Showdown of last remaining hand

[JasperToo]

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?

Just to be clear, the scenario is changed so that the other two players STILL HAVE THEIR HANDS??  They have NOT mucked yet??

Well, if we have some crazy guy that is unwilling to turn his cards over or fold them, remember, not an all-in so he can choose to fold to the called bet, then I would expect the dealer to call the Floor over.  As TD I would advise the player of his choices, MAYBE put a full 1 minute clock or just a 10 sec clock on him and then if he still hasn't made his own play, have the dealer KILL the hand and show it.  Then I would penalize the guy for delay of game. (I showed the hand because the guy was being a jerk.  If he had just mucked I would have waited to see if the other players asked to see it.)

So then at that point the first remaining player to the left of the button would be expected to show his cards.

[JasperToo]

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 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.

Yes, this is very true.  I was never disputing the other players right to see the hand if they want to.  Many, Many players, including myself will let the aggressive player muck their cards after they call them down and never WANT to see the hand.  Which is why I think it is not required to show UNLESS THE OTHER PLAYERS ASK.

This part of your post seems a bit tangential to the original scenario, but we agree on this point. And strangely, this last part of your post is exactly on target to the point. 

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.

BUT, that is only if the other two players STILL HAVE THEIR CARDS.  Otherwise, the first player has no requirement to turn over his cards as he would be the last man standing.

[Nick C]

Jasper,

I understand a player betting, getting called and tossing his cards. He was bluffing and when he was called he knew he had no chance to win. The problem I'm having is when a player bets and is called, and the player or players that called muck their hands without seeing the initial bettors hand!!??? That's uncontested by your definition. Unacceptable is a better word.

[JasperToo]

Wow, we are almost on the same page.  I, too, would be very suspicious of two players that called a bet and then just tossed their cards in without seeing the aggressors cards.  I do still say that is an uncontested pot but now we are worrying about chip dumping and I would rather see the cards of the two that mucked.

But in our story, everybody saw the ace that apparently was enough to beat the callers (apparently they didnt believe he had it, thus the call, until he flashed it).  So thats a different scenario, less likely to be collusive, uncontested pot, rule #14 event.

[W0lfster]

So in that sense Jasper, and I see what Nick is saying too, you both dont seem to like the fact that the dealer should be the one to turn the player's cards over if he/she refuses to except when touching the cards to the muck then exposing. Theres a lot of confusion my side because according to the recent TDA sumnmit, I gathered that Matt Savage would be in favour of the dealer showing both cards if a player refused to e.g. an All In situation.

So am I right in saying Nick and Jasper if the player with the ace wont show and one of the 2 callers or both callers say "lets see them!" then the bettor mucked his hand, would the dealer try to make sure they dont touch the muck and have them exposed? The fact he voluntarily mucked I wouldve thought it wouldnt of mattered whether the other 2 callers asked to see except if it was an all in showdown, again I could be wrong.

Supposing the bettors cards were mucked after the 2 callers asked to see them but the cards landed on the burn cards. Do the burn cards also represent the muck?

[JasperToo]

So in that sense Jasper, and I see what Nick is saying too, you both dont seem to like the fact that the dealer should be the one to turn the player's cards over if he/she refuses to except when touching the cards to the muck then exposing.  That is in my opinion a correct assessment   

Theres a lot of confusion my side because according to the recent TDA sumnmit, I gathered that Matt Savage would be in favour of the dealer showing both cards if a player refused to e.g. an All In situation.    I heard the same thing from Matt and I personally believe the dealers can do it BUT ONLY because it is an all-in situation and there is a specific REQUIREMENT to turn the hand face up.  No such requirement exists outside of the all-in such as the current sample situation

So am I right in saying Nick and Jasper if the player with the ace wont show and one of the 2 callers or both callers say "lets see them!" then the bettor mucked his hand, would the dealer try to make sure they dont touch the muck and have them exposed? 
Yes, he should make that effort to protect the muck


The fact he voluntarily mucked I wouldve thought it wouldnt of mattered whether the other 2 callers asked to see except if it was an all in showdown, again I could be wrong.  I maintain that the rules only require he is the FIRST to show if he is going to continue to contend for the pot.  If he decides to muck, there is no TDA rule that says he is FORCED to show but the other players can ASK.  So it does matter whether someone asks to see or not.



Supposing the bettors cards were mucked after the 2 callers asked to see them but the cards landed on the burn cards. Do the burn cards also represent the muck? Meh, don't much matter because the player obviously is folding and the other players asked so they could be tapped to the proper muck and shown.  However, I would fall in the camp that says the burn is the muck.

[Nick C]

Jasper,
Nicely done. The only problem I have is the dealer turning over a players cards...but if I were dealing, and Matt Savage told me to turn the cards, I would.

