bah.... bad King is bad

I don't see any reason for misleading declarations by the dealer. This sort of thing is the equivalent of the angle shooter who announces 76 on a KK99A board as "two pair" hoping to get a muck.

The key to understanding these situations is this: YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO WIN POTS BECAUSE YOU MAKE OTHER PLAYERS MUCK WINNING HANDS AFTER ALL THE BETS ARE IN, AND IF THAT IS PART OF YOUR STRATEGY FOR MAKING MONEY AT POKER, YOU ARE A LOSER BOTH AT THIS GAME AND AT LIFE.

I mean that's it. The best hand wins once showdown is reached. Any statement by anyone that leads to the best hand winning once showdown is reached is, at most, worthy of a very minor gripe.

The dealer is supposed to announce the player's hand. Not some kind of personal interpretation or poker lingo or whatever.

If a player tables 76 on KK99A, you can't blame the dealer for announcing "two pairs, kings and nines with an ace kicker". "Seat 1 shows 76" is fine, "Seat 1 has 7-high" is not.

I wouldn't applaud a player who announced two pair when the two pair is on the board either. But the dealer absolutely should announce it that way.

I tend to agree with you. I, being the OP am amazed how the written word can so easily be mis-construed. All I was looking for was an interpretation of
what showdown was and if showdown wasn't unit all cards are tabled ,why is the dealer announcing hand values.
What if the dealer misreads the hand and causes a fold from a better hand?
Is it then the players responsibility to know whether he's folding a winning hand.
I know a lot of people consider it angling but I assure you it is not the case.I would just like to hear a proper procedural definition from someone not just someone's opinion .

The easy part of defining showdown is knowing when it begins. It begins the moment action closes on the river, before any hand is tabled (hopefully).

It is harder to say when it ends. Typically you might say showdown ends when the pot is pushed. This is the indication that the winning player can stop protecting his hand and release his hole cards so they can be added to the board and muck pile and reshuffled.

But there is some added complexity because the time the next hand begins is fairly well defined: when the first riffle of the deck happens, or when the green button is pushed. Any time before this, a player who feels the previous hand wasn't awarded properly may stop the dealer and ask for a ruling.

Given the above, what do we call the time between when the pot is pushed and the next hand begins? We're no longer in showdown (I believe), but not yet at the next hand.

Anyway, as above, I disagree with your (and a20's) opinion about when a dealer should be permitted to announce a hand as a best practice, but agree with a20 that it is entirely dependent on the room rules and procedures.

And to answer your question, if a dealer misreads a hand, anyone else at the table can correct him or her. If a player discards their hand as a result, generally it should still be retrievable (a dealer should not be mucking hands while there is discussion about a hand being read incorrectly, and should instead be protecting the muck). If a player somehow manages to muck their hand irretrievably before the misread hand is corrected, then that is too bad for the player, as they are the ones ultimately responsible for making sure they protect their own hands.

To summarize: a player is responsible for protecting his own hand. A player is not solely responsible for reading any tabled hands.

That's how it's been done in every cardroom I've dealt in and played in in the last 35 years.


How many hands would get dealt if every hand we waited for everyone
to figure what the current tabled hand is before showing or folding theirs?

I have seen different rooms with different procedures.

I have seen the same room with different procedures (different dealers do it different ways).

My only objection comes when a Dealer does it on some hands but not others. If a dealer who never calls out a hand suddenly calls out a hand because a player is about to muck, then I believe it is an OPTAH violation. Similarly if a Dealer never pushes up the cards but decides to on a hand in which a player is about to muck a likely winning hand or is just staring at the board for awhile, then I think that is wrong.

I don't really have a preference but if I did it would be: Dealers should announce hands in low limit games and tourneys and Dealers should not say or do anything in high limit cash games and tourneys. But I would guess that would be confusing for some Dealers and cause consistency problems in cash games.

Yes. Always protect your hand.

However I also think it is the obligation of every player to correct the Dealer's mistake immediately, if they see it. I will do that even if I stand to lose money, if the dealer mis-calls my hand.

If you are at all unsure about your hand reading abilities or know yourself to make mistakes, just table your hand. Even if it doesn't beat the hand the Dealer called out.

If there is a discussion after the Dealer mucks your hand and before the next deal is started, and you tabled a winning hand, you will be awarded the pot - as long as 2 other people saw it and are willing to say so.

It's not a personal interpretation. It's the most helpful information about the hand.

What's the injury if the dealer announces the hand as "7 high"? That you don't get to win money you don't deserve to win anyway?

Again, if your poker strategy is "see if I can screw people out of money at showdown and win when I don't deserve to", then you should think about getting better at poker instead of relying on shady tactics.

It has been said several times in this thread, but I will say it one more time. Always protect your hand\action. In a perfect world, the dealer never makes mistakes, but that simply isn't realistic. Even if the dealer messes up, the player is ultimately responsible for protecting their hand.

