Random thoughts on seeing called hands at showdown

First a couple of relatively undisputed axioms:


1. It originated as a means to protect against collusion.


2. Most people utilize this for reasons other than suspecting collusion


3. Use of this slows the game down, makes weak players play stronger, can turn a fun gambling table into a sour puss table, and rarely identifies collusion.


4. Although collusion is not a rampant problem in most public cardrooms, it is still important to have the ability to expose it if suspected.


Suggestion:


Allow any player to request a called hand at showdown be exposed. Require a floorperson to expose the hand.


Once those who abuse this privelege are forced to involve a floorman and slow the game down dramatically, they may quickly refrain from knee jerk requests. Those who continue to abuse the action will quickly be indentified by the floor personnel. Continuing offenders can be dealt with in the same manner as those who are guilty of player/dealer abuse. It will become apparant that asking for a hand to be exposed will be directly attributed to suspecting collusion.

You need to add to this the ability to have the floorperson expose a FOLDED hand. One would generally make this request while the raising is going on, asking that all hands be exposed.


Another alternative is to have the floor person take a private peek at these hands.


- Louie

I notice a lot of players ask to see the loser's hand when it was the loser that last bet/raised. I have never seen a bettor/raiser who won a pot ask to see the hand of a caller. I blame this on the dealer, who should enforce the "last bet, shows first" rule. A lot of players who are bettors/raisers just wont show their hand first and then of course muck when they are beat. That's what I like about online playing. Hands are shown by the rules.


So, IMO, if get rid of the IWTSTH rule, enfore the correct order of showing hands. Just my .02

*

Ron


when your post has no text, put (nt) at the end of your subject line.


Dave in Cali

I think between my first post, Louie and John's added comments, we collectively have a pretty good basis for eliminating this tiresome, pathetically outdated, and abused practice. I'm sure there are other posters who could also add a tidbit or two to further tighten it up as well.


It's easily understable and enforceable. It allows for fair policing of collusion. It discourages those who currently abuse the rule. It makes a spectacle of those who abuse the rule. It allows poor players to keep their dignity. It should garner wide support from most players. It can be applied to tournaments.


How about getting it added to the rules standardization list?

"How about getting it added to the rules standardization list?"


You'll be glad to know that several casinos already use the rule change you suggest.


A word of caution. This is an explosive topic, and after writing "I Want to see that Hand," I've been involved in dozens of detailed discussions, online and otherwise, about the rule, with players those who don't want it to change, and manager/owners who resist change even though they don't like the rule as players.


The counter arguments are not easily dispersed because the chasm that exists between the factions is similar to the one between those who think the universe was willfully created, and those who don't.


An emotionally charged, argumentative tone, is the worst way to go. That's because the people who need persuaded are the casino owners and managers. They are businessmen, not debators. Stay calm, make your points, for the good of poker, not for you own sake, and an open ear is more likely to listen.


Tommy

Tommy:


Thanks for providing some great insight. Just knowing that the several casinos already use this type of approach validates its utility. I think its simplicity alone would eliminate alot of the differences of opinion. In regards to the basic axioms I outlined in the original post, I find it hard to imagine that these axioms would produce wide chasms of opinions and heated debate. I would be interested to know what about this proposal would be extremely difficult to suppport both from a player or floorperson's view. Aside from the possibility that floorpeople may be called upon to visit tables a bit more often, what specific, reasonable, counterarguements, still adhering to the basic axioms, are there?


I can certainly appreciate that a player may feel he/she has the right to see a called hand at showdown, regardless whether or not he/she suspects collusion. However, this violates the basic axiom that this right should be linked exclusively to collusion. If the player does legitimately suspect collusion, they simply ask for the floor to reveal the hand.


Where's the rub?


The House is all about getting out more hands per hour and making players happy. How could a floorperson, who serves the House's best interest, be against a rule that promotes more hands per hour, by reducing the needless IWTSTH requests? Theoretically, the floorpeople are getting involved, and slowing the rake down, for investigating legitimate collusion possibilities.


Again, where's the rub?


I just don't see where anyone involved loses, except those who are taking advantage of an outdated, and abused policy. By sticking with the well subscribed to axioms, I think the advocates of this policy need not be "emotionally charged" or "argumentative". By sticking with basic logic and reason, it becomes a very black and white issue with little to no gray area open for debate or counterargument.


