Mucking Cards on the River

[The Dude]

After the river is bet and called, often people muck their hands when a better hand is shown rather than turning them over. This seems to be the norm. Occaisionally I will ask to see the mucked cards, especially just after I have sat at the table (I am trying to get a read for how loose players' standards are).

Last night at a 2-4 table a player got a little upset after the second time I asked to see his cards. Another player at the table agreed with him. My thought, shared by a few others at the table as well, was that he called the river, so he's supposed to show his hand.

Is it bad form to ask people to show their hands instead of muck them? I would imagine that as you go up in limits it would become a little more taboo, but how about low limits? There are such a wide variety of players who play 2-4, it's very important for me to be able to recognize whose bets I should respect, and who will call the turn with a 3-outer or the river with a virtually unwinnable hand.

I am relatively new to the game, so I am a bit unfamiliar with table etiquette. I have studied the game quite a bit, but topics like these rarely show up in poker books.

Thanks for your input guys, this forum has been a great help to me.

[HDPM]

This is bad form and it is better if you stop, even though it is within the rules. Especially when you are out of the hand, you will annoy people. If your goal is to annoy people and even tilt some of the immature ones, you have found a great way to do it. I think it is bad for the game. We have had discussions about the "I Want To See That Hand Rule" (hereafter IWTSTH) before. Maybe check the archives. But the rule was designed to detect collusion (even though it fails in that purpose), not to give you information. It also shows up weak players when abused (you are abusing it, sorry) which is something you want to avoid. As you move up in limits it is a lot more taboo. I understand at the top section at the Bellagio you get to ask once. Ever.

[Mano]

it's very important for me to be able to recognize whose bets I should respect, and who will call the turn with a 3-outer or the river with a virtually unwinnable hand.

This is not what the rule is meant to accomplish, and to me it seems you are abusing the rule - basically angle shooting. I think it is incredibly bad form, unless you honestly have reason to suspect collusion. This is one rule I wish would be re-examined, but I guess until it is changed people will continue to abuse it.

[Jimbo]

I agree with HDPM, it is poor etiquette no matter the limit. Besides you will invoke the IWTSTH rule someday and when he turns it over he will have you beat and you will lose the pot. Sound like fun?

http://www.watchersweb.com/funnyfarm/f15817-1.jpg

[Ed Miller]

The purpose of the "ask to see the hand" rule is to prevent collusion. If you don't suspect collusion, then don't ask to see people's hands. Frankly, I think it is a dumb rule and it should be abolished... you should never be forced to show your hand. Repeatedly asking to see losers' hole cards is rude and flies against the spirit of the game.

[Tommy Angelo]

Here are my thoughts:

-----------------------------------

I Want to See That Hand




We have an old rule that is routinely abused and does not work. It’s time to put this dinosaur to rest.



Players may demand to see called hands at the showdown. I’ll call this the “I want to see that hand” rule (IWTSTH). This rule was invented with a worthy purpose — to enable players to protect themselves against collusion. Sadly, that is not the effect.



I surveyed dozens of experienced dealers and floorpersons from several casinos. I asked, “What is the purpose of IWTSTH?” They all replied, “To protect against collusion.” Then I asked, “When players ask to see called hands at the showdown, how often is collusion suspected?” The answers ranged from “seldom” to “almost never.”



I’ve talked to hundreds of players over the years about IWTSTH. Their experiences, and mine, agree with the casino employee observations. IWTSTH is rarely used because of suspected collusion.



When a young or inexperienced player employs IWTSTH with no malice, I occasionally probe. I always learn that, to them, IWTSTH is just part of the game. When I ask, “What is the purpose of the rule?” they either have no idea, or they reply, “To be able to see how people play.” They see nothing “wrong” with asking to see a hand when they do not suspect collusion. And that itself is a big part of the problem. The misuse of IWTSTH spreads through innocence, ignorance, and silence.





Types of abuse


Let’s look at those times when players use IWTSTH without suspicion of collusion.