He could also announce "royal flush" or another hand the player isn't playing.

The dealer is supposed to announce the players hand. If you table AA on A5522, the dealer should announce "full house, aces over fives" or some variation of that, not "a pair of aces".

Well put, thank you

Yep, and he could correctly call or overcall hands for players he likes, and undercall hands for players he dislikes. The only consistently fair way is to announce the correct name of the five card hand being played.

Saying one way is "the most helpful" is a matter of interpretation and probably impossible to define, and also brings up the question of who it is most helpful for.

If you need help figuring out if your hand is best, you always have the option of tabling your hand. Everyone playing poker knows this. I don't think they also need to be helped to figure out there is a good chance they have the best hand before tabling it.

I have played a lot of different games under both procedures, and I really wish you'd reconsider your position on this.
Waiting for all hands to be tabled before reading any really does slow things down, and it also leads to misunderstandings.
IMO, once a hand has been tabled, another player with a live hand has a right to know what it is before deciding whether or not to table his own. (The ancient rule in Hoyle's Rules of Games, requiring all players to table all live hands at showdown, hasn't been widely followed in live poker for probably 80-100 years.)
At times, it's difficult to see the other player's hand, let alone read it accurately. This is especially true in Omaha and split-pot games.
What I see (a lot) is a player at one end of the table straining to read a hand at the other end, then asking what the hand is, then waiting until someone else reads it out loud (which the dealer or one of the players will finally do, regardless of the house procedure), then trying to get confirmation before he mucks... or simply misreading the tabled hand at a distance and making a mistake. This is all avoided (mostly) if the dealer just reads the hands as they're tabled.
IMO, reading a tabled hand accurately at showdown is not a skill on which winning or losing pots should depend. If you agree with this, then waiting for all hands to be tabled (or mucked) is a pointless waste of time (at best).
Cards are supposed to speak, but IME, they don't ever actually say much on their own....

My original post seemed like an opinion, but I manage a poker room in a casino and I can assure you this is how I train all of my dealers to handle showdown and it is written in my procedure manual that the dealer will announce the best tabled hand as they are shown and only announce a better hand if one is shown. They will also push up the board cards used to make the best hand.

It is also written that it is the player's responsibility to follow the action. This includes dealer mistakes of bet sizes, tabled hands announced, etc. If a dealer makes a mistake, it is ultimately on the player to catch it in most all cases.

Pick one.

Can or must?

I usually play Omaha/8, a game in which many dealers have difficulty reading hands properly. There's often a lot of confusion when there are 4 low cards on the board and even more when there are 5. And some players are very unhelpful at showdown: not only do they not verbally announce their hand, but they often turn over their down cards without indicating which 2 play; or they sometimes turn over the non-playing cards first.

My philosophy as a player is that all tabled hands deserve to be read properly, and all winning hands deserve to get the portion of the pot they are entitled to, even if it's only a quarter or a sixth. And I would like to see hands read quickly as well as accurately so that we can move on to the next hand. So when I see dealers struggling to read the low or failing to notice that the player with the nut low also backed in to some weird straight, I will often speak up.

Occasionally a dealer gets annoyed when I and other players read hands in this way. I've heard one dealer say, "I don't need your help." However, I've had other dealers thank me or pull me aside before their down begins and ask me to make sure they're reading hands properly.

Of course, when the dealer is focused on seat 7's two pair, and I point out that seat 3 actually has a straight in addition to his smaller two pair, seat 7 will sometimes get pissed at me—as if I somehow robbed him of the pot that was about to be wrongly pushed his way. But my motivation is never to harm or help any particular player: it is to protect the integrity of the game. I'll read hands that beat mine. Once I stopped the dealer from mucking another player's hand because his live low tied mine (neither the dealer nor the player saw it).

What I often tell people when they challenge me for speaking up is that when a dealer misreads a hand, it is not only my right but my obligation to speak up. It is everyone's obligation to make sure that all tabled hands are read correctly.

Do you agree with my approach and rationale?

And by the way, in the games I play in, I am not the only player reading hands at showdown. There's often a lot of discussion (and sometimes temporary confusion) about which is better for low, the A2 or the 73 on a board of 845K2.

Thank you, Dinesh. I always enjoy reading your comments in this forum.

Can: definitely. Should: Possibly. Must: probably not.

I not only agree with your approach, but practice it myself. Though I will usually wait and give the dealer time to do it himself, and only jump in if it looks like an error might be occurring. (This is less true in Omaha games, where usually everyone at the table understands that it's a team effort.)

Appreciate the kind words.

I really believe if a player sees and realizes the error, they have a DUTY to speak up and attempt to have it corrected. Must one follow their duties, no, but consciencely choosing to not meet ones duties speaks volumes. So I would say much closer to must than probably.

While I appreciate the thought, everyone at the table reading hands at the same time is not much help.

If I look like I'm struggling or about to push the pot the wrong way... please speak up.

But at least give me a chance to show I can do my job.