Can I see your hand?

[crockett]

Wow! I came to this forum and actually got something out of it.

I would appreciate some clarification on rules.

If I understand this correctly, if a player calls a bet on the river, their opponent can ask to see their hand per the rules?

Can any player on the table (even if they were out of the hand) make this request?

What if you are the bettor (bluffing) and are called and the caller immediately flips over his/her cards. You realize your beat. Can the caller ask to see your cards?

Finally, this comes up in our home games quite often. After all the betting is done, by the rules, who has to show their hand first? We always play that the initial bettor on the river must show first. If the river is checked down then the initial bettor on the previous street must show first, etc. Is this correct.

Finally, if it is considered bad ettiquete to ask to see someones hand but legal, why isn't the rule just changed?

[ohgeetee]

when you call someones bet at the river, the rule is they MUST show. you paid for the right to see those cards. if they muck them you still win, and most people dont really care, but its technically against the rules, and is pretty childish.

if they flip their cards over, and you realize you are beaten, they, or anyone else at the table that was dealt hole cards that hand can ask to see your hand. this is considered bad form, but definitely legal, and the rule isn't changed because it is designed to help sniff out colluders.

some cardrooms stretcht his rule a bit and come up with stuff like 1 time per hour, must declare a reason, etc.

this is basically to counteract what happens when someone asks to see the cards for no reason, which is, every hand that person is in gets asked to show, which slows everything down dramatically.

[West]

You didn't specify the reverse case: when someone calls your bet on the river (meaning you are obligated to show first), you show, and they muck their losing hand.

[The4thFilm]

Doesn't the caller wait until the bettor shows his cards to decide whether to muck or show the winning hand?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Doesn't the caller wait until the bettor shows his cards to decide whether to muck or show the winning hand?

[/ QUOTE ]


sometimes. sometimes not.


the rules are also different in other countries. for example, in austria, nobody has to show anything. say i bet on the river on a pure bluff, and get called. i say, nice hand and throw my bluff into the muck, no show. the other guy doesn't even have to show what he called with, he just takes the pot.

also, in austria you can get away with just showing one card, like if i had an Ace in my hand, and an Ace on the board, and i bet the river and he calls, i can just flip up my ace, and he'll know he's beaten and muck.

things are different everywhere.



generally in the US you have to show both cards to take a pot. also the bettor on the river is the one to has to show first, and if there's no betting on the river, well then we run into a fork in the road..

some places say the guy who was the last aggressor has to show first. in other words the guy who bet first on the turn, or put the last raise in on the turn. other places say the guy who is first to act on the river has to show first, even if he just checked.


and yes, here in the US if someone calls your bet, you show your winning hand, and they go to muck, you or anyone else at the table can request to see their hand. this rule is to prevent collusion and nothing more. i hate people who use it for info, and i definitely will chuck my cards straight into the muck if i have to.

[The4thFilm]

That does seem like a raw deal, thanks for explaining.

[crockett]

generally in the US you have to show both cards to take a pot. also the bettor on the river is the one to has to show first, and if there's no betting on the river, well then we run into a fork in the road..


On last clarification....when you say the "bettor on the river" do mean the very first person who bet? For example if there is a raise, is the raiser now the bettor in your explanation or is the bettor still the bettor in your explanation...follow?

And thanks for the clarification, excellent reply.

[niagarapoker]

[ QUOTE ]

On last clarification....when you say the "bettor on the river" do mean the very first person who bet? For example if there is a raise, is the raiser now the bettor in your explanation or is the bettor still the bettor in your explanation...follow?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is still the original bettor who should be first to show, followed by the next person who either raised or called.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
generally in the US you have to show both cards to take a pot

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't really true. Although this is what the rule says, in practice if your opponent folds or mucks his cards before you act, you can take the pot without showing your cards. For example I have seen people muck their cards based solely on what their opponent announces that they have (even if they are lying or misread their hand) before anyone has turned any cards over. I have seen a lot of angle shooters take advantage of this play and when I see it I will ask the dealer to show down the hand.

[TomCollins]

Wrong. Whoever raised or bet last should show first.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
generally in the US you have to show both cards to take a pot. also the bettor on the river is the one to has to show first, and if there's no betting on the river, well then we run into a fork in the road..


On last clarification....when you say the "bettor on the river" do mean the very first person who bet? For example if there is a raise, is the raiser now the bettor in your explanation or is the bettor still the bettor in your explanation...follow?

And thanks for the clarification, excellent reply.

[/ QUOTE ]




sorry, by "bettor" i meant last aggressor. in other words, if i bet the river, and you raise, and i call.. you have to show first.

[spamuell]

IWTSTH (http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/angelo05.htm)

[Pokrok]

I am a poker dealer in Colorado. Our house rule differs from many places whereas only a player that has called all bets or equalized all action may request to see another players hand at showdown. Show one show all rule is religously enforced. Hope this helps illustrate how rules are implemented differantly from place to place.

[Junkie]

I've always had a problem with the hypocracy incased in this rule. I'm curious as to why using this rule for information is considered to be bad form (other than the fact that it slows the action a little). It seems that if a person can see a bettors hand and get information, that the bettor himself should have the same rights as those that called him. They've all paid to see each others hands in my mind, why then should the caller be immune to exposing his style but the bettor must?

[Cazz]

Its generally considered bad form because if you ask to see my hand, I have to show the whole table-- not just you. This gives the rest of the players free information on how to play against me.

In some sense, having just the bettor show is a way for you and me to give out the minimum amount of information. When the tables are reversed (I bet and you call), I will extend the same courtesy to you.

Since there is a pot to award, SOMEONE has to show first to determine the better hand. The logical person to show is the one that showed the most confidence in his hand by putting in the last bet or raise.

There are also a few practical points to not asking to see hands. You don't want to show up a calling station; let him keep calling. In some places, if you ask and the hand that is shown beats your hand, you will loose the pot.
Also, if someone asks to see my hand twice in a session, I will ask to see his hand on EVERY opportunity I get. In my card house I have to be in the hand at the river, but you can see this will start to give free info on your play to everyone.