Irish Poker Boards
Register Arcade FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Go Back   Irish Poker Boards > Poker > Poker Theory, Strategy and Rulings > Rules and Rulings
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-07-16, 09:21   #1
gerk2015
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 101
Showing hand at showdown

I noticed at recent tourney I played where 1 player mucked,the other player HAD to show hand to claim the pot.Is this a requirement now?
gerk2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-16, 09:46   #2
dobby
Member
 
dobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The Infirmary
Posts: 6,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerk2015 View Post
I noticed at recent tourney I played where 1 player mucked,the other player HAD to show hand to claim the pot.Is this a requirement now?
Yes.
dobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-16, 10:51   #3
gerk2015
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobby View Post
Yes.
When did this rule come in?what would happen where both players just muck,who wins the pot?
gerk2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-16, 11:39   #4
Lplate
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerk2015 View Post
I noticed at recent tourney I played where 1 player mucked,the other player HAD to show hand to claim the pot.Is this a requirement now?
Unless there's a house rule stating a difference, the TDA rule is:

B: A non all-inshowdown is uncontested if all but one player mucks face down without tabling. The last player with live cardswins and he is not required to show his cards.
Lplate is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 19-07-16, 14:20   #5
PokerPiper
Member
 
PokerPiper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerk2015 View Post
I noticed at recent tourney I played where 1 player mucked,the other player HAD to show hand to claim the pot.Is this a requirement now?
Well I would assume if they were all-in, all cards would be face-up. For a Non All-in Showdown, if a player clearly mucks his cards he is not contesting the pot and his opponent wins. I don't think he is required to show his cards.
PokerPiper is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 19-07-16, 14:53   #6
Hectorjelly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,292
Dobby is incorrect, you specifically don't have to show:

From TDA 2015

B: A non all-in showdown is uncontested if all but one player mucks face down without tabling. The last
player with live cards wins and he is not required to show his cards.

You might find some places have their own house rule on this situation.
Hectorjelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 19-07-16, 14:57   #7
mugsy
straight arrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 625
for collusion purposes i think they should have to show a winning hand.

easiest rule for all would be at show down both hands must be shown.

should you always have a right to muck? probably. by mucking you give up right to see opponents cards? sounds fair enough. but does it open up possibility of collusion? yes

if collusion wasnt an issue there would be no need for the rule but they are all cheats
mugsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 19-07-16, 17:41   #8
Hectorjelly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,292
Actually the rule does nothing to stop collusion. If two players are colluding then they simply need to have one of them bet, and then there is no showdown.
Hectorjelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 19-07-16, 23:39   #9
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 9,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugsy View Post
for collusion purposes i think they should have to show a winning hand.

easiest rule for all would be at show down both hands must be shown.

should you always have a right to muck? probably. by mucking you give up right to see opponents cards? sounds fair enough. but does it open up possibility of collusion? yes

if collusion wasnt an issue there would be no need for the rule but they are all cheats
How would it prevent collusion? What sort of collusion?
That's the reason that is trotted out for these things, but I don't think I've ever seen it expose collusion. Mostly its wheeled out by somebody at the table who thinks they'll benefit from a look at your cards.
__________________

35 Betfair bonus
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
Old 20-07-16, 01:32   #10
mugsy
straight arrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellor View Post
How would it prevent collusion? What sort of collusion?
That's the reason that is trotted out for these things, but I don't think I've ever seen it expose collusion. Mostly its wheeled out by somebody at the table who thinks they'll benefit from a look at your cards.
It stops collusion because it takes away the option of a muck/ non showdown at river. We get to see the winning hand to claim a pot. Yes 2 players in collusion can bet fold too but it takes away an option and can establish a pattern for somebody paying attention.

Main benefits of collusion is passing chips between 2 players. And driving out players after a pot building exercise. Bet fold repeat? How about check check which is common. Player mucks no showdown. No cards seen. AGAIN. In both these scenarios we see no cards but if had to table a winning hand at least we can see this ( common) check check scenario. And it takes a play from them.

Scenario : 2 players colluding have not been able to shift a player from the pot come the river. They know they are both beat. Not going to be doing anymore betting so. Clean Player is happy to go showdown too. Repeat pattern of mucking? Wait they looked like competent players. Winning hand was only 1 pair this happens regualrly here. ( Flagged)

Collusion is difficult to do thats why it would be a fraud analyst job online to try spot this. Live? What hope has the dealer have or anybody at the table for that matter not much proof obviously. By taking away the muck/no showdown option you give yourself more a chance of spotting this and a proper casino will investigate on the quiet without making wild accusations at the table.

Basically the rule helps form patterns whether or not anybody in casino is paying attention to collusion e.g eye in the sky i doubt it but it does hinder the wily pair. Try spot the collusion next time at your game it can keep you entertained.

Collusion will be more common in a cash game obviously but can be used in tournaments too. To say the rule has no benefit in hindering collusion is incorrect but ask the colluders what rule they would prefer or if it makes no difference
mugsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 20-07-16, 05:59   #11
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 9,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugsy View Post
It stops collusion because it takes away the option of a muck/ non showdown at river.
But the option muck/non showdown at the river isn't collusion. So taking it away, the colluding players just use a different betting action. They still collude.

Quote:
We get to see the winning hand to claim a pot. Yes 2 players in collusion can bet fold too but it takes away an option and can establish a pattern for somebody paying attention.
You only get to see one hand, so you'd don't know that it was the winning hand.
I could muck the nuts on the river, in order to pass chips to my opponent. You've no way on knowing that his hand was the winning hand if he shows it.

Quote:
Main benefits of collusion is passing chips between 2 players. And driving out players after a pot building exercise. Bet fold repeat? How about check check which is common. Player mucks no showdown. No cards seen. AGAIN. In both these scenarios we see no cards but if had to table a winning hand at least we can see this ( common) check check scenario.
But you won't see the colluders hand in the (common) check check scenario due to the rule, because in the 1% of hands when they are colluding, they'll just take the bet fold-option.

Quote:
Scenario : 2 players colluding have not been able to shift a player from the pot come the river. They know they are both beat. Not going to be doing anymore betting so. Clean Player is happy to go showdown too. Repeat pattern of mucking? Wait they looked like competent players. Winning hand was only 1 pair this happens regualrly here.( Flagged)
The rule where you have to show a hand doesn't change this situation. As none of the colluders will ever be last man standing. The clean players wins.
Missed draws, bluffing, there's all sorts of reasons why people shot up with air o nthe river, or muck without showdown, the above rules doesn't prevent that.
Quote:
Basically the rule helps form patterns whether or not anybody in casino is paying attention to collusion
Bet fold on the river is a completely standard line. It probably happens ever 1 in every 4 rivers. There's no way to spot collusion from that.
__________________

35 Betfair bonus
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Reply

  Irish Poker Boards > Poker > Poker Theory, Strategy and Rulings > Rules and Rulings

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 23:18.