Quote:
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.
Here's the 1907 rule, which is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://omaha8.org/1907-286-287.jpg
No one who either calls or is called is allowed to say "that's good" to another hand, and throw up his cards without showing them, and any player at the table can demand to see his hand.
And my 1897 rulebook says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://omaha8.org/laws1897.jpg
When a call is made, all hands must be shown to the table, and the best poker hand wins the pool. Any player declining to show his hand, even though he admits it is not good must pay an amount equal to the ante to each of the players at the table...
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://omaha8.org/186-187.jpg
The rule of showing both hands is a safeguard against collusion between two players, one of whom might have a fairly good hand, and the other nothing ; but by mutually raising each other back and forth they could force any other player out of the pool.
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.