Psychological weapon. In the hands of the ill-mannered, IWTSTH is used to embarrass, agitate or annoy other players, thereby generating bad vibes and tension. It’s hardly different from slow rolling.



Revenge. We’ve all seen it or done it. One player asks to see a hand at the showdown, then the other player “gets even” by later asking to see the initial abuser’s hand. Whatever happened to “Two wrongs don’t make a right?” If the initial use of IWTSTH was considered wrong or inappropriate, then how can the vindictive use be any less wrong? And, back on topic, why do we have a rule that makes this coarse behavior legal and acceptable?



Free information. Here is a definition of one type of cheating at poker: “The willful manufacture of information that is not available to all.” One could say that using IWTSTH in order to gain information about how others play is not a “manufacture of information that is not available to all,” since others could gain the same information simply by asking, and any revealed information is revealed to all.



Most players, however, consider it bad etiquette to abuse IWTSTH. So they don’t ask to see hands, even when they are intensely curious, even when the information is potentially valuable. Those who do ask to see hands do so when the information is most pertinent, thereby manufacturing useful information of a type that is not available to those who feel bound by scruples never to ask. It’s like the boxer who intentionally swings low against an opponent who never does.



Many players think of poker as being, in part, a struggle to conceal information. To them, and to me, abuse of IWTSTH is an infringement of privacy rights. Ask any player how they feel after someone asked to see their hand, and they’ll likely say they feel violated. My poker hand is like my pee-pee. If I want you to see it, I’ll show it to you. But no! With IWTSTH, we are forced to bear all.



Misery loves company. The player on the button has pocket aces in a three-handed pot. On the river, the first player bets, the second player calls, and the aces call. The first player shows a rivered flush. The second player mucks. The aces ask to see the second player’s hand, merely curious as to which of them had the best hand on the turn.



This is an innocent, natural request. Even if not compelled by IWTSTH, the second player often shows his hand or tells the truth about what he had, that is, if he is the showing type. But what if he isn’t? What if he doesn’t want to show or even talk about it? What if he made a hopeless call on the river and is embarrassed? Or what if he had, say, a straight on the turn, got beat on the river, but just wants to get on to the next hand without a fuss? Why should he be forced to show his hand?



The Lucky Chances Casino rulebook mentions abuse of IWTSTH. “Any seated player may request to see any and all active hands at the showdown. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.”



This is still too soft. In practice it means that in order for an abuser to be stopped, he must abuse once, then abuse again soon after, then someone must call a floorperson, and then the players will be protected from the abuser for some period of time, probably only that day. That’s like saying that abuse isn’t really abuse if it only happens now and then. That’s not good enough. Think of physical abuse and you’ll see what I mean.



IWTSTH does not catch or deter cheaters


Savvy collusion teams can easily sidestep IWTSTH by having all partners but one fold before the showdown. For example, on the turn, player A has the nuts. He signals his strength to his collusion partner, player C. Player C has no pair and no draw. Player B, the victim, has a good hand. A and C then punish player B by jamming it up on the turn. On the river, player A bets out. It doesn’t matter what B does. Player C is going to fold. No one can use IWTSTH to view C’s hand, no matter how great the suspicion of cheating. This is a typical collusion-betting scenario and IWTSTH gives no protection whatsoever. IWTSTH fails at its only purpose.



Some defend IWTSTH by saying that it deters cheaters in the same way that speed-limit laws deter speeders. But laws do not deter law-breakers just by existing. Speeders can be caught; that’s why speed-limit laws deter. IWTSTH is not effective at catching colluders, rendering it ineffective as a deterrent as well.



Existing variations reveal something is wrong



One variation is that only those players involved in a pot may ask to see hands at the showdown. This rule defeats the very purpose of IWTSTH by forbidding us from protecting the game whenever we happen to fold early. So why does this variation exist? Because it drastically reduces opportunities for IWTSTH to be used, thereby reducing opportunities for abuse. The sole purpose of this variation is to reduce abuse of IWTSTH.