To use your example. This turns the debate away from a creationist vs. evolutionist argument, and more into mathematic property such as: if a=b and b=c then a=c. You can argue and debate its philosophical relevance all you want, but in the end it still stands as an accepted truth.


Respectfully,


Cigar Man

"Just knowing that the several casinos already use this type of approach validates its utility."


And that included the Mirage and Bellagio, to varying degrees, depending on the limit.


"In regards to the basic axioms I outlined in the original post, I find it hard to imagine that these axioms would produce wide chasms of opinions and heated debate."


Well, they do. The widest part of the chasm extends to those who do not lend credence to our premise, that the purpose of the rule is to guard against collusion. Some players feel an inherent right to see called hands. I've talked and typed at length with them about this. That you might not believe me says nothing of my credibility, it speaks to the bizarreness of their view. Like I said, it's like a disagreement on biological origins. Unbridgable.


"Aside from the possibility that floorpeople ..."


I didn't say floorpersons. I said owners and management, as in, top management, as in, anyone who makes a percentage of the pie, not a predetermined piece.


"what specific, reasonable, counterarguements, still adhering to the basic axioms, are there?"


The ones that adhere are the easiest to rebut. The ones that don't, for example, the one above, are impossible to rebut.


"I can certainly appreciate that a player may feel he/she has the right to see a called hand at showdown, regardless whether or not he/she suspects collusion. However, this violates the basic axiom that this right should be linked exclusively to collusion."


But that axiom is not universally agreed on.


"The House is all about getting out more hands per hour and making players happy."


Oops. That's wrong. And this is what I learned. The house is about, like any business, new business. New customers. In the follow up article to IWTSTH, I'll suggest a rule much like yours, and make it clear that it need not be applied to all games. Having IWTSTH in low limit games is viewed by the house an being good for the house. Or if it's bad, it ain't bad by much. Because of the recruitment effects of IWTSTH, by making new players comfy, the house would need a strong reason from the other side of the argument to change the rule in their LL games. Mid-limit is another story, and that's where I would like to see your suggestion take hold. But still, only the house knows it OWN batch of customers. All I want to do is give them some alternatives to consider.


Tommy

Tommy:


Again, outstanding detailed analysis. I certainly agree that the basic axioms would be more universally accepted at mid and higher levels. And I defer to your experience in communicating with the poker community that there is a significant amount of players who feel it is there right to see a called hand at showdown regardless of their reason.


What percentage of the low limit population would you say would be upset with our suggestion?


What percentage of the mid-high limit population would you say would be upset?


Would alienating these populations necessarily mean lower revenue for card room owners? Does it resemble the smoking vs non-smoking dilema? Is someone's perceived right to smoke the same as their perceived right to see a hand even though they just wnat to see what someone was calling with?


I'm still not sure why low limit players feel more comfortable by having the right to see any hand. If I may take the liberty of making another generalization...wouldn't most new players most likely be of poorer quality and less experienced? And wouldn't these players be more easily embarrassed when they are forced to reveal their bad calls at showdown? And wouldn't these players be less likely to cause a stir or issue by demanding to see other players hands?


If the general answer to these questions is "yes", then wouldn't allowing the rule to continue as is make these new players feel less comfortable?


In a sense, if a new player was never exposed to the rule as is, do you think it would even be an issue?


I take it that the feedback you have received is that a significant amount of the current low limit players would find our rule suggestion to be unacceptable, make them feel less comfy, and they would gravitate towards clubs that continue in the current tradition.


I think it would be very difficult for a cardroom to have two sets of rules to cover different limits, and since a predominate amount of their revenue comes from low limit games, a rule change would stand little chance.


I will follow your efforts closely and wish you godspeed!

"What percentage of the low limit population would you say would be upset with our suggestion?"


Man, I wish I knew. I play enough low-limit around here to have a finger on the pulse, but the players are so dang friendly compared to elsewhere I've played, I don't think this is a fair sample. That said, I don't think they'd want the rule changed. It's part of the culture. Just the other day I was playing $6-12 and flopped a straight with 98 (from the BB) and pounded all the way and paid off a rivered flush and it was like a chorus. They ALL wanted to see my hand. But I didn't mind at all. Like I said, it's just different at the lower limits.


