When do you have to show your cards?

[cardcounter0]

Correct. You have the right (or anyone else previously involved in the hand) to see the losing hand.

But as it is stated, if you do this too often, it is considered abuse and your right to see losing mucked hands can be taken away.

[nothumb]

There was a guy doing this when I was at Foxwoods on Saturday, demanding to see all the hands that had called at showdown. The point of this rule is to prevent collusion between two or more players, and the other cards should be shown only if suspicion of collusion is present.

Just thought I'd add that.

NT

[daryn]

it was weird in austria. you didn't have to show a hand for the pot to be awarded to you. for instance, if someone bluffed on the river and you called, he could muck without showing, and you could then also muck, yet win the pot, and nobody saw anything.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Some places are funny about pushing a pot to someone who called or was called on the river but mucked the cards even if the opponent also mucked them.

Never push your cards toward the muck until after the pot has been pushed to you.

[top6]

Just for the record, I most certainly did not do this and would not do this. I didn't think about it until after I left - it's just frustrating when people won't show you the damn cards, and I also think it borders on unethical. But I agree that you shouldn't sink down to their level - in fact, probably below their level in this case.

[momo24]

You definitely have the right to see the hand. The other players at the table can also request to see the hands at the showdown, even if the player is not still in the pot. The last time I was at Trump in Indiana, the floor manager said that the house rule was to allow players not in the pot to request players show their hands once an hour--I guess to avoid abuse of this privilege. (Of course, this rule might not apply when the casino is spreading their game known as "Indiana Hold 'em.")

[top6]

I agree with this as well. Too many people abuse the privilege. Also, I noticed at my table that one or two of the obvious regulars did this several times. These guys sucked - as people - because they were verbally abusive towards this one fish (?) who was constantly drawing out on them. Anyway, eventually the fish (?), starting to feel insecure, tried to do it a few times, just to make it seem like he belonged.

The worse part about doing things like this - and not showing your hands immediately when called - is that players at the table who aren't experienced in B&M play will think that things are just done this way. And why wouldn't they?

I suppose I should have spoken up - at least told the fish (?) that I didn't think they should do that.

(This lead to a hilarious hand, now that I recall. The fish (?) had something like 7 4, and caught a 4 on the river to get two pair, beating one of the jerks' pocket kings. The jerk bet, the fish (?), the jerk called. The fish (?) turned over his cards. The jerk - who in fairness was having a tough night - screams "No way!" as part of his continued quest to remove all fun from the table. Then, and god I loved this, the fish (?) demanded to see the jerks cards!)

BTW, I always use the term fish (?), because - what do I know? Maybe this guy was just some sort of super poker genius and just seemed like a fish. But I doubt it - lol.

[top6]

What is this "Indiana Hold 'Em" you speak of?

[momo24]

I've actually never seen the game played. But one night I happened to sit at a $3-$6 table with two of the smartest, most gifted hold 'em players I have ever seen. Over the course of the night, they invented the game Indiana Hold 'em. I don't have time to explain all the intracacies of the game, but I suspect it's only a matter of time before the two make it famous.

[Aces McGee]

$5/$10 at the Taj Saturday night

Two players, sitting next to each other, are in a heads up pot. The river card has come down, and the action is complete. It's time for the showdown.

Player A flashes his cards to his opponent, Player B, but nobody else sees them. Player B mucks, and Player A tosses his cards in the muck a split-second later.

The dealer was pretty confused.

What's the technical ruling in this situation? Player B acknowledged to the dealer that Player A had him beat, but what if Player B had made a fuss? What if someone else at the table who wasn't involved in the hand complained?

-McGee