Two situations involving showdown -- What's the right ruling?

[KaponoFor3]

Hey everyone, had a situation similar to the one I am going to describe below happen at a 1-3 spread NL table I was on this weekend. Curious as to what the correct rulings are.

SB and BB ends up going all the way down to the river as the only two players. After the river, SB pushes all-in and BB calls.

Situation 1: SB says out loud "two pair" and BB tosses cards into the muck. A player not involved in the hand asks dealer to require SB to turn his cards over, SB refuses. What is the correct ruling?

Situation 2: Same as above, SB says out loud "two pair" and BB mucks. However, this time, SB turns over his cards after BB mucks and shows only ace-high (miscalled his hand intentionally). What occurs? Who takes the pot?

[fraserbrown]

B&M casinos will require a player to show the wining hand. In situation 1 dealer will probably auto matically flip the cards. Situation 2, player 1 will win the pot, player 2 gets a KITN for being an angle shooting douche

[PantsOnFire]

I'll go with Robert's Rules since local variations may occur.

Situation 1: Any player who dealt into a hand, even if he folded earlier, can ask to see a hand that was eligible for showdown. At the river, a push all-in and a call means both of those hands are eligible for showdown and any player can ask to see either hand.

However, this rule is somewhat controversial since there is really no reason for that player to see a hand that is the last one standing and automatically wins the pot. If I was SB I might just ask the floor to come over and make a ruling on someone asking to see my hand (in reality, I probably just flip them over). I would expect floor to ask the player why he wantsto see that hand. If he has no reason other than he just wants to see what cards SB has, then floor may very well rule against. If the player has a good reason like SB has been known to intentionally miscall his hand, then floor might force SB to show.

Situation 2: If BB's hand can be retrieved from the muck and postively identified, then it should and the best hand will take the pot. If BB's hand is buried in the muck and beyond recognition, the SB will usually win the pot and get a warning. If SB has done this before (miscalling his hand on the river), then floor could rule that SB will forfeit the pot to BB regardless of who had the best hand or that BB now has no cards. SB could get removed from the casino at that point as well.

If a player at the table has consistently gone to showdown and stated his hand causing the other player(s) (who may be inexperienced) to muck and the muck himself, it is not unreasonable to start asking to see his hand. And if he miscalls his hand once when doing this, then I would ask to see his hand every time from then on.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


Situation 1: Any player who dealt into a hand, even if he folded earlier, can ask to see a hand that was eligible for showdown. At the river, a push all-in and a call means both of those hands are eligible for showdown and any player can ask to see either hand.

However, this rule is somewhat controversial since there is really no reason for that player to see a hand that is the last one standing and automatically wins the pot. If I was SB I might just ask the floor to come over and make a ruling on someone asking to see my hand (in reality, I probably just flip them over). I would expect floor to ask the player why he wantsto see that hand. If he has no reason other than he just wants to see what cards SB has, then floor may very well rule against. If the player has a good reason like SB has been known to intentionally miscall his hand, then floor might force SB to show.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with IWTSTH. Nothing.

If I am the floor, the SB shows his hand or loses the pot. Period. I don't care who asked to see the hand or why.
The SB made a statement about his hand that caused the other player to (not too brightly) muck at the showdown. Now show the hand or give up the pot. If the hand was miscalled, we are in Situation 2.

[ReptileHouse]

Strictly speaking, SB must table his hand to win the pot; from Robert's Rules (Chapter 3): [ QUOTE ]
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding miscalling his hand, again from Robert's:

[ QUOTE ]
Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if the hand shown is not the hand declared, then the floor has a judgement call to make about who gets the pot. If there's doubt about intent, and BB's cards are easilly identifiable and retrievable, tabling them and "cards speak" is not an unreasonable ruling. Intentional or not, SB gets a KITN. BB gets a lighter, but still substantial KITN for being foolish..

Now, this is all assuming the room uses Robert's rules or something similar. If not, then all bets are off and YMMV.

[iversonian]

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos will require a player to show the wining hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. In fact, I've never seen that happen, whereas I've seen many showdowns where no cards were actually shown down.

[ QUOTE ]
In situation 1 dealer will probably auto matically flip the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll never do it without prompting. In fact, it's strictly prohibited.

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with IWTSTH. Nothing.

If I am the floor, the SB shows his hand or loses the pot. Period. I don't care who asked to see the hand or why.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's on the BB to ask to see the hand (as is his right even without the rule by simple showdown procedure) if he's concerned about angle shooting. The rule exists for other players to protect them from collusion and that reason alone.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with IWTSTH. Nothing.

If I am the floor, the SB shows his hand or loses the pot. Period. I don't care who asked to see the hand or why.
The SB made a statement about his hand that caused the other player to (not too brightly) muck at the showdown. Now show the hand or give up the pot. If the hand was miscalled, we are in Situation 2.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am going to disagree. This showdown is between SB and BB. They both have cards and they are facedown. SB calls a hand and BB believes him and mucks and gives up the pot. I don't see how it is anybody's else's business at this point other than invoking that stupid rule IWTSTH.

You say SB has to table his hand period. Well he is the last player with a legitimate hand, everybody else has mucked or folded or gone to can. Why do we need to see his cards?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

You say SB has to table his hand period. Well he is the last player with a legitimate hand, everybody else has mucked or folded or gone to can. Why do we need to see his cards?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe to protect the other players from angle shooters?

I know I am a proponent of "protect yourself at all times", but I think the House should do some things to make the game unfriendly to angle shooters.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You say SB has to table his hand period. Well he is the last player with a legitimate hand, everybody else has mucked or folded or gone to can. Why do we need to see his cards?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe to protect the other players from angle shooters?

I know I am a proponent of "protect yourself at all times", but I think the House should do some things to make the game unfriendly to angle shooters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree with this. And really this is what the IWTSTH rule is for; to protect the game against angle shooters, collusion, chip dumping in tourneys and other forms of cheating or monkey business. So I ask you, what other rule would force SB to show his hand other than IWTSTH?

Because in OP's case, what you doing is essentially saying to SB: "We don't really believe you have two pair and we think you may be angle-shooting so please reveal your cards to the whole table. And if we find you did make a mistake, even if it may be innocent and your first time, we may take the pot away and award it to BB."

This is the only reason I can see to force SB to show his cards when he is the only person in the pot with a legal hand. I'm fairly certain this would rub a lot of players the wrong way and perhaps poison the atmosphere of a game.

There's no problem telling BB afterwards that he should ask next time to see opponent's cards before mucking.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has nothing to do with IWTSTH. Nothing.

If I am the floor, the SB shows his hand or loses the pot. Period. I don't care who asked to see the hand or why.
The SB made a statement about his hand that caused the other player to (not too brightly) muck at the showdown. Now show the hand or give up the pot. If the hand was miscalled, we are in Situation 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am going to disagree. This showdown is between SB and BB. They both have cards and they are facedown. SB calls a hand and BB believes him and mucks and gives up the pot. I don't see how it is anybody's else's business at this point other than invoking that stupid rule IWTSTH.

You say SB has to table his hand period. Well he is the last player with a legitimate hand, everybody else has mucked or folded or gone to can. Why do we need to see his cards?


[/ QUOTE ]

In Indiana, you have to show both hole cards at the showdown to be awarded the pot. I wouldn't play in a card room that allowed your scenario. There are way too many opportunities for angle shooters if they know they won't have to show a winning hand.