If they are playing together, why doesn't one of them fold when the person they are trying to squeeze folds instead of calling, taking the river, and then open folding.

Most often player A bets River, player B calls and then player A mucks and then demands to see player Bs cards to needle.

Horrible rule

How are B and C being stopped from playing as a team with this rule.

How does this rule prevent "squeezing"?

I think the respondents are confusing the rule that allows any player to see a losing hand at the showdown with the "must show winning hand after bet-call-muck rule".

In any event this rule does not prevent, or deter collusion in the slightest way.

I am about to check out Sugar House Poker room for the first time in the next couple of days and wanted to ask a couple questions.

1) Does the casino offer tier status matching or any free slot play offers for Total Rewards Diamond members or Borgata Black card players? If yea, do I need to sign up for the Sugar House card in the main casino instead of the poker room to take advantage of any such promotions?

2) Are alcoholic drinks free for tournament players?

Thanks!

They'll match your card just give it to a floor

If the rule is not there to deter collusion, then whats the rule for besides pissing off 2+2 regs?
Most rules are to deter collusion(no texting while in a hand, show 1 show all, english only at the table etc). It doesnt stop collusion, but it is a deterrent.

Let's try again. How does the rule deter collusion? I would like to see a logical argument, not just "waving hands".

It doesn't deter collusion. If it goes to showdown and colluder A folds, all it looks like is a bluff when colluder B flips over the their hand. The colluders would have already squeezed someone earlier in the hand. Guess it could help you decide how often a certain player bluffs, but doesn't do anything to stop the colluders.

It can for the next time they do it.

Hence, people who were concluding in this manner would not take any chance of there being a showdown. Hence, one player bets, and the other folds. No showdown.

This is why this rule has nothing to do with collusion.

so i played $1/$2 there a few times ... and paid $3 plus tip for my Fiji water. them someone tells me it's free at $1/$3? true?

#movingupforfreewateris+EV?

Fiji is free at 1/3 and above. At 1/2 why not just get regular water?

might as well just walk out with an empty bottle and scoop some out of the delaware.

fiji is, honestly, at a different level from any bottled water i have ever had. i can't explain it and i know that probably makes no sense. it's just freaking water.

it's gotta be the arsenic

Alcohol also free at 1/3+...

Your argument is great in theory until 3 people see the river and the squeeze play didn't work on the turn. By your theory, no one has ever been caught colluding by trying a squeeze play which we all know is false and happens plenty live and online

Turn action: A checks, B bets, C raises, A check raises. B gets stubborn and calls. C calls. A82J board. All rainbow. So no draws.

River action. A open folds(after check raising) B checks. C shoves. B snaps.

C shows 6 high bc he was trying to collude with A who realized B wasn't folding so he open mucked.

Yes my example is extreme but it smells of teamwork and by B actually having a real strong hand, folis their attempt.

This is the most ridiculous scenario which not only has nothing to do with the original argument, but actually makes me want to play with two players who are colluding and dumping money into the pot with 6 high.

If A open folds the river, B checks, C bets, and B calls. C would muck his hand and the rule would force Player B to show his cards. How does this preventing collusion if we are making the player who is getting squeezed to show his cards?

I've been playing poker for 25 years, and have never seen an example of "squeezing" as totally inept as this. Not live. Not online. And not even in my worst nightmares.

Aside from being totally absurd, the rule of the winning has to show is not even applicable here.

assuming coasterbrad was asking why someone must show their cards in an "equal action" (check/check or bet/call) scenario on the river where the other player mucks, the answer is quite simply that it's pennsylvania law. and PA copied it from new jersey, which instituted it long ago for the sake of "transparency." there's nothing the casino can do

if you're asking something else then i obviously misunderstood you

Yup that's what I was asking. Thank you for the informative response.

Yes. I have posted about this extensively in B&M. The PA law is vaguely worded (and was basically copied from the NJ law), and seems to imply that any hand which gets to showdown must have a winner displayed.

I've copied and pasted the actual text of the gaming law here before, but it's not black and white - it's just a very vague and poorly worded sentence. So it's hard to say for sure that that is why they do it, but that is what I was told when we had these same complaints about it at Parx when they opened years ago.

There's no PA gaming law about having to show your cards to win a pot in that scenario. Every house writes their own gaming procedures and gets them approved by gaming.

For what it's worth, I disagree. Though I do agree that each room writes their procedures and has them approved by gaming, but the procedures must also follow the gaming regs that are in place.

But IANAL, nor do I work in gaming or for any of these rooms.

(s) A certificate holder may clarify and supplement the procedures related to
irregularities in this section in the certificate holder’s Rules Submission under § 601a.2.

Just before:

§ 637a.19. Five-card Omaha Poker; procedures for dealing the cards;
completion of each round of play.

Never realized that webpage existed. Informative.

PLO games are eligible for high hand promotion? Dont like that at all.

Raye, can you explain this? It's obviously much easier to make a big hand with 9 cards than 7.