The first one is an attempted rules violation/angle-shot. It should be counter-acted.

The second is merely assisting in any oversights/mistakes that can occur, once people SHOW their hand and therefore claim any rights that they have, to the current pot.

Speaking up about a board, or a kicker not playing... smacks a bit of interference to me. of course, the ugly question then is "If Player B asks if a Jack plays, can someone not in the hand answer honestly?"


pfap, should it be any different if a bet is made on the river, and called, and we then have the OP situation (rather than a check)? Or, is reading the board for your own self changed, now that an action has been taken?

I'm not sure we can say "Oh, if you haven't called yet, I won't help you... but if you called/checked, then accidentally muck, I have to help you."


At showdown (meaning, at the time that showdown should be performed) and after showdown (meaning, showdown actually did occur) are two different animals.

As for the rest of this.... you're being silly.

Some questions:

Board A3K53. Ted says 'Ace, Queen kicker.' Is this an over-declaration of the hand? Do we correct it?

I don't know the answers, just curious as to views.

Also, I note that nowhere in any thread on this subject has anybody had anything to say about the fact that online assists every single hand at showdown. Most are adamant that OPTAH must be adhered to at showdown, yet nobody is up in arms about it not being the case online. Why do you think that is? I don't have the answer, I just find it curious.

Do you think people would be similarly indifferent if online awarded extra chips in chopped pots based on suit rank? How about if two pair beat trips? Where does OPTAH at showdown fall in the grand scheme? How important is it to the integrity of the game?

I'm not being silly, so please don't dismiss it as such. This topic always leads to a lot of fiery debate, and I think that's in part to its inherent contradiction. We know something is wrong, but we can't articulate it.

I ask you: once the board cards are out on the flop but no action has been made, are we not on the flop betting round? If you consider that to still be part of that round, why is showdown different? The previous round of betting is complete, and the community actions are settled. Why is that not the showdown round?

I apologize, I see you were making a distinction of before and after showdown. I'm on my phone, so some of this is hard for me. I do agree with your distinction. However, the ability to draw two lines doesn't really change anything. They're both after all betting rounds. Online, there's little to no distinction between those two lines. Why is nobody upset over this?

Why should I be upset about a different 'type' of poker? That is what online is- a different type of poker, with different benefits, costs and actions.

Comparing live poker with online, for these kinds of things, is where the "silly" comment came from.

Agin, it's a different animal. Do we really want to slow the game down, by forcing people to hit "reveal" or "muck" buttons every time? Wait for them, until they return from the bathroom?

Silly, silly, silly. How you're equating these things, with what we're talking about (which is dictated by the poker type, more than an intentional 'practice', I don't understand.

If you're going to go off in that direction, you're going to need a summary of how you'd see online operating, to match live play.... and why it would make sense to do so.

That really depends on what you think poker should be and who should be involved in someone's hand.

How does OPTAH at showdown benefit the game?

How does the violation of it hurt the game?

What is the penalty for violation?

Why do we not require people to read their tabled hands accurately as a requirement for claiming the pot?

What is special about turning cards up, outside of procedural requirements?

Yes, I realize they're different. But we wait for bets, don't we? Why is this aspect different, but others aren't? Why is this where the distinction is made in another form of poker? I'm not arguing that they're the same, I'm trying to illustrate that this distinction IS made in the most popular form of poker around the world. Why is it such a crime in one form, but shrugged off in another? Are the two really all that different?

I'm not trying trying to argue for the rule to be abolished. I'm asking these questions at face value. Do you have an answer other than 'silly'? Why is it silly?

Okay, the way you presented it seemed silly, at first. I'll get back to this in a few days, when I have some time

I think the existence of OPTAH at all is a huge difference between live and online poker. OPTAH simply doesn't make sense for online play. Players have one limited way to communicate (the chat box) which goes largely unused, and the time limitations make it impossible for players to say much about a hand while action is pending.

Just about the only way you can violate OPTAH online is if you have a buddy or a coach sweating you and giving advice. This happens a lot, and to my knowledge it is perfectly legal. Even if it weren't, how would the sites enforce it?

That does make some sense. I just never have heard of that as a rule, so I think you'd have to write it into your own home ruleset. Absent that explicit exception, I think most people would think helping their opponent win half a pot was interfering with the hand, and could point to the simple "only one person may play a hand" rule for backup.