I just can't help putting myself in the place of a player that is about to be awarded the pot, and the dealer reaches over and turns a players hand over that has mine beat! I don't like it and you'll never see it in a cash game.

[W0lfster]

This raises another question, I apologise for asking so many! Lol but anyway am I right in saying supposing the callers show their hands first and the loser of the two hands asks to see the bettors cards, are those cards tapped to the muck then shown? OR are they just mucked face down if the bettor threw their cards in the middle and then they asked to see the hand?

I ask this because IMO the player made a decision to muck those cards face down and since the players did not ask to see quick enough, the fact the bettor passed the cards in a forward motion should mean a voluntary fold. Would this however not matter? Would the dealer try to stop them entering the muck? Obviously theres nothing they can do if the cards are not 100% identifiable in that case they would be dead.

If the winner caller asks to see the hand before the bettor shows any card/s, would the current rules still state that because the winner asked to see the hand, the hand would be live and shown? (best hand wins) and vice versa if the losing player asks?

I think the real question behind these sentences is: Does it matter if the callers asked to see the bettors hand just AFTER he/she decided to muck it?

[Spence]

I know that this is not an all-in situation because we should all be in agreement that the hand would be opened but if it were and the player mucked his other card would it be as simple as a penalty? If that is the case then why is it not so simple when it happens without the player being all-in. If we are really unsure about the fact of collusion, or perhaps we are sure but we couldn't retrieve the acrd then wouldn't it make sense to penalize the player an amount equal to the pot? I would think that may prevent a player from trying it again. These answers being pertinent IF the player HAD to expose his other card, which I don't think we've agreed on yet.

[Luca P.]

I must admit that I still enforce player to show both to win the hand in that contested showdown... I wrote our house rules including this rule mainly because of the best interest of the game and to prevent from collusions and fouled stub problems.
But now I agree to the fact it is not required in TDA rules

[Stuart Murray]

Hi folks,

I am with Jasper on this one, there seems to be some confusion as to whether this is a contested or uncontested showdown, IMO this is an uncontested showdown, for me and my interpretation of the TDA rule, the clue is in the wording, contested/uncontested SHOWDOWN, if you were to believe that a showdown required the last live hand to show their complete starting hand then there would be no such thing as an uncontested showdown, yes it is a showdown, but all other players have mucked their hands, therefore not contesting the pot, in that situation the last live hand wins, a showdown only becomes contested when, for example one of those players who mucked at showdown table their hand.  In that situation the high hand wins and the player with the ace would have to table his full hand. the player who bet and tabled an ace has not opened his hand yet, and is looking to win the pot by default, by having the last live hand at the table, not the high hand.

Regards
Stuart

[JasperToo]

I must admit that I still enforce player to show both to win the hand in that contested showdown... I wrote our house rules including this rule mainly because of the best interest of the game and to prevent from collusions and fouled stub problems.
But now I agree to the fact it is not required in TDA rules

You are not alone in having a house rule that demands the hand shown.  It's just not a TDA thing.  And while I get that it is in the best interest of the game that the best hand wins, I am one of the gang that thinks NOT showing if it is not REQUIRED is a very important part of the gamesmanship and almost as important as the best hand winning. 

The collusion thing is something that we shouldn't really have worry about that much as I suspect it is rare and also would be easy to spot if it is happening more than once.  Soft play is more likely.

I would like to hear your thoughts on why demanding to show the winning hand in all situations is so important in tournament play?

[JasperToo]

I think the real question behind these sentences is: Does it matter if the callers asked to see the bettors hand just AFTER he/she decided to muck it?

I think you understand it actually. 

The dealer should be protecting the muck all the time, so that when a player FOLDS the dealer MUCKS the cards.  This gives us the opportunity to see the hand if we need to or prevents a player from mucking a hand when he shouldn't.  The calling player should say, I want to see those cards as the player is folding. But remember, those cards would now be LIVE (because the "winning" player wants to see them).

[Luca P.]

I would like to hear your thoughts on why demanding to show the winning hand in all situations is so important in tournament play?

Wait wait wait, I force a player to show both cards ONLY when ALL-IN or when I consider the pot CONTESTED.
I do this to prevent both fouled stub problems and to avoid stalling of the game (player shows only one card, the other one asks to see the other and so on... just a waste of time) so I trained my dealers to say "please can you turn both your cards?"

[JasperToo]

Wait wait wait, I force a player to show both cards ONLY when ALL-IN or when I consider the pot CONTESTED.
I do this to prevent both fouled stub problems and to avoid stalling of the game (player shows only one card, the other one asks to see the other and so on... just a waste of time) so I trained my dealers to say "please can you turn both your cards?"

Oh, OK.  I thought you were saying that it was a "winner has to show all the time" rule.  I gotcha now. 

So, would your house rule make it so that the bettor in this story would HAVE to show the second card even if the other two mucked as soon as he flipped the Ace?