So I know your not suppose to make someone show the losing hand if they don't have to and want to muck.

But what about the winning hand? Let's say on the river it goes to showdown and the bettor was bluffing and just throws his hand in the muck. Is it acceptable for someone involved in the hand (but not the bettor or caller) to ask to see the callers winning hand if the caller doesn't want to show?

Edit: apparently can't correct spelling in title mods pls correct

From an etiquette perspective, you absolutely should not ask to see that hand. But technically you have the right (in many rooms) to ask because it was a called hand. But the rules are shifting on that. For example, TDA rules now say that only those players who make it to showdown can ask. Other rooms say you can only do it if you tell the floor wjy you suspect collusion. So even technically you may not have the right anymore.

But for sure it is never correct from an etiquette perspective.

I'm not asking to see the called hand. I'm asking to see the calling hand.

Same rules apply. Basically, from an etiquette perspective you never ask to see a hand that isnt shown if you arent the caller at showdown. ( and even if you are, if the guy says something like 'you're good or 'I missed).

The term called hand refers to the fact that there was a bet and call versus someone betting and the other guy folding. You have the right to ask to see any hand that went to showdown.

I guess I just feel like there's a difference because it's a winning hand not a losing one. I mean you don't want to rub it in to the guy who lost (he's already embarrassed enough as it is), but the winner is different.

Might you be rubbing it in the face of the loser when the winning hand is shown to be worse than the hand he mucked face down?

I actually think this scenario triggers my sense of possible collusion (especially in tournament play) and makes it more likely to me that I would consider the request to see both players cards to be warranted.

Poker players in general dont want to show their cards unless they have to. In your example, it could be that the caller also had a very weak hand, and didnt want anyone to see it. But mainly it's just considered really rude to ever ask to see a hand. If the player wanted you to see it, he would have shown it. So by definition, if you have to ask, then it's considered bad etiquette.

Some places (NJ, at least) it'll be the dealer asking. If a hand goes to showdown, cards have to be shown. Even if only one player has cards, he still has to show them to get the pot.

Ettiquette Schmettiquette. If you go to Showdown, others in the hand should absolutely be allowed to see the winning hand.

This isn't even close, ettiquette-wise, to forcing a losing hand to show.

Where I play(NJ), the caller would have to show his hand to have any claim on that pot *even if the bettor voluntarily mucks after betting.* Doesn't mean that it's always enforced, but it IS the rule in my room.

Know the rules of your room cause they'll def vary on something like this.

When you ask to see someone's hand (loser or winner), you are implying that you suspect collusion. That's because that was the only reason to ask to see a hand back in the day. No one would ever ask to see a hand to get a line on someone's play because of how serious the implication of collusion is just by asking. Today, even if a person knows it's because you want info and don't actually suspect collusion, most will be confrontational about you suspecting collusion just to discourage the behavior, which then results in a comedy show.

Many posts out there on what I call the "Once a month Rule" ... If you are a reg then I would caution using it, and if so only 'once a month'!!

Room dependent ... General rule is that anyone dealt in the hand may ask to see 'any' showdown hands.

Issue ... Make sure that the 'losing' mucked hand is long gone before getting a peek at the 'winning' hand. Once a hand is turned over it's up for being beaten.

We had an issue (cops called) when a player bet the River and was called. He then flipped his cards towards the dealer a very short distance. Everyone saw the 'action'. This room has a betting/mucking line that generally applies to both chips and cards, but in seats 1 and 10 most players just muck towards the dealer. Thus the room has a 'forward motion with release' rule.

A player asked to see the 'winning' hand ...
'Winning' player flashed a Q ...
'Losing' player then reached for his cards and flashed a K ...
'Losing' player says "I win" ...
Dealer says "No, you mucked" ...
'Losing' player is now pissed and puts both hands ON THE POT being pushed to the 'winning' player and refuses to release.
Dealer explains 'forward motion with release' rule
Player still holds pot
Dealer and 2 other players start to physically remove player's hands from pot and things get a little crazy.
Cops are called ...

In most cases there is no implied collusion, but possibly some ill will towards the 'winner' if other players at the table don't like him or 'know' that he was bluffing.

"Once a month please" ... and even then it may be too often ... GL

This is generally viewed as poor etiquette from my experience. Although in certain situations I think it could be justifiable. I might ask to see if it's a critical hand deep in a tournament against a random player or something. If it's a cash game reg, I'm probably never asking. Like many things, I think it's a very situational thing.

The only situation is when you suspect collusion. That is the only reason why the rule exists. There is no other situation where it's justifiable. You being in a 1 in 1000 spot situation in a tournament doesn't justify misusing a rule anymore than misusing it to get a line on a cash game reg in a typical spot.

I think some of you are misreading what OP is asking: He's not asking if it's ok to ask to see a losing hand. He wants to know what the etiquette is to see the *winning* hand when someone bets, gets called, but then they just muck their cards. Is it ok to want to see the hand of the caller? And that's just it---this actually isn't an ethics thing at all nor does it have anything to do with collusion; many rooms require that ONE hand must be shown when it's equal action.

As always, know the rules of your room.

I always get confused at this point. If a player bets, then gets called, and then throws his hand in the muck, is that considered folding? Or is it impossible to fold when facing no action?

If it is not considered folding, then doesn't the other player have to show a hand to win? I think it is that way where I play (Winstar)

As mentioned, it depends on the room. In some rooms, if there is a showdown, someone must show a hand to win the pot.

In other rooms, if only one person has cards, they win the pot and don't have to show anything.

The etiquette oiwtsth is really independent of whether the hand is a winning one losing hand. The rule should only be invoked if one truly suspects there is collusion between the two players in the hand. Now if the house has a rule that the winning hand must be tabled to claim then there should not be a need to invole iwtsth so the question would be moot.

+1

We all are assuming this is a room where the caller doesn't have to table the hand when the bettor mucks otherwise there would be no question about etiquette (i.e., no thread) since by rule it must be tabled for the pot to be awarded.

Again, asking any hand to be tabled when a player wishes to muck and the hand isn't required to be tabled should only be done if you suspect collusion.