Player knows it all & causes a big scene

[juanez]

This was a good of example of a player "knowing" the rules and insisting they be followed to the absolute end.

There's this woman who is a fairly regular player - I'll call her "The Lady". She's usually OK, but kind of condescending to most folks. She isn't well liked to put it nicely.

This particular hand (a hand that The Lady wasn't even involved with - she folded preflop) Player A bets the river and Player B calls the bet. Player A shows his hand. Player B sees Player A's cards, grunts and then places his cards face down on the felt, thus conceding defeat. Player A then asks the dealer (me) to see Player B's cards.

Well, The Lady says "He [Player A] can't see those cards - he [Player B] mucked them". Player A says "He called my bet, so I can see them." I tell The Lady "He's right, he has the right to see his cards" and Player B turns his cards over without any protest. No big whoop, no huge surprises were revealed.

The Lady freaks and yells for the floor. The floor person agrees with me that he has the right to see the other player’s cards. The Lady is disgusted and says something like "You don't know what you’re talking about..." or whatever.

I deal the next hand. Situation over, right? Wrong.

The Lady leaves the poker room and tells the MOD that she wants to speak with the CO Div. of Gaming.

Gaming shows up. The situation is explained, Colorado Gaming Regulations are reviewed as well as Roberts Rules. We discuss for a few minutes. Well, they discussed really - I was just there for the most part, agreeing with my floor person.

Gaming agrees with The Lady!!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif We're all shocked. The Lady again says something to the effect of "You don't know what you're doing here..." and struts off.

Here's what CO Gaming Regulations - Rules for Poker (aka Rule 10) says regarding the showdown:
"Any player who has called all bets in a hand may request to see, face up, any other hand that has called all bets." and
"A player may choose to discard a hand without showing it unless another player who called all bets has requested to see the hand."

The "called all bets" is what made the difference to Gaming. The Gaming goon's rationale for agreeing with the Lady was that Player A was the "Bettor". Player B was "Caller". So Player B called Player A's bet and therefore has the right to see his cards. Since Player A was the bettor, he had no right to see Player B's cards because Player A didn't CALL any bets.

The floor person and I were amazed. The poker room manager complained to the Grand Poobah at Gaming and got them to have a meeting with him regarding the ruling.

The Grand Poobah indicated that without question, the rule should be interpreted to mean that anyone who went all the way to the showdown could see any other player's cards.

All of this because some "Lady" had to show the floor that she "knew the rules". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif And she wasn't even in the hand to begin with.

FYI, here's what Robert's Rules says:

The Showdown:
5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player's hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

[tylerdurden]

IF the rule really is intended to prevent collusion, then only the person calling the bets (not the person making them) should need to see the mucked cards. Think about it.

[Dominic]

when i first started playing poker, I thought anyone had the right to see the cards, too. Well, one hand I bet the river, get one caller, show my hand, and the guy just nods.

He begins to push his cards - facedown - towards the dealer. Well, I'm a smart guy so I demand to see what hand I so superbly beat with my incredible poker skills.

The dealer flips up his cards and notices that the other player actually had the better hand! He was drawing to a flush and didn't realize he had made a straight on the end.

Naturally, the dealer gave the pot to the winning hand. As he should. Cards speak.

I never asked to see someone's cards again! If someone wants to muck, let him!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[smoore]

I love your posts, juanez.

What a stupid rule monkey that gaming goon was.

So was there any citation issued or any penalty for the gilpin for enforcing the "wrong" thing, or was this just a non-issue from the gate?

[juanez]

I love your posts, juanez.

What a stupid rule monkey that gaming goon was.

So was there any citation issued or any penalty for the gilpin for enforcing the "wrong" thing, or was this just a non-issue from the gate?

Thanks man - been up here lately?

Nah, no penalty or fine or anything like that. The powers that be at the poker room just wanted to be sure that we were following the rules correctly so we are consistent.

