mucked hand, I am cordial and show- however I make a mental note to later try to tilt that player. (through making them show, slow play, whatever) because- yah- it's considered very rude if collusion isn't suspected.

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make who shows first? It still doesn't change the fact p2 paid to see p1's cards.

If anyone is guilty of bad form, it's p1.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol...first of all you don't pay, you bet. And you don't bet to see players cards. You bet to win money, either with the best hand or by getting your opponent to fold.

And it makes a difference because if P2 had allowed the rules to take effect P1 would have been required to show first, therefore P2 gets to see P1's hand, rather than looking like an ass and demanding to see it after the fact