Dumb question about the right to see cards after a showdown

[schmoe]

Your playing at a game, you've already folded. Two players are remaining at the turn - one bets and the other calls. One players flips over his cards. The other remaining player sees the cards, says "you got it", and then throws his cards away without revealing what they are.

Was it a bluff, busted draw, low pair?

This happened repeatedly to me at a recent trip to a casino. My question is, are you entitled to see the cards if you ask?

[Pov]

Technically yes, you are entitled to see the cards. Just ask and the dealer will flip them up. Expect half the players at the table to gun for you for the next hour afterwards.

This rule was created to prevent collusion so if you suspected two buddies were just betting up the pot with nothing and then mucking a hopeless hand on the end to avoid detection you could ask to see the cards and make sure the play was actually reasonable. It is not intended to assist you in learning how an opponent plays though it frequently does in fact get used that way.

Basically, it is your right, but many players will think you are a jerk to invoke it in this manner.

edit: also, I'm assuming you intended to write the action went check check on the river

[schmoe]

Thanks for the response. Sounds like there is an incentive to wait for your opponent to flip over their cards after a showdown, then muck your hand if your beat.


I'm assuming you intended to write the action went check check on the river

I'm sure both scenarios occurred. Is this important? In either case, I'm prevented from learning how an opponent played.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm assuming you intended to write the action went check check on the river

I'm sure both scenarios occurred. Is this important? In either case, I'm prevented from learning how an opponent played.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a bet and a call then the same rules would apply. The bettor shows and the caller can then show or muck. You are entitled to request to see mucked cards. If there is a bet and a FOLD then you do not have the right to see the cards. There is some gray area when it comes to folding on the river when there is no bet, but that rarely comes up.

Regardless you are correct, there is incentive to wait for your opponent to show before showing, but if you are first to act or were the river aggressor then he can simply wait until you show anyway since you are required to show first.

Some additional advice I think applies: If you're up against someone you're not likely to see again, it's not hugely important to learn the intricacies of their play though clearly you should do what you can to find out. A short pause should be sufficient. If you make a big deal out of waiting you slow the game down and players who already folded may become annoyed. Does that really matter? Well, not a lot, but generally it is more profitable to be liked or ignored than disliked.

If you're up against a player you see frequently it is very important to learn how they play, IMO, but also important not to make a big deal out of it. You want the player to gamble with you. If you make a big deal out of studying them (by asking to see their mucked cards for instance) then they are likely to think you are targetting them and to target you in return. That generally makes them tougher to beat.

[Jeffage]

You're entitled, but you're a prick if you ask. The rule is designed to detect collusion and that is the only reason it should be invoked - it's not to learn how someone else plays. It's considered very poor ettiquette.

Jeff

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it is your right, but many players will think you are a jerk to invoke it in this manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with how you explained the rule. It's there to prevent collusion. Nothing more... nothing less. However, I think you're coming at the problem with the rule from the wrong direction.

Many players like to abuse the rule by asking to see the hand of a player who mucked the losing hand after the winning hand was shown. They just want free information that they are not entitled to. They don't think the player may be cheating. They probably are not even aware that the rule is there to prevent collusion. They think it's their right. And as said, technically it is. But it should only be used in the manner for which it was established. If you don't believe the player is cheating don't ask to see the hand. Help maintain the integrity of the game. Don't abuse the rules.


And by the way... the player that was the last aggressor in the hand (last player to open the betting or raise) is the player who is required to show 1st.

[PuckNPoker]

I think limiting the request for who can ask to the see the hand to those who were in the hand on the river would go a long way to prevent abuse.

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
I think limiting the request for who can ask to the see the hand to those who were in the hand on the river would go a long way to prevent abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best thing we can do is lead by example and educate. Never ask to see a hand in this situation unless you believe the player(s) may be cheating and inform other players as to why the rule exists.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I think limiting the request for who can ask to the see the hand to those who were in the hand on the river would go a long way to prevent abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this wouldn't protect against collusion, which is the reason for the rule to begin with.

Regards,

T

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think limiting the request for who can ask to the see the hand to those who were in the hand on the river would go a long way to prevent abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this wouldn't protect against collusion, which is the reason for the rule to begin with.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]