[juanez]

IF the rule really is intended to prevent collusion, then only the person calling the bets (not the person making them) should need to see the mucked cards. Think about it.

I can see why you might think that.

Maybe a guy flops a boat, but has suspicions that these two other clowns are trying to work the table over. The guy calls the turn raise and re-raises by the two clowns. On the river the guy decides to bet out since he has the nuts. The guy then loses his right to see a hand that goes to showdown? I don't think that's fair since he still thinks collusion is taking place.

And let it be known - I NEVER ask to see anyones hand when I play myself....I think it's pretty cheesy unless you truly think collusion is happening.

[juanez]

Well, I'm a smart guy so I demand to see what hand I so superbly beat with my incredible poker skills.

The dealer flips up his cards and notices that the other player actually had the better hand! He was drawing to a flush and didn't realize he had made a straight on the end.

Naturally, the dealer gave the pot to the winning hand. As he should. Cards speak.

I never asked to see someone's cards again! If someone wants to muck, let him!


Good advice. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why you might think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on... if you think guys are really cheating, call em down and get their cards. Simple. You can't complain about abuse of this rule and then turn around and say that the aggressor should be able to see the *caller's* mucked cards. Talk about abuse!

[Eihli]

Chip dumping in a tourney.

[Luv2DriveTT]

I recommend you read this article by Bob Ciaffone, which is the first of a 2 part series on the showdown... or more specifically the IWTSTH rule (I Want To See That Hand). Bob's article discusses exactly what you just described.

LINK (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14715&m_id=65561)

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[satelliter]

By the way, I played in Black Hawk, and the Colorado dealers were all superb.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip dumping in a tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a completely different issue. Both hands are already turned up on a heads-up all in.

[Eihli]

They don't have to be all-in.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
I recommend you read this article by Bob Ciaffone, which is the first of a 2 part series on the showdown... or more specifically the IWTSTH rule (I Want To See That Hand). Bob's article discusses exactly what you just described.

LINK (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14715&m_id=65561)

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I sent Bob C a link to this discussion, because of the CDG's ruling he has decided to rewrite the Showdowb (paragraph 5) section of Roberts Rules to avoid bad decisions in the future. Although he did not tell me so, I would assume this might be discussed in his followup article in the next issue of Card Player.

I got a kick out of Bob's usage of the word Donk in the quote below... do you see why? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

"Even though the lady and the gaming agent were donkeys, some blame has to go to the rule writer."

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[StellarWind]

So a player who goes all-in before the river has no rights because he didn't call all bets?

Two colluders, Monster and Trash, whipsaw Sucker on the flop and turn and drive Sucker all-in. Monster bets the river and Trash calls to maintain appearances. Monster shows down, Trash mucks, and Sucker has no recourse because he didn't call the river bet. Is that the Colorado rule?

[FeliciaLee]

This is the one rule, in all of poker (cash games or tourneys) that I want to see changed the most.

It puts players in a bad position, dealers, floormen, everyone. It stinks.

At my local cardroom, the CRM has taken the position (and clearly posted it on the walls), that the IWTSTH rule will not be abused, and can only be used in the case of suspected collusion. 'Nuff said, WTG Dan.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks man - been up here lately?


[/ QUOTE ]

nyet. I'm broke IRL, my only bankroll is online and currently whoring the hell out of casinos so I can get back to 5/10 6max. I have found some work though, so as soon as I get ahead on bills and get some fun money going I'll try to work on my live bankroll at the gilpin.

edit: oh yeah, I watched a couple SnGs one day waiting for my next appointment and HOLY CRAP... even with the formidable juice I should be a favorite to make money in any given one if the're mostly like the two I saw.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the one rule, in all of poker (cash games or tourneys) that I want to see changed the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob won't be changing it to the way I know you want to see however Felicia. He believes the rule has it's place and needs to remain. Luckily there is the catch all statement regarding abuse of the rule, which allows the rule to be revoked.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the one rule, in all of poker (cash games or tourneys) that I want to see changed the most.

