I am considering the termination of IWTSTH when the regulations change in Florida. It is possible me may keep a version of it. Perhaps only the players in the hand at showdown can request it. Thoughts?

This is from a guide line sheet i have put together:

"Players are not required to reveal any unexposed card(s) for any reason except to contend for the pot.
Exception; the apparent winner of the hand may ask to see any hand that was contending at showdown.
A complete hand exposed in this circumstance is live and may still win the pot.
( this is an arguable exception)
Any hand must be exposed at request of floor staff."

Mike,

I can tell you, right now, that you're going to get some angry comments on this. People are going to go grape-ship crazy telling you how stupid a rule it is.

...and their reason is going to be that they don't likeit. The people who are going to complain the loudest are the ones who want to start a fist-fight when they're "forced" to turn over a hand they should have turned over already, because they think showdown dramatics and other Hollywood posturing are part of the game.

...but they'll be loud.

They're the same fold that will advocate disobeying when asked to show their hand. They don't care about the rules anyway -- so changing your rules for them seems kind of silly.

Despite my "love" of the anti-IWTSTH crowd, I'm neutral on the rule. Have or don't have the rule because it does or doesn't make sense to have the rule - not because the loudest side made an argument.

I believe that players are entitled to see showdown hands because that's how the game of poker is played. Obviously not everyone agrees.

Restricting it to once a down or something...whatever, that's fine. The whole "IWTSTH Problem" (tm) doesn't exist if you ask me. I saw it in an O8 game the other night, and nobody died. I can still count the number of times I've seen it in 20 years of (admittedly casual) play. It's not that big of a deal.

...but the crybabies sure of vocal. Tell them to take out their ear-buds and show their g'damned hands.

I have never been a fan of the idea that only players in the hand at showdown may ask to see the hand.

if the rational for asking to see a hand is to confirm suspicion of illegal play, then why should a player be required to call the very bets he is suspicious may be cheating in order to see them.

I prefer that players not be permitted to invoke the rule at all, but if you are going to allow it I don't see the rational for only allowing players who call all the bets to ask.

I'm just askin' here, so I understand:

For what reason can the apparent winner request to show -- and the follow-up question to that is: Is that a valid reason for the guy who came in third at showdown or who folded on the turn?

Just sort of a "what's good for the Goose..." question...

If you insist on getting rid of the rule, that is a horrible exception.

Please justify the exception in light of your reasons for getting rid of IWTSTH.

I'd say...players in hand can ask, and maybe each player can ask once each day? Some sort of limiting factor. Or they have to accuse the player of cheating.

I have played at Hard Rock. There are lots of ethnic groups colluding in there; haitians, jamaicans.. I am black btw so this is not a racist comment. People have even tried to nudge me under the table expecting me to get in on it with them.

I think I would like to ask to see a hand if I see something fishy in that type of environment.

If I am colluding with a player to take down a big pot, all we have to do is whipsaw everyone else out of the hand to keep them from exposing the collusion. That's one problem with this concept.

How about just geting rid of the rule unless someone truly suspects collusion. If they want to see someone's hand, they have to call the floor.

Yes, it would slow down the game somewhat but eventually, players will just stop asking to see hands unless the suspected collusion is really evident.

There is no longer any IWTSTH rule at Foxwoods. The world as we know it didn't end. There used to be plenty of instances of abuse of the rule - expose request for info purposes. Some shook it off, some tilted.

Once eliminated, aside from having to explain to nits that there is no longer an IWTSTH rule - there are no antics, and the instances of the ask (and time to explain the rule was eliminated) has diminished greatly over time.

Am certain if there was real reason to see the hands, the floor can look etc. but I haven't seen it.

Go ahead an eliminate it if you want....

FWIW I go up there usually 1 -2 times / month. So I am not an every day regular, but the regulars recognize me...

JMHO

You don't think this would discourage honest, but nervous players from calling somebody out? I would argue that collusion is deterred far more forcefully when catching it is as easy as asking a player to turn his cards (and following up by asking the dealer to enforce the rule). Forcing a player to stop the game (especially frustrating if time is charged), call a floor over, and explain the situation every time s/he feels somebody is colluding almost encourages collusion at a table with beginning or amateur poker players.

