Are you allowed to do this?
08-22-2016
, 05:20 PM
Hi everyone!
I encountered a unique situation (at least for me) at a live home game and no one at the table really knew what to do. and my subsequent online research didn't get me anywhere either, so I thought this is what forums are made for. It is both interesting and brings up a strange ambiguity in showdown rules in Hold'em, in my opinion.
Some details of the hand at question such as positions, blinds, stack sizes and some bet sizes, etc. don't matter so much but the texture of the board and some of the actions do matter so I'll tell you those briefly. Again, this is not a play-related question, but about showdown rules:
The action started with the player to my left who shoved with his remaining 4BBs, which I and the BB called (Action opened with the button shoving and I am the SB) so we see a flop with 12BB already in the pot. The flop is 9 9 5 rainbow and I have a 5 (A5s but doesn't matter). Flop goes check check. the turn brings a 3rd 9 to the board. I bet a little under half pot, and BB re-raises which I call. The river brought a 2nd 5, basically screwing me over completely (the board is now 9 9 5 9 5, counterfeiting my hand entirely) I check and villain shoves. Thinking I'm chopping at best if we both play the board and losing my whole stack to a pocket pair higher than 5s or rarely a 9, I fold. Whether my fold was correct is not really what I'm asking here though. I thought the way he played the hand, he could credibly rep an over pair or 77/88, and I don't wanna take the risk for a chop. Also another factor towards my fold was knowing that I get to see Villain's hand and learn something about him without risking my stack, since a third player is All-in and there's a side pot, but here's where it gets weird:
The player in the BB refused to show his hand. What he basically was saying is that he won the side pot (that is, any money in the pot besides the 12 BB pre) uncontested since I folded before showdown, so he doesn't have to show me (which I don't dispute), and he said that he makes no claim to the first 12BB, and the player on the button can just take that. So while the convention is, when a player is All-in you have to show no matter what, his argument was that he doesn't have to show me since I folded, and he doesn't need to show the player on the button since he, the BB, makes no claim to his side-pot.
While a bit sketchy for sure and a bit in bad form, especially the way he arrogantly argued his case (but it doesn't matter), I wonder if he actually has the rules on his side here, and I wonder if anyone knows the exact rules. I saw a similar argument between Bellande and Hellmuth during a cash game but it's not exactly the same situation. Also what I tried to argue was this: While he makes no claim to the 12BB it's still very likely a chop ie if he is saying outright that he gives up the pot he still HAS to at least play the board right? And the guy on the button also HAS to play the board unless he has a pair higher than 5 or a 9 (he also, understandably, didn't want to show since BB didn't show and was obviously happy taking the 12BB) so he, the BB, still should be happy to chop the 12BB or if he has an over pair then he should also take the 12BB. When I told him this, he said he doesn't care about the 12BB and doesn't make a claim to it. He just doesn't want to show his hand. This is what I don't understand. When another player is all in and the board is itself a made set of 5 cards like in this hand, you normally don't have to show if you are playing the board, but you also have to show when someone is all-in. Which rule of the two takes precedence here?
So to sum up, I'm not asking about whether you thought my decision to fold or my other actions were good/correct. I'm asking about the showdown ethics here. Does the BB have a right not to show, and surrender the side-pot of 12BB to the Player All-in and take the rest which he won uncontested? Or does he have to show? Or at least play the board instead of giving up the 12BB? Are you allowed to forfeit a chop (you'd be crazy to but is it illegal?)
Thanks for reading and sorry for the long post. I am not good at being concise as you can see, but also this was quite difficult to explain, you gotta admit. Anyway, any enlightenment would be appreciated.
p.s. in the end, in case you are interested, after arguing for a good 10 minutes we took a vote and it was decided that the Dealer and BB have to chop the 12BB if they don't want to show, at which point the dealer showed Pocket Jacks, and BB mucked afterall. I still think I made a good fold and still think the BB could easily have had 7s, 8s, or 10s, or maybe I got screwed out of around 15BBs but it was not worth risking my whole stack.