It puts players in a bad position, dealers, floormen, everyone. It stinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an easy rule. If anyone who's dealt in wants to see a showndown hand, they can request it. Case closed. How hard is it?

It's really not as big of a deal as many make it out to be. There are better things to worry about than if someone is going to ask to see your cards at the end.

Btw...Hope everything is going well for ya. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

b

[xxxxx]

My two cents.

Make everybody who is involved in a showdown show. Simple and easy. The main advantage is that slow showers get no advantage. Speeds up the game.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the one rule, in all of poker (cash games or tourneys) that I want to see changed the most.

It puts players in a bad position, dealers, floormen, everyone. It stinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an easy rule. If anyone who's dealt in wants to see a showndown hand, they can request it. Case closed. How hard is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it gets abused a lot by some players, and some rooms (Casino Arizona for example).They current system is slightly broken, and needs a small amount of TLC.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it gets abused a lot by some players, and some rooms (Casino Arizona for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you don't play online? What's the difference between being able to see all called hands online with hand histories and seeing them live if asked?

Nothing.

b

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between being able to see all called hands online with hand histories and seeing them live if asked?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference. Nobody knows when you do it online, therefore they don't get pissed off about it.

That's not to say that it's *right* but it IS a big difference.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody knows when you do it online, therefore they don't get pissed off about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the people who get pissed about it are the same ones who would look at the hand histories online.

That's why I think it's funny when many online players on here, who use PT, get all uppity and adamant about this rule in a cardroom. Who are you kidding?

It's the same thing.

The difference, and it's small, is that it can hold up the game as people are bitching and moaning about it.

b

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it gets abused a lot by some players, and some rooms (Casino Arizona for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you don't play online? What's the difference between being able to see all called hands online with hand histories and seeing them live if asked?

Nothing.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all online cardrooms allow you to see all hands that go to showdown in the HH. I know for sure interpoker does not.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all online cardrooms allow you to see all hands that go to showdown in the HH. I know for sure interpoker does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the top 6, at least, allow this. Those rooms, by a big ass margin, more than make up for those that don't allow it. I don't see a big outcry on Party of them allowing this. Yet those same players make a stink live.

b

[CrashPat]

This rule is strange to me. Honestly I've never seen anybody I expect would collude with each other. Of course I have not been playing that long either. I'm sure there are useful situations for it, I have just not seen them yet, give me a few years and I'm sure I will.

I have asked the dealer to flip over hands though, in the case that a guy is showing a guy next to him the hand more than once in a down I will ask the dealer to show his hand. This is only when the guy shows it to his friend at showdown and mucks. And I've had it reversed on me before and I do not care.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

This rule embarrases weak players by showing the stupid way that they play (and makes them leave sometimes), it slows down the game, it creates hostility, and it never, never, catches cheats (hint...they do not call river bets).

It's a bad rule and should be dropped.

Sure you can see a hand history online but it is not a public forum. Whether or not they should allow it is one question but it does not directly alter the game by embarrasing players to quit or play better.

PT

[bernie]

The majority of players I see complaining/embarassed about this rule are table coaches and people thinking that by showing one hand this way, their whole arsenal is on display. They're the ones who delay the game by calling over the floor and trying to instruct on what the rule is for when we could already be in the middle of the next hand.

Not the real weak players. Weak players barely even know the difference, or the signifigance of what's going on. I've found many of them could really care less.