I permit IWTSTH if the person asking can tell us why he/she suspects collusion.

And I would argue that if you can catch colluders that way, their knuckles scrape the floor.

If I am colluding with George and we make it to Showdown, you are going to see two legit hands. One might have been "overplayed" a bit. But then George is the "wild one" of the team.
If one of us has garbage, it is bet-fold on the River and IWTSTH does not apply.

This and only this.

IWTSTH isnt a real deterrent against collusion anyway. The cheaters can just bet river after everyone else has been pushed out to avoid showdown.

Nuke IWTSTH and don't sweat it. It rarely comes up at Wynn or Harrah's in LV which have banned it, and when it does the players are pretty quickly quieted. Usually it's done by the dealer, but now and then someone gets uppity and demands the floor because they KNOW that they have the absolute right to see their opponents' cards and cannot grasp that there might be folks who have other thoughts on this rule.

If the idea is to only permit IWTSTH to deter collusion, then this is a terrible exception. If the idea is to allow someone who "paid" for information to be able to obtain it, but at his or her own peril, then it is a fine exception.

This is not a traditional reason for IWTSTH, and I am not at all a fan of it, but there is a large enough contingent of newer players that view IWTSTH as an information gathering tool - an idea that was introduced and is reinforced by the way the information is treated on the internet. I can certainly see why players would like this rule. I don't.

IWTSTH is information mining. Kill it.

Can you elaborate, since the rules of the game "poker" require that hands be tabled at showdown?

Is explaining that you don't allow IWTSTH isn't allowed as difficult as explaining to others that IWTSTH is allowed?

This is incorrect. The origins of IWTSTH are well documented, by myself (in a hundred years worth of rulebooks) and by other, well established, "old-time" poker players.

The "rule" of poker is that all hands are tabled at showdown. Period. Being allowed to muck without showing is a modern courtesy.

It's true that IWTSTH was also viewed as a deterrent against collusion, even in OLD OLD rulebooks, but that's secondary to the fact that the game of poker has, for about a hundred years, required all players to table their hands.

Remember, MUCKING at showdown is the new "exception" to the rules, and something we allow people to do as a courtesy.

Mike, please let me know which way you ultimately decide to go on this, and your reasons why.

I'm thinking about pushing the idea for our room, and would like to hear your concluding thoughts on this.

Thanks.

My understanding (I know you have the old rule books, so feel free to tell me if I am wrong) is that all hands are to be shown at showdown to confirm the lack of collusion.

** let me say the isle will surely be the most prepared room come july first.

IWTSTH generates animosity most of the time. The idea here is to eliminate the rule and thereby creating a better/friendlier environment to play poker in.

that's why we all play poker, isn't it :P

most of the time i see iwtsth invoked to tilt/upset/needled the person trying to muck. it's really just not useful and not having it would make for a better place to play poker.

fwiw i live in fl and play in many homegames. only one of the many homegames i play in allow iwtsth. and even in the one game most of the time the dealer mucks the hand quickly and intentionally to avoid an issue.


and why is there no poll in this thread?

Here's the 1907 rule, which is:

And my 1897 rulebook says:
The rule of play is well established in nearly every rulebook I can find for the last hundred years or so..

...but, as to WHY the rule exists, my 1897 copy includes:

While I certainly think that cite provides a good raison d'être for the rule, again, I've got piles of rulebooks that merely remind us that all hands are shown at showdown without explanation for it. "Hoyle" books weren't written by Hoyle since the 1700's, and they were just a common name for encyclopedias of game rules. I like the cite, and it's probably good -- but there's no denying that the RULE of poker, the game, is "show all hands at showdown."

For what it's worth, can anyone explain why all online hands are shown, even if first-to-show holds the nuts? ...other than: "Because that's the rules of poker?" ...cause that's what I'm going with.

I don't argue that the rule is good or bad or indifferent. I just argue that it is the rule, and it's always been the rule ...in much the same case that you can argue that a 2-stroke penalty water penalty in golf might be better as...something else...I'm just saying...well, that's the rule, and this is golf.

The quote links should provide copies of the scanned pages on my server.

Cite?

Palimax, think of the elimination of IWTSTH as progress instead of blindly following tradition.