I encountered a unique situation (at least for me) at a live home game and no one at the table really knew what to do. and my subsequent online research didn't get me anywhere either, so I thought this is what forums are made for. It is both interesting and brings up a strange ambiguity in showdown rules in Hold'em, in my opinion.
Some details of the hand at question such as positions, blinds, stack sizes and some bet sizes, etc. don't matter so much but the texture of the board and some of the actions do matter so I'll tell you those briefly. Again, this is not a play-related question, but about showdown rules:
The action started with the player to my left who shoved with his remaining 4BBs, which I and the BB called (Action opened with the button shoving and I am the SB) so we see a flop with 12BB already in the pot. The flop is 9 9 5 rainbow and I have a 5 (A5s but doesn't matter). Flop goes check check. the turn brings a 3rd 9 to the board. I bet a little under half pot, and BB re-raises which I call. The river brought a 2nd 5, basically screwing me over completely (the board is now 9 9 5 9 5, counterfeiting my hand entirely) I check and villain shoves. Thinking I'm chopping at best if we both play the board and losing my whole stack to a pocket pair higher than 5s or rarely a 9, I fold. Whether my fold was correct is not really what I'm asking here though. I thought the way he played the hand, he could credibly rep an over pair or 77/88, and I don't wanna take the risk for a chop. Also another factor towards my fold was knowing that I get to see Villain's hand and learn something about him without risking my stack, since a third player is All-in and there's a side pot, but here's where it gets weird:
The player in the BB refused to show his hand. What he basically was saying is that he won the side pot (that is, any money in the pot besides the 12 BB pre) uncontested since I folded before showdown, so he doesn't have to show me (which I don't dispute), and he said that he makes no claim to the first 12BB, and the player on the button can just take that. So while the convention is, when a player is All-in you have to show no matter what, his argument was that he doesn't have to show me since I folded, and he doesn't need to show the player on the button since he, the BB, makes no claim to his side-pot.
While a bit sketchy for sure and a bit in bad form, especially the way he arrogantly argued his case (but it doesn't matter), I wonder if he actually has the rules on his side here, and I wonder if anyone knows the exact rules. I saw a similar argument between Bellande and Hellmuth during a cash game but it's not exactly the same situation. Also what I tried to argue was this: While he makes no claim to the 12BB it's still very likely a chop ie if he is saying outright that he gives up the pot he still HAS to at least play the board right? And the guy on the button also HAS to play the board unless he has a pair higher than 5 or a 9 (he also, understandably, didn't want to show since BB didn't show and was obviously happy taking the 12BB) so he, the BB, still should be happy to chop the 12BB or if he has an over pair then he should also take the 12BB. When I told him this, he said he doesn't care about the 12BB and doesn't make a claim to it. He just doesn't want to show his hand. This is what I don't understand. When another player is all in and the board is itself a made set of 5 cards like in this hand, you normally don't have to show if you are playing the board, but you also have to show when someone is all-in. Which rule of the two takes precedence here?
So to sum up, I'm not asking about whether you thought my decision to fold or my other actions were good/correct. I'm asking about the showdown ethics here. Does the BB have a right not to show, and surrender the side-pot of 12BB to the Player All-in and take the rest which he won uncontested? Or does he have to show? Or at least play the board instead of giving up the 12BB? Are you allowed to forfeit a chop (you'd be crazy to but is it illegal?)
Thanks for reading and sorry for the long post. I am not good at being concise as you can see, but also this was quite difficult to explain, you gotta admit. Anyway, any enlightenment would be appreciated.
p.s. in the end, in case you are interested, after arguing for a good 10 minutes we took a vote and it was decided that the Dealer and BB have to chop the 12BB if they don't want to show, at which point the dealer showed Pocket Jacks, and BB mucked afterall. I still think I made a good fold and still think the BB could easily have had 7s, 8s, or 10s, or maybe I got screwed out of around 15BBs but it was not worth risking my whole stack.
Last edited by Aryafsharm; 08-22-2016 at 05:44 PM.
08-23-2016
, 12:24 AM
08-23-2016
, 01:32 AM
