In a cash game, the final board was A Q 7 4 Q.

My opponent was first to act and made a small bet on the river. I called and tabled AK. My opponent tabled only one of his cards, a Queen.

The dealer sat there quietly for a little bit. After a short while without my opponent tabling his full hand, the dealer mucked his cards and awarded me the pot.

My opponent complained obviously enough, but the dealer said that the room requires both cards to be tabled to claim a pot in a cash game. Even though the single card that my opponent tabled was good enough to win, it was not enough to claim the pot.

The dealer went on to say that he did not believe that he could instruct my opponent to table his full hand. The dealer then called the floor on his own initiative. He floor concluded that the dealer had acted properly in all respects.

What is the rationale behind the rule, when the single card that has been tabled is enough to demonstrate both the right to the pot and the absence of collusion?

FWIW, I (a) never argued that I was entitled to the pot; (b) did not oppose my opponent's resistance to the ruling; (c) did not ask the dealer to muck his hand; (d) did not ask for the floor; and (e) voluntarily gave my opponent the entire pot after the floor ruled against him (he had the best hand after all). Despite all this good karma, I still lost a big hand to another player who had a two-outer within the next orbit.

Because the other card might be a duplicate of one already on the board - rendering that hand dead. It's a way of making sure the deck is pure and there is no cheating going on.

He can't, true, but he most certainly can remind the table of the rule that you must show two to make a claim for the pot. The dealer is a dick, and the floor is incorrect that he acted appropriately.

If cheating was suspected here, then the dealer should have counted down the deck after the hand. If the deck was not counted down, then that reasoning falls completely flat.

Or he might have 3 cards.

Or you might want to know what he called pre with. KQ? Q4o?

It's a tough spot for a dealer. They cannot tell the person to table their hand, but they also shouldn't kill the hand without at least a warning, because it is (at best) ambiguous whether the person is folding a winner rather than just not knowing about the rule that requires showing both.

My preference is that the dealer either say "You must show both to win" or, less preferably, say "Is that a fold?" and if the player agrees then turn it face down and slowly drag it to the muck.

I never understand why people do that BS with one card. Do they really think showing their kicker is going to cause them to lose the information battle? It's just dumb and slows down the game. Dealer, though should have told him he has to show two to claim the pot.

Here's the RROP rule:

Maybe Karma wanted your first opponent to go bust, learn his lesson, and become a better person but you interfered with Karma's plan.

Maybe Karma owed your second opponent a couple of make-up calls and was evening his scorecard.

Remember, Karma is a Witch.

And a Witch can be very fickle.

In order to have a live hand, a player must have the correct number of hole cards, neither card can be a joker, and neither card can match the suit and rank of any other card in play. Exposing both hole cards in hold 'em proves that the player has a valid hand and therefore a legitimate claim to the pot.

+1... well played. I'm sure you're right, as usual.

So you want the dealer to count down the deck after every hand?

I would have just told my opponent he needed to show both cards, but that's me.

It's not about cheating,

A) It's about making sure it's not a fouled deck/hand (duplicate cards, three cards, etc)
B) A dealer can not, and should not read any hand that doesn't get tabled.

But more importantly, it's the rule, so why not just flip up your cards ?

I didn't know what was going on when the dealer pushed the pot my way. I didn't realize that the dealer had mucked my opponent's hand. My first thought was the dealer had misread the board, and so I spoke up and told him that my opponent had won the pot. That's when the dealer explained his actions and said he was calling the floor.

Actually not. One can have a rule that says you have to show both cards, because you want to make sure a player isn't claiming a pot with a fouled hand, and still not believe that every time a player only shows one card he is doing it because his hand is fouled.

You see if a player knows he can't claim a pot with a fouled hand it is to his benefit to bring the fouled hand to the attention of the dealer as soon as possible. Therefore it is more reasonable assumption to believe that the hand is probably not fouled ..... but yet the rule still benefits the game by preventing players from claiming pots with fouled hands.......

On the issue of a dealer telling a player to show both cards. While I agree a dealer should not tell a player to show both cards .... the dealer can and should tell the player what his options are. "Foldem or Muckem sir."

The way this is described it appears the player has released his cards one face up and one face down (how else could the dealer have mucked them). I wish players would stop doing this nonsense if you aren't folding then keep your cards in your possession or control. The dealer appears to have not thought the players initial intent was to muck his hand.... in this case teh dealer certainly should have asked "Are you mucking." When the player says "No!" a proper response then is "well your choices are muck or show ...choose one please..... "

Personally, I'm not taking a pot like that. OP, you do what you want, it was obv well within the rules and your right to do so, but I'm not taking that pot.*

Yes, he should've tabled both cards(and I hate it when players think they're cute by only showing one) but I probably would've told him myself to show the other card before a dealer gets the chance to go through the whole rigamaro. *BUT, if he refuses to show me after I tell him to? I think I will accept that pot with a grin.

What "good karma?" You took a pot with the worst hand! Not surprised to see that you lost a big hand shortly thereafter. Not at all.

No.

I think you misread his post. He says he voluntarily gave the pot up despite the floor ruling.

Sorry, what I meant was we'd hope the dealer counts down the deck any time he genuinely and reasonably suspects cheating. I realize now that's not what you meant.

The rule is important because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread.

For reasons others have explained, requiring both cards to be shown makes sense. However, I dislike that the dealer didn't, or wasn't allowed to (if that was really the case) tell the player to show both cards. Telling the player he has to show both cards is standard where I play when a player shows only one card. This sort of "gothca" mucking of the winning hand is a good way to drive off new players who might not know the rules as well as they should.

I have NEVER not seen a dealer remind the player that he must show two cards to claim the pot. The fact that the dealer just sat there and then mucked his hand is a terrible way to handle the situation imo. Yes, the player is either being irresponsible or just being a idiot , especially if he is known to do this a lot, for not showing both of his cards, but he obviously has the best hand and at that moment thinks he has done what he needs to in order to claim the pot. However, maybe he plays a lot of home games and this is all that is required there to win the pot, maybe he mistakenly saw someone take a pot when he only showed one card (not seeing the other player mucked instead of called), etc. but regardless of the reason, the dealer and floor handled it just as bad as he did. They actually slowed up the game even more than the player by handling it this way. They all should get a KITN for their participation in this clusterfluck.

You're right, I completely overlooked that part.

OP must've done *something* incredibly wrong prior to this then----there's no way karma would allow him to lose a big pot right after he allows the guy to take the pot.

You get 3 self-imposed KITN's

>>>>

I'm still blue from the last time I had to self impose myself.

I've seen this a bunch of times and the dealer always makes the player show the other card.

A few years back, I was in a game at the Excalibur and a guy refused to show his "other" card and mucked his hand. (The reason was, he had three cards in his hand. I noticed that when one of the players mucked preflop, one of his cards hit the toke box and popped right into this guy's hand. I was watching to see how that would play out.)

He pretended to get pissed and stormed out of the room.