The goofiest variation: If the betting on the river begins heads-up and the winner asks to see the loser’s hand, the loser’s hand remains live and can still win the pot if he has the best hand. Can there be suspected collusion in this scenario? No. This is another bizarre attempt to curb abuse of IWTSTH.



The mere existence of these variations shows that the poker community is aware of the problem and is willing to change rules to fix IWTSTH. But so far it’s not enough. We are trying to heal gangrene with Band-Aids. A valiant effort, but alas, in vain, because amputation is the only guaranteed cure.



Summary


Much writing and discussion centers on the growth of poker, how to make it appealing to new players, how to make the public poker table a fair and pleasant place. IWTSTH allows, and even encourages, petty behavior that ranges from bad etiquette to unethical to just plain rude. This is bad for poker, present and future.



Rules designed solely to protect the many against the few are inherently inconvenient. A good example is airport security. We tolerate the hassle because we like the peace of mind. With IWTSTH, we are also forced to tolerate inconveniences, but we get nothing in return. Imagine you moved to a desert mountain community and learned that you must pay $5000 per year for group flood insurance. You ask your neighbors why they waste their money. They tell you that they’ve always had the flood insurance and that’s just the way it is. With IWTSTH, we are as stubborn as the mountain dwellers. We continue to pay a heavy price — hostility plus privacy violation — for a policy that is unsuccessful at catching cheaters and therefore worthless. Are we really that stupid?



Rules are made to be changed. From speed limits to dress codes, from goal posts to pitching mounds, from blind structures to smoking policies, nothing is set in stone. Thank goodness for that, because flexibility spawns improvement. We have the liberty to test new rules and variations, keeping the ones that work and rejecting the rest.



The purpose of IWTSTH is to protect against collusion, yet it fails to do so. Further, it is often used, yet rarely used for its intended purpose. This rule is ineffective and has been abused to death. What should we do with a dead thing? Get a shovel.





© 2000 Tommy Angelo

[ChipWrecked]

Thanks Tommy for an excellent post. This is the topic of the only argument I've had at the tables in my young career. My answer to a player's "IWTSTH" was, "That costs eight bucks. If you don't want to pay, you don't get to see how I play." To my surprise, I was 'out-voted' by the other players at the table and my hand was shown.

[The Dude]

Wow, thanks for the comments, guys. I honestly had no idea that was what the rule was intended for. I always assumed that when you call the river your hand is public information. Obviously not the case. I will apologize to the man whom I upset the next time I see him.

I had been showing my losing hands on the river most of the time as well. I figured it was unfair to expect to see others' losing hands but not let them see mine. I will change that practice, too.

Are there any poker books that specifically address these etiquette issues. I've read beginner's and intermediate level books on Hold 'Em, but they barely discussed this kind of topic. I think I've got most of the system down now, but It'd be nice not to have any more surprises.

Again, thanks for the comments.

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

LOL ROFLMAO.....IMO...IT DOESNT BOTHER ME IFU WANT TO SEE MY HAND ....IF IT DID THAT WOULD BE HAVING A WEAKNESS...NOW LISSEN TO THIS.......IN COMMERCE YRS AGO....A FAT ASS 3-6 GAME......I CALLED THE RIVER..HE SHOWS AND AS I GO TO MUCK HE CRYS"DEALER I WANT TO SEE HIS HAND..SO I TURN THEM OVER INSTEAD OF FLICKING THEM AND I HAD A STRT THAT I DID NOT SEE...THE DEALER SAW IT THOUGH AND PUSHED ME THE POT.....THE GUY DID A BERSERKO AND CALLED THE FLOOR OVER AND OF COURSE I RUBBED IT IN AS DID THE TABLE...THE GUY WAS A HABITUAL JERK ALWAYS SAYING I WANNA SEE ALL HANDS.......HE SAW AND HE DID NOT LIKE IT..........PERSONALLY IF I KNOW IT WILL TILT U TOMMY,I WILL ASK TO SEE YOUR HANDTHATS THE GAME.......THE RULES ARE WHAT THEY R.....GOOD OR BAD...LIVE W/THEM OR CHANGE THEM....I GUESS THATS WHY I DONT MIND BEING ASKED.....