It doesn't sound so bad. Once action is closed the poker playing is over, OPTAH expires, and the only thing left is to determine the winner of the pot. Anybody can say anything they want?

Do you REQUIRE people to assist in reading the board, or do you let them do it when it suits their interest or prejudices?

I agree that online basically uses the rule "all hands eligible for showdown are exposed and the best hand gets the pot" and the world doesn't unravel. Has anyone tried that in a live game? It would certainly end the showdown-order standoffs.

This is kind of how I look at it: If you want to hide your hand, by mucking it instead of showing it down.... you run the risk of mucking your half of the pot.

Either institute an automatic "checked, must showdown" rule, or let people read boards.... I think.



I have to think about this some more. My biggest problem is, I don't want to train a group to comment on a board, if cards aren't shown down and ESPECIALLY if they aren't involved in the hand.

If cards are shown and a mistake is about to be made for the shown cards, everyone should assist in preventing mistakes. But a self-mistake, reading the board and mucking in this situation? I don't know that we want people commenting in ways that could affect the play, as a general practice. Whether tourney river showdowns should be an exception.. I don't know.

This sums up my point of view when dealing with experienced players. Like Larry, I also have mixed feelings on the idea of a "must showdown" rule. The kitty made a good argument for not forcing players who bluff too much to table their hands every time.

This is a very good point that I hadn't thought about. I don't like making a change to OPTAH that basically says, "When cards are not tabled, you can't talk about the hand, except in this one instance." Exceptions confuse the rules and make it easier for players to make mistakes.

Until pfap fixes his photo, I say we call him the kitth.

I'm not proposing anybody implement rules in stark contrast to standard. I'm asking why it's so important that this is the standard.

I disagree that the time for showdown is ambiguous and confusing. We already make distinctions. You can lie about your hand before showdown, but not once the final river bet is called. For that matter, you can no longer bet at showdown.

Why are we okay helping someone read the board with tabled cards, if board reading is so important? What's the difference between pointing out an overlooked flush to someone who thinks he has one pair, and stopping someone from mucking on a rainbow broadway board?

Plenty of things change once the final river bet is called. Why is board reading the only thing that changes later?

I'm late to this party, and just acting on the first few responses, since they somewhat mirror my own...

I'm going to skip the other replies, and say that this mostly how I feel:

• You can't encourage players to table a hand, but should immediately identify winners that do get tabled.
• If you're in a learning environment, or the game's primary focus is social rather than financial, it's perfectly acceptable to "guide" people, even if you're violating OPTAH here.

That said, my preferred solution here is to "correct" the player announcing "I have a jack" by having the dealer push up the five board cards and saying "Threes and Sevens with an ace." If the mucking player still chooses to fold his hand -- so be it.

Still sounds insane to me to call a dealer out line for saying "Show me a heart" after betting is complete when there's a 4-card flush showing.

Sounds even more insane for somebody to say "King high," show his king and lose to a Queen high hand because he didn't show his other card.

Within the context of the current rule sets, that's just how it is.

hey, just stumbled on this in RRoP:

I know we're mostly past "what is the rule?" and into "is that a good rule?", but thought it was worth noting how directly RRoP addresses the question.

Indeed. I never disagreed that these are the current rules.

Sorry, I'm not clear on the correct ruling.

Is OP within his rights to point out the mistaken 'J high' call?
Is he obliged to?

If the 'J high' hand isn't yet tabled does that change things?

There's a difference of opinion, which is what started the whole debate in this thread. But I think I'm convinced that saying "jack high" is mis-stating a tabled hand (even if unintentional), and this overrules any OPTAH concerns at showdown.

Correcting the player by saying "two pair, ace kicker" or "jack doesn't play" is fine, and probably should be encouraged.

But what if you just tell Jack-high guy that he doesn't have jack high and that he is playing the board? You aren't telling the other guy what he has, you are merely pointing out that he has incorrectly announced the strength of his hand.

Say in a similar situation, someone flips over their hand and says "pair of 9s". The other guy says "can't beat that", but the first guy actually doesn't even have a pair and misread the board - do you say anything there? Are the situations not the same?

I say something there. Screw OPTAH at showdown, I'm going to correct an over-called hand.

I think you have an obligation to correct a miscalled hand. This situation allows us to draw a very fine distinction.