Showdown of last remaining hand

[W0lfster]

Hi there, just thought Id drop by and raise a question on the final showdown of cards after the river. NL holdem, 5 players lets say are in a hand on the river and one of the players bet, 2 players fold and 2 players call. It is now time to show the hands... the player who bet shows one card an ace which causes the 2 players who called to muck their hands and not show. My question is, would the player who showed the ace be penalised for not showing both cards? I ask this because the showdown has been paid to be seen, the fact the other players have folded/mucked is irrelevant to me or am I missing the point? Would that player win the pot even though everyone has folded/mucked? Could the pot just sit there and be carried forward to the next round??? Well I guess Id doubt that one but just want to hear everyones views.

Also the showdown order of hands says that standard practice is to show from the last aggressive bettor on the river or for the SB to show first if no one had bet. Is there anywhere / casinos where you have to follow this rule? From what Ive gathered I havent been penalised for showing first when I wasnt the last bettor on the river, but if this is the case then what would be the point in having this so called standard-practice rule in the first place?

Thx

[JasperToo]

If the other two players decide to muck when they see the winning card then the betting player will be the player with the last live hand and therefore win the pot by default.  Showing both cards (in that case only) is not necessary.  At least not as far as TDA is concerned.  (some houses require showing both winning cards in an uncontested pot - silly).  So also, no penalty for showing just one because remember the action is complete.  While the showdown has been paid for, the buyers have seen all they need to see, the Ace.  But they could force the player to show both BEFORE they muck if they want to see both. Once they muck they lose that right to ask to see the hand.  Yes the player wins the pot BECAUSE everyone folded/mucked, the action is complete and there is no requirement to show both at that point.  There is a winner every hand, no carryover's.

The showdown order is in place so that the player who was called knows that they have to show first.  As you said, bought and paid for.  If there is no river action then the showdown order is about speeding up the game.  You are correct though, it is not wrong to show your hand sooner in that case, if you think you have the winning hand.  However, if you are wanting to see another players hand (say you are last to act and you want to see the SB's hand for some reason) then you can wait until he mucks (which he can do) or shows BEFORE you show your hand or muck.  This order is supposed to help keep from players simply talking about their hand and waiting for the other player to muck.  doesn't always prevent it but it helps.

[Luca P.]

JasperToo you have definitively misunderstood the dynamic of the example by W0lfster.
This is a contested showdown, since action is completed by the two callers: it's time to see who has the best hand (RULE 10: Delcarations)
In this case we have to force RULE 13: Uncontested showdown so the players in order to win the pot must show both cards.

[Nick C]

Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.

[W0lfster]

So Jasper, if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to? Does he relinquish all claim to the pot and it is won by either of the two callers? Or wll the player with the ace win the pot but concede a penalty?

I still get confused with the current rules in whether a hand is live or dead depending on who asks to see a hand during showdown.

[Luca P.]

Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.

Nick I'm 100% sure jasper misunderstood the dynamic of the hand

About what you said

"if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to?"

I'll check if the dealer does his job: turn the other card face up.
If the player volountarily throws the other card in the muck the way it can't be clearly found, he will surely get a penality for doing that.

[JasperToo]

I'll go through it again and see if I misunderstood the dynamics of the hand.  This is the set up that Wolfster proposed:

final showdown of cards after the river. NL holdem, 5 players lets say are in a hand on the river and one of the players bet, 2 players fold and 2 players call. It is now time to show the hands... the player who bet shows one card an ace which causes the 2 players who called to muck their hands and not show.

We have three players left on the river that are eligible for the showdown.  The last aggressor and two callers.  Am I right so far?

No one is all in so rule 11 does NOT apply.  So rule 12 applies: Showdown order.  This means that our last aggressor must be the first to show his hand.  There is no rule that says he has to turn over both cards at the same time, just one that says if the pot is CONTESTED he has to show both to win the pot.  So again, the player turns over his first card, the Ace, and suddenly the other two players MUCK their hands (realizing they are beaten). 

While it is true that the pot was being contested by the two players because they called, they have subsequently given up the contest by mucking when they see the Ace.  The betting player is NOW THE LAST MAN STANDING WITH A LIVE HAND.  It does not matter any longer that he showed one or both, because according to rule #14 "when all opponents cards have been mucked without being revealed, the last live hand wins."  That's our boy, the other two have mucked.  they don't have a hand that can contest the pot at this point.  our boy wins.  And there is no rule (not even 13 because there is no one left contesting the pot) that says the last live hand has to show to win the hand. (except in some houses but we are talking TDA here).

JasperToo you have definitively misunderstood the dynamic of the example by W0lfster.
This is a contested showdown, since action is completed by the two callers: it's time to see who has the best hand (RULE 10: Delcarations)
In this case we have to force RULE 13: Uncontested showdown so the players in order to win the pot must show both cards.

Linker, double check your post here.  Rule 10 doesn't apply unless you are just saying that it is showtime.  But that rule just means you can't simply SAY what your hand is if you expect to win the pot.  The cards, eventually, have to do the talking.

And, Rule 13 is not the "Uncontested pot" rule it is the "Contested pot" rule which.  I think you just titled it wrong in your post but you tell. me.  Also, if you would, tell me where my reasoning is gone wrong.  If our boy is the last one with a live hand, does rule 14 not apply now?

Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.

