next question on home game rules... |
|
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 3:43 pm GMT by BrianGre
ok... so this next one happens regularly with one particular player who seems to have a different opinion on what casino rules are vs. the rest of us... however at the most recent incident he was hosting so there wasn't much we could do about it.
PlayerA and PlayerB are involved in a show-down.
PlayerA made the last bet and PlayerB called.
PlayerA shows his hand and PlayerB mucks.
PlayerC requests to see PlayerB's cards to see what they were stating that anyone has a right to see the cards of a showdown. (his most aggressive action has included actually pulling them from the much after PlayerB has tossed them in)
What's your home game rule around this?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 3:53 pm GMT by kainARGH
anyone at the table at the time of showdown can ask to see anyones showdown cards.
It is however considered bad etiqute(sp).
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 4:12 pm GMT by Raisor
I don't think he means that.
I think he is asking if the player does ask, does the other player have to flip. Since it was a showdown.
Posted Mon May 29, 2006 5:33 pm GMT by kainARGH
| Raisor wrote: | I don't think he means that.
I think he is asking if the player does ask, does the other player have to flip. Since it was a showdown. |
| kainARGH wrote: | anyone at the table at the time of showdown can ask to see anyones showdown cards.
It is however considered bad etiqute(sp). |
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 5:38 am GMT by JohnnyCache
I thought it was anyone who PAID to see the showdown could see them...meaning player C can go phallophagic if player A doesn't ask.
Edit: I realize this might be wrong but damn I love the word I made up so I'm leaving it.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 8:13 am GMT by BrianGre
ok, so this appears to be another one of those rules that varies game to game and should be written down for all to see...
Thanks
and Johnny... WTF? Phallophagic? 
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 10:35 am GMT by TxShadow
The player that gets called shows his cards. Anyone else can muck their hand if they don't have something that beats it. Example: if on the river, my opponent bets $10 and I call. He has to show me his hand. If it's better than mine, I can throw my hand away without showing. This seems to be pretty standard.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 12:52 pm GMT by Phil14312
| TxShadow wrote: | | The player that gets called shows his cards. Anyone else can muck their hand if they don't have something that beats it. Example: if on the river, my opponent bets $10 and I call. He has to show me his hand. If it's better than mine, I can throw my hand away without showing. This seems to be pretty standard. |
Except at a casino, where any player can ask to see the mucked cards, provided they do not hit the muck, any hand that hits the muck is instantly dead.
Supposedly its a collusion prevention step.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 1:06 pm GMT by groton
if you dont pay for it.
you cant see it 
thats the house rules we do are rules.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 2:33 pm GMT by supafrey
| Phil14312 wrote: | | TxShadow wrote: | | The player that gets called shows his cards. Anyone else can muck their hand if they don't have something that beats it. Example: if on the river, my opponent bets $10 and I call. He has to show me his hand. If it's better than mine, I can throw my hand away without showing. This seems to be pretty standard. |
Except at a casino, where any player can ask to see the mucked cards, provided they do not hit the muck, any hand that hits the muck is instantly dead.
Supposedly its a collusion prevention step. |
This doesn't necessarily apply if the cards are quickly retrievable. I.E. I ask you to show, you huff and toss them on the muck. The dealer is allowed to pop in there.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 2:53 pm GMT by TxShadow
Gotcha. Sorry, haven't played much in a Casino  . So you can ask to see them, it's just bad form?
I guess that's why on a lot of the online sites, people can muck their losing hand at showdown, but you can then go into the hand history and see what they had?
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 8:07 pm GMT by Lethargic Dolt
Cards only speak for themselves if you do not muck them is our general policy. If you are beaten or think you are beaten you muck and no one sees. If you play them then the cards speak for themselves. It never ceases to amaze me how many people mis-read their own hands and come out with split pots and occasionally a win by showing their cards. We get at least one mis-read hand per tournament.
I have never played in a game at the casino where someone has asked to see a showdown hand. We have always played that the only person that has to show their cards is the one who is called, except for all-ins of course.
Posted Tue May 30, 2006 10:33 pm GMT by mindgame
I love this argument, even though I lose it every time it comes up.
The fact is it's called a showdown because you will not find a book of poker rules anywhere that does not say that, at the conclusion of the last bet, every live player must show his hand.
Seriously. That's what the BOOKS say. I had this argument at one of my regular home games. I went to the library and Xeroxed the "Rule of Poker" from five different texts. They uniformly agreed on this point. Did I win my argument? Of course not. People hate that rule just as uniformly as the books dictate that it be so. You muck your hand and every player in the world knows it's dead, rules or no rules.
Because it just doesn't matter what the book says--the house makes the rules.
BTW, in every casino I've played in (which is less than 2 dozen in 5 states--admittedly a small number) every player at the table who was in the hand at the beginning has a right to ask to see all the hands that were live at the conclusion of the betting. Most places discourage this, both by limiting player requests of this nature to 1/hour and--much more effectively--by training dealers to grab and muck folded hands before anyone can speak (or pretending not to hear those that do).