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

OK ........WHEN A GUY AINT IN THE HAND....I WILL ON OCCASSION PUSH THEM IN THE MUK MYSELF......IF IT IS JUST 2 OF US AND U ASK I SHOW,,,,,,,SO U KNOW I BLUFF.......THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED YET THO...I ALWAYS SHOEW A RESPECTABLE HOLDING......

[John Feeney]

Hi Andrew,

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but from the portion of Tommy's post I could get to I think I agree with him completely. I can remember, early in my poker career, when I would readily show my hand on the end without even being asked, just to speed play along a tiny bit. In time, though, I became sentitive to how much information about my play I was giving away.

As you move up the limits a little, you'll find the savvy players are more reluctant to show their hands if it isn't really necessary, and prefer to "negotiate" (e.g., the bettor says, "no pair." The caller then can turn over his small pair, or ask, "How big?" of he has a mediocre no-pair himself... and the hand is done.) Here's something related that I posted on rgp (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=negotiate+group:rec.gambling.poker+author :johnfeeney%40home.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=35DB8645.7DC29B45%40home.com&rnum =3) about that several years ago.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
PERSONALLY IF I KNOW IT WILL TILT U TOMMY,I WILL ASK TO SEE YOUR HANDTHATS THE GAME.......THE RULES ARE WHAT THEY R.....GOOD OR BAD...LIVE W/THEM OR CHANGE THEM....I GUESS THATS WHY I DONT MIND BEING ASKED.....


[/ QUOTE ]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
OK ........WHEN A GUY AINT IN THE HAND....I WILL ON OCCASSION PUSH THEM IN THE MUK MYSELF

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'll abuse this rule when it benefits you, but if you don't feel like showing you'll avoid following the very rule you "don't mind"? A-n-g-l-e-s-h-o-t.

Although I guess we shouldn't expect much from a person who posts like a 14 year old wannabe from an AOL chatroom.

[SoBeDude]

When I first started playing in organized games, I would innocently ask to see losing hands, then not understanding why this got people upset.

I did it purely for information. I never suspected collusion nor did I know that is what the rule is for. In my mind, asking was simply part of the rules and there was nothing wrong with asking. Thanks for the clarification.

I had quit asking a while ago when I realized I was upsetting people. I would not have minded if anyone had asked to see mine, but no one ever did.

I think, however, the way people react is wrong. Unless unlike me, they all know the rule is for collusion and get offended because they think I'm calling them a cheater.

I find in the 'friendlier' games I play in, I can simply ask the player what they had, and they tell me. This way I don't upset anyone and I still get the info on line.

As far as detecting collusion, you'd have to see about 20 hands in a row before any sort of pattern to betting/raising would emerge, wouldn't you?

I think the key is to educate new players about this rule, its intended use, and the implications when you invoke it.

In the books I have read it has never been covered. I think this is a huge oversite, and a major disservice to the game.

Perhaps we can suggest that two plus two get a blurb about this put in the poker books they publish?

Thanks again for this thread.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

For those of you who play online, I find the "hand history" to be of great value.

I will get hand histories for many, perhaps 60%, of the hands I win and was called-down.

This shows me exactly what any opponent who called the river was holding.

I love this feature, because it allows me to quickly build profiles of my opponents, which I then save in to their "notes".

Then when a player joins the table, if he is someone known I have notes on how he played previously, including odd hands he called me down with. This is killer info. Notes like "called with A6o from UTG", or "raised with second pair" tell me a lot about a player.

Anyone think I'm abusing the system here? I know of many others who get many hand histories as well. As a matter of fact, I got the idea from some poster here...

-Scott

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Anyone think I'm abusing the system here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I just wish TruePoker did the same thing...

[Nottom]

I routinely do the same thing, I really don't take as good notes as I should, but I certainly take a peek on any hands that I think were played "interestingly". As far as abusing it, I think it's just one of those things that is yet another difference between online and B&amp;M games. You may get to see the player and pick up on tells online, but you get to see their hands much more often which can often be much better info.