Under what circumstances do you ask to see both hands ?

I reserve this only for times in which I suspect collusion (Which is basically never) only because I dont want to pee people off or hold up the game.

Perhaps im wrong in this and I should demand to see both hands in other circumstances also.

Thoughts?

Never.

When ppl are stalling on showdown like:
V1: damn good call. you win.
V2: i have a weak hand.
V1: what do you have?
V2: you show first, you bet.
V1: I have 2nd pair (shows one jack)
V2: me too what's your kicker? (shows one jack too)

pissed off 2p2er: srly? dealer, both hands please.

Same here.

if somebody asks to see my hand when they shouldnt i ask for a new setup

everybody learns a valuable lesson

You ask for a new set up and the following happens.

1. The dealer calls for a set up and the players looking for an excuse to leave the table for a smoke, a restroom break or whatever get up and leave without fear of missing that special hand. Maybe they are back when the dealer finishes the card check and shuffle, but probably not.

2. The dealer probably tips the runner for getting the set up.

3. The dealer losses the opportunity to deal two hands.

4. The players who have never asked to see your cards paint a target on your back.

Basically, you angered some players who did nothing to you, cost the dealer money di8rectly and indirectly (again someone who did nothing to you) given some players an excuse to leave the table.

Now, exactly what lesson was learned and by whom?

And do you actually play live poker?

Most players will probably thank you for asking for a setup. Much better to just demand to see the hand of whoever asked you everytime he gets to showdown.

New setup = cards? Sorry

Yes, it's a superstitious thing some players will do when running poorly.

The fact is that some rooms allow players to see any called hand by any player who is at the table. The rules allow it, period.

It is useful? Probably not, most players cannot make use of the information they obtain anyway. Many players feel it is rude to do so but it is still within the rules.

Acting out because you feel the player should not be asking to see your hand is not mature or profitable. Acting out would include asking for s set up just because a player asked to see your hand, repeatedly asking to see that players hands in some muddled form of retribution.

Bottom line, it hurts the bottom line. Fewer hands are dealt, it creates hard feelings and people start attacking each other over what amounts to nothing.

If a player keeps asking to see hands, a well run room will stop it, it is a privilege, not a right.

Someone wants to see your hand, turn it over, you might have miosread it and if you table the best hand, even if you didn't realize it was the best hand, yu win the pot.

I think you should just turn over your hand when a; action is done anyway, far too many people throw away pots or portions of pots because they failed to table a hand that could have split the pot or won the whole thing.

Demanding setups, asking to see another players hands as revenge, that's not poker, it's childish temper tantrum, nothing more.

I hate it. It is within the rules to ask to see both, but is more often abused. If you get called you should show... if your calling someone then you shouldn't have to show unless you win. Players that ask to see both can cost themselves and everyone at the table action when a Fish gets embarassed and then leaves the table. GFJ on getting that extra info. It isn't good poker etiquette imo unless your suspecting collusion which is as stated just about "never".

The only people you have to worry about colluding are sophisticated enough to never put themselves in a situation where they could be required to show their hands.

This is what I do. I ask to see their hand EVERY TIME I'm in the same position in a hand where they asked to see mine.

Don't ask to see my hand unless you called me. aND EVEN THEN. u r dumb if you dont let me muck...who knows if i'll have a winner.

Even then it probably won't prove collusion. People are allowed to play their hands however they want. You should be able to spot collusion just by watching.

I use this play as follows:

- if someone uses it on me once, I will use it on them every time they go to showdown in as tit-for-tat.
- if I think it gives me a chance to put my opponent on tilt, I will use this play.
- I will occasionally use it for information if I feel that the cost of the informatoin in bad will is not too high.

I wish more people would realize this. IWTSTH should be reserved for turn folds if we want to prevent collusion. YOUD ACTUALLY PREVENT COLLUSION!!! Ofc, a floor man should be there to give the ok, and player history should be mentioned... Uncovering collusion isn't a clean or easy thing. And it certainly isn't done by IWTSTH at showdown.

I don't do it. I would do it if I thought there was collusion that I could detect, but that's about it.

That said, I have seen the "dealer, all hands" move when the players are being idiots at showdown, and I don't have any objection to someone doing that.

Ive never actually asked to see both cards I just heard that the rule is there ONLY to prevent collusion and thus its the only circumstance I could think of in which I would ask to see both hands. (in one casino I was in many years ago I remember the floor telling someone unless they suspect collusion they could not ask!! I have since forgotten which casino this is but im 90% sure it was in San Diego)

Im interested to know and would like to hear from people who do sometimes ask to see both hands, how often they might do this and there reasons.

^^ Perhaps one circumstance would be if you saw two players signaling to each other, you decoded it and could fairly accurately call out both hands. This would be about the only way this rule would be good in detecting collusion that I can think of.

Well, it can detect collusion if two people raise you out of the pot and then check it down.

Then you don't need to see the cards.

Seeing the cards helps because although I don't like it, such collusion when both players have close-to-the-nuts doesn't hurt the third party who folded a weaker hand, whereas such collusion when one player has bottom pair and the other one has no pair no draw screws the third party out of a pot.

Stopping collusion at live games would require far more resources than any casino is willing to dedicate to it, so you just need to accept that if you play in live games, you are far more likely to get cheated than online.

I think the last clause of your sentence is wrong, although your overall point is right. There is/was plenty of cheating online, a lot of which was documented here on 2+2. But having said that, you are correct that it is very hard to stop collusion in live poker. Nonetheless, it is at least theoretically possible to use IWTSTH to establish it.

Yes, there has been lots of cheating online, and we can talk about because it is possible to detect it and do something about it. In live casinos, it isn't.

I don't think the fact that people get away with cheating in live casinos is evidence that it happens less often there.