Bottom line: if this rule is not written down and understood by all, you are just asking for trouble in allowing mucked hands to be exposed. More to the point, is there any reason to adopt a practice that flies in the face of the long-established poker tradition? The only time I EVER do this is when I'm deliberately trying to piss someone off. Because it works very, very well. But what kind of ass who would deliberately try to piss someone off? Well, me. If you destested me deeply you'd have lots of company.
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 3:23 am GMT by supafrey
You're missing a huge point - there's no such thing as the "real rules of poker". Most of those books are merely xeroxed copies of one another, written by old men that have teenage researchers and grad students working for them.
Not to mention the fact that any older book with the rules is just that - incredibly freakin' old. I've read books that still lecture me on the ETHICS OF CHECK RAISING... "a good moral poker player never needs to do this...."
Even Rob's Rules, which alot of people go to (it's a good overview) is freakin' old by internet standards. Like - jurassic.
Of the 3 casinos and 90% of internet sites i've played on, any player from the beginning of the hand gets to ask to see showdown cards. "mucking" means you forfeit any benefits from the hands (like winning it, duh) but doesn't necessarily mean it's unretrievable. A SMART jerk would toss his cards in the middle of the muck, though, not the top.
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 3:56 am GMT by JohnnyCache
A rule's age has no impact on its validity, for or against.
Here's one - why is checkraising magically ok and string-raising randomly bad?
Both are deception, one's legit, one's not - why?
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 4:08 am GMT by supafrey
There's a very big difference between deception applied through the standard playing of the game (You have three options when the action is on you, not 2 or 3 depending on your position) and through the wishy washy and completely muddled interpretation of string-betting.
String betting is illegal because it would make the game almost impossible to control - do we notice the same problems from the addition of the c/r? Nowhere near.
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 10:06 am GMT by TxShadow
Check-raising fits within the mechanics of the game. String betting is essentially taking two different actions when it is your turn (calling and raising, or raising and raising again). I mean, while we're at it, why not throw out a bet bet and then say "No, wait, just kidding. I fold!" when someone calls you and take your money back. The only problem that I've ever heard people have with check-raising is that it's deceptive; but I think most people agree that...isn't that the point?
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 10:29 am GMT by supafrey
| TxShadow wrote: | | Check-raising fits within the mechanics of the game. String betting is essentially taking two different actions when it is your turn (calling and raising, or raising and raising again). I mean, while we're at it, why not throw out a bet bet and then say "No, wait, just kidding. I fold!" when someone calls you and take your money back. The only problem that I've ever heard people have with check-raising is that it's deceptive; but I think most people agree that...isn't that the point? |
Exactly. There would be no definite line for what's acceptable versus what isn't, where as with checkraising it just adds a level to the game without any extra confusion. You know this, jc. =P
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 1:18 pm GMT by Phil14312
Well the casinos I've played at in So. Cal., admittedly, not a lot of them, have always had the rule that if the cards hit the muck they are dead. I think its one of those things someone mentioned earlier dealer's do so someone who asks to see cards constantly, can't. Pretty much a "quick throw em in the muck" before someone gets pissed.
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 1:54 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Well, I'll chime in here. I was in AC last weekend and there was a guy who was involved in quite a few hands, but never had to showdown for one reason or another. After sitting with him for over 3 hours, I'd seen him showdown one hand.
He was involved in a hand with me, calling my bets the whole way. I showed my hand after making my final bet on the river, and he mucked. Another guy at the table said "I'd like to see what he was calling with," and I said, "Me too." The dealer immediately said, "We have a request to show," and showed the hand.
Two players at the table got into this same discussion. The dealer said that any player who is in the hand to showdown can request to see another player's hand.
I admit that it was poor etiquette, but it's legal play.
Posted Wed May 31, 2006 11:57 pm GMT by mindgame
One of the oldest principles of jurisprudence is that the age a practice testifies to some fundemental soundness--hence the weight attached to precedent.
I've never met a serious poker player who had a problem with the check raise or thought anyone but a rube would find it "unethical." A check is always just a check--bet after if you dare, at the risk of betting someone else's hand for him. I'm wondering what dusty old tome the writer earlier stumbled across that questioned the moral character of a check raiser. Likely enough the writer felt the man was damned for picking up a deck of cards in the first place.
Morehead's classic text on poker from the 70's considered check raising a fundemental tool of the game, even if it was resented (or in many cases banned) by poker "lightweights." Scarne, writing decades earlier, thought anyone who objected to check raises was laughably niave. Other than stuff by Oswald Jacoby, who agreed with Moorehead and Scarne, there was scarely a readable book on poker to be found unless you think Frank Wallace's book was really about poker until Brunson published his book in the late 70's--and that was only available through the Gamblers' Bookstore in Vegas, a virtually mimeographed text. Point isn't to prove I've been reading poker books since before most of you were born, but just to tell you that no serious and knowlegable treatment of the subject could even claim to be such were it to frown on the check raise.
Now the string bet...well my Lord. That's certainly NOTHING to which any ethical gentleman would stoop!!!
Posted Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:04 am GMT by Dave B
It is sometimes fun to verbalize "check raise" when you 1st check. You definately get their attention, then you get some laughs when you follow through with it.
Posted Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:07 pm GMT by mindgame
Very Clever. I like it!
Just like you to come up with something like that.
|
|