Insisting on the player showing his complete hand while the other two are still holding their cards is fine.  Especially if the other players are waiting on him to show before they show theirs. but once they muck you just have to go "oh, well, never mind, they gave up".  Last live hand wins and the players that mucked give up the right to see the players hand - rule 14.

If the other player showed the ace but mucked the other card he no longer has a live hand and therefore cannot win the hand BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION AT ALL!!

So Jasper, if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to? Does he relinquish all claim to the pot and it is won by either of the two callers? Or wll the player with the ace win the pot but concede a penalty?

I still get confused with the current rules in whether a hand is live or dead depending on who asks to see a hand during showdown.

This is why the showdown order rule is there so that everyone knows he has to show his complete hand or muck (he is perfectly within his rights to muck the hand if the other two call and he knows he is beat).  He does relinquish all claim to the pot if he refuses to show both cards, eventually he will show or muck.  You should not give him the pot IF THE OTHER TWO STILL have their hands and he refuses to show.  either show or muck.  still no penalties except holding up the game maybe if he is a repeat offender.

But that is an entirely different situation, while the other two have live hands he has to show.  But your original story has them tossing in their cards as soon as he flips the Ace.  So now he is the last live hand and the winner.  Under TDA rule 14 he does not have to show.

Did I really misunderstand the dynamics of the hand?

[Nick C]

Jasper,
We are spending a lot of time trying to sort out contested and uncontested. To me, uncontested is when a player bets and gets no callers. When a player acts e.g., bets and is called, or bets and is raised or the last betting round is checked, that is a contested hand.
The problem with all of these new rules is; changing the old rules! There is a specific order of showdown after all the betting is done. If a player wants to show his hand because another player stalls, that's okay. That does not change the proper order, if the calling player waits for the aggresive player to show first. That is why any player in the hand (or in for that hand) has a right to see a called hand.

[DCJ001]

As soon as the two players folded, and there is only one player with hole cards, the hand is no longer contested.

[Nick C]

DCJ001,
Was a bet made, that was not called, before the players folded? That is what an uncontested hand should be. Your answer is too vague, just like so many poker rules.
If a player calls a bet, they have a right to see that hand, and the bettor should show all of his hole cards to win the pot. If that player exposes one card, and the other players fold, that does not take away the right of the others to see that hand. If I were dealing, I would tell the player to show both cards, if he refuses, I would call the floor.

If a bet is made, and noone calls, it's uncontested.
If a bet is made, and any other player calls, those hands should be exposed if requested.

[Luca P.]

If we go to the meaning of the two terms "contested" and "Uncontested":
CONTESTED: A struggle for superiority or victory between rivals
UNCONTESTED: not disputed and not made the object of contention or competition

So, if player A bets and is not called, that means that player B and C doesn't want to CONTEST for the pot, surrendering to the bet.
If player A bets and B and C calls, it means that the WANT TO CONTEST for the pot, since they didn't fold.

That's the situation we must analyze, not what happened AFTER player B and C call to be eligible to win the hand.

[JasperToo]

Sure, Linker, the pot was contested by the call.  And the betting player is to be the first to show his cards.  But the conders threw in the towel as soon as the first card was shown.

They gave up, they quit.  You are arguing that because of the call it is a contended pot no matter what happens, but rule 14 suggests that it is not JUST the call but having a live hand as well that makes you a contender.  A calling player cant win the pot if they dont have cards anymore so it does not matter if the betting player showed both cards. (lets be clear that we are just interpreting TDA rules.  I think there is some confusion because some houses demand the winning hand be shown no matter what.  Not a TDA requirement)

If the calling players want to see the bettors cards they just need to wait to muck their cards until the bettor shows both.  No requirement for the caller to show if he decides to muck.

[JasperToo]

If that player exposes one card, and the other players fold, that does not take away the right of the others to see that hand. I


If a bet is made, and any other player calls, those hands should be exposed if requested.

TDA Rule #14 takes the right of the other players that called and the mucked away from them...Rather specifically and loudly.

But when you say those hands should be exposed if requested it is only true if someine else at the table requests to see them.But not the two that mucked....

[W0lfster]

Linker, thats exactly what I was going to ask, would the croupier then have to turn the cards themselves?

Also Jasper, if the player then cannot win because the player refuses to show hands and the croupier is not allowed to expose the cards for the player, does that mean the hand is dead and the pot will battle out between the 2 callers?

[Nick C]

Jasper,
The purpose of the right to see a called hand is to dispel any thoughts of collusion. It's that simple. At the showdown, when a player bets, you (or another player) have to pay (call) to see that hand. If no one calls, the bettor can muck or show one or both cards as long as all players get to see the hand.

I would be very suspicious of players that bet and raise each other, only to concede by tossing their cards away before they are tabled.

Some old rules should not be tampered with. I've heard rules where only the players in the hand can see the called hand...how do you accomplish that, ask the other players to close their eyes when the hand is shown? Or maybe they pass the cards to only the active players.

If I'm in a hand, and I call the last bet, I will see the hand of the player that initiated that bet.

If I'm in a hand, or at the table and two players raise and re-raise until I fold...I will see both of their hands.

Wolfster,
Do you really think an idiot player should have a right to the pot, if he refuses to turn over his cards? You answered the question...the hand should be touched to the muck and killed. If others want to see the hand it can be shown after the pot has been awarded.

Any player that refuses to show their called hand should draw a penalty.