That's not to say some don't get embarassed by it. My contention is that there are much better things to worry and bitch about than someone calling to see your hand at showdown.

b

[TomBrooks]

Wouldn't it be useful to know if someone was trying to bluff you or not? Isn't it useful to learn more about what kind of starting hands a person plays under whatever circumstances, and how they play those cards in whatever situations? I'm curious why I don't see these factors mentioned more when the discussion of showing cards comes up.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be useful to know if someone was trying to bluff you or not? Isn't it useful to learn more about what kind of starting hands a person plays under whatever circumstances, and how they play those cards in whatever situations? I'm curious why I don't see these factors mentioned more when the discussion of showing cards comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is useful. But it tends to have the effect of making people play better by not maiking a river bet when their 62s busted flush draw gets called, or when they way overplay 33 and are publicly humiliated. I'd rather have the extra money than the info.

How much more info do you need when a player raises PF, gets called by the BB and bets the flop, turn and river (all rags), gets called and showed 44 by the BB and tries to muck. Are you educated if he is made to show AK? JTs? We should already know he was bluffing. Why make it obvious to the nitwit who doesn't. Why make the player have to show. It can be embarrasing.

Poker is about info. It is designed so that the info is exspensive. This is why it is interesting. Good players can get more info for less $. That is why it is beatable.

The rule is designed so that collusion will be curbed. It is ineffective in this regard. It only has the effect of hurting the game by making rudeness and info cheap.

PT

[Lawrence Ng]

This lady has an ego bigger than the size of Queen Latifah's ass.

Lawrence

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that there are much better things to worry and bitch about than someone calling to see your hand at showdown.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not me who is bitching. It's the OTHER players who are bitching, the arguments this causes and the ill will that ruins the table atmosphere. It's a bad rule, please stop trying to downplay it's horrible effects. No one ever got in a fist fight over this rule online, but it's happened numerous times in B&M casinos.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not me who is bitching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say anyone specific? Maybe if you fit the profile I provided. I gave the type of player that complains about this rule. It usually isn't the fishy, clueless players.

[ QUOTE ]
please stop trying to downplay it's horrible effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will downplay the effects. It's not that instant of an effect and it's overexaggerated by many players. Many times it doesn't affect the game at all. I never worry about this rule. Someone starts bitching, I point to the posted rules and say, anyone can call to see your showndown hand that was dealt in. Big whoop. It's very easy to explain.

People bitch about everything on a table. Everything. Even getting their blinds raised too often, along with anything else that feeds their selfish, petty little egos. Poker: Grown men acting like babies. Wah wah. What doesn't kill the atmoshpere?

[ QUOTE ]
No one ever got in a fist fight over this rule online, but it's happened numerous times in B&M casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this also used to happen quite a bit with checkraising. Which used to be illegal to do in washington casinos until about 8(?) years ago. In fact I'll go as far as to say that caused more fights than asking to see someones hand. Should we outlaw that too?

The reason I bring up online is that usually in these threads there are posters bitching about this rule because they think the info gained against them is the nuts. Meaning, they're worried about them giving off info. When these same players have PT and do it themselves online.

It's a petty rule to bitch about.

b

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
This rule embarrases weak players by showing the stupid way that they play (and makes them leave sometimes), it slows down the game, it creates hostility, and it never, never, catches cheats (hint...they do not call river bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

as a reminder, although it doesn't really pertain to this posters statement....

"If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it gets abused a lot by some players, and some rooms (Casino Arizona for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you don't play online? What's the difference between being able to see all called hands online with hand histories and seeing them live if asked?

Nothing.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I play both on line and in card rooms. I've played in numerous online rooms where you cannot see the mucked cards at showdown (Crypto, and Doyle's Room for example), this doesn't affect me in the slightest.

The main room I play in has outlawed the ability to ask to see another players cards at showdown because it drives away the inexperienced players, and delays the game. But I don't believe the rule should be completely removed, there is a place for it as long as abuse of the rule is stopped by the floor when it takes place.

In the case of the original poster, there was a blatant misreading of the rule. The creator of the rule himself believes the rule was misused, thats good enough for me.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[RydenStoompala]

[ QUOTE ]
bigger than the size of Queen Latifah's ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is really big, when you think about it. That's a three toilet ego.