My best guess is that a typical low-limit player pool would say leave the rule alone as well.


"What percentage of the mid-high limit population would you say would be upset?"


Very few. Primarily the ones who frequently use the rule for all the bad reasons. This is where I DO have a viable vantage because I've talked at such great length about this rule, and not just with players around here.


"Would alienating these populations necessarily mean lower revenue for card room owners?"


No way to tell. What matters more is the perception that the owners have about the effect of a change. One argument I'll slide in there is, hey, you can always change back if it doesn't work out.


"Does it resemble the smoking vs non-smoking dilemma?"


I don't think so. First, there's no dilemma, at least not in northern CA. By and large, the smokers like the no-smoking rule just as much as the smokers.


"Is someone's perceived right to smoke the same as their perceived right to see a hand even though they just wnat to see what someone was calling with?"


That's a reach. It's the same in that both of these percieved rights are just plain goofy, IMO (and I'm a smoker). But I don't see them as pertinent except as philobabble. (And I retain my inherent right to philobabble.)


"wouldn't most new players most likely be of poorer quality and less experienced? And wouldn't these players be more easily embarrassed when they are forced to reveal their bad calls at showdown? And wouldn't these players be less likely to cause a stir or issue by demanding to see other players hands?"


Yes and yes. But consider this. You are new to casino poker. You're scared spitless (<-- upcoming article title :-) ), and your buddy and the floorman have explained how things work, and guess what? If you want to, you can ask to see called hands at the showdown. That option would make me feel good if wearing those shoes, even if I never used it.


"I take it that the feedback you have received is that a significant amount of the current low limit players would find our rule suggestion to be unacceptable, make them feel less comfy, and they would gravitate towards clubs that continue in the current tradition."


Sadly, very few of the emailers mentioned their preferred limits, so I don't have enough data to make any conjectures on this.


"I think it would be very difficult for a cardroom to have two sets of rules to cover different limits,"


That I know to be not true. Lucky Chances has LOTS of rules variance between mid and low limit. And it runs smooth as can be. (Posting, action-only vs half-a-bet-or-more, allowed to wait til the BB when changing games, etc.)


Tommy

*

You guys are all arguing the same side of the issue. I have had a long, spirited debate with Tommy regarding this issue and where were all you people. Since no one ever takes up defense of the rule properly I feel obligated to do so.


A summary of my view is this: the showdown is an arbitrary procedural formality to see who is awarded the pot. It unfairly penalizes aggressors because their hand is shown every time, giving up lots of information that callers do not have to give up. To balance this arbitrary procedure, players should also have the right to see callers hands.


This is admittedly unpersuasive here but I engaged in a lenghty back and forth with Tommy earlier above under the subject: I Want to See that Hand (again). If anyone is interested, they can read a much fuller analysis of my view there. Without anyone expressing my viewpoints, there can not be a proper debate of this important issue.

Joe:


I read your earlier thread and debate with Tommy regarding the sustantive/procedural - arbitrary/non-arbritrary premises.


Although the debate will undoubtrdly rage on forever concerning the primary "collusion" axiom, the debate starts and ends there. I believe protecting the integrity of the game should always be the first and foremost principal for measuring any rule, be it procedural or substantive.


No one argues that having the ability to see any hand at the showdown accomplishes this. My take of much of your discussion is that by accomodating non-collusion oriented request to see hands, we would be making the game more fair. This accomodation would come from procedural rules.


Although your argument was extremely well presented, I believe that an arbitrary procedure that increases the amount of free information made available is not better for the game.


As to what procedure should be used to determine who show first: I believe the generally accepted rule of last aggressor shows if there's a bet on the river, or closest to the button shows if everyone checks, seems to be fairly well accepted. Not to say that there are clubs who have their own variations. I guess I join the masses in that over years and years of button type games, this "arbitrary" procedure is what has evolved and is commonly accepted as the most fair.


I do not think making the caller show first is more fair than what is now commonly accepted. Anybody who calls a bet on the end has been put in a "reactive" situation rather than a "proactive" situation, and hence should not be penalized further by being forced to show their hand win or lose. I guess I am an advocate of minizing the amount of free information made available. As the aggressor is statistically more likely to have the best hand, I believe this arbitrary procedure best minimizes free information.


Cigar Man