We are able to agree because we haven’t arbitrarily boxed ourselves in with a silly narrow definition and projected it onto an already descriptivist text.

Interesting flow to the thread here ... Certainly a spot where 'The Spirit of the Law' might be more important than the actual/potential actions taken.

1) I think there is some merit to a 'chicken/egg' spot with SOSA/IWTSTH. If IWTSTH is due to a SOSA moment, then one certainly could argue that the 'rules' of SOSA should take precedent.
2) I think it's clever, and definitely important in the moment, for the Dealer to clearly define who the Player is directing his 'request' to before commenting or taking any action on the cards.

3) Just to stir the pot .. .. The Dealer could 'show' the cards without tabling them!! Does SOSA or IWTSTH actually direct that the holding be tabled, or just 'shown' for all to see?
4) Another player 'voluntarily' tabling a hand is no different than the same player 'reading' the hand while a Player holds them up off the table. This is an offense by the tabling/reading Player but shouldn't keep the hand from being used to win the pot because of the offense.

5) I have no issue with a Player getting 'help' tabling his cards from another Player or the Dealer. It's ridiculous to expect a Player to turn his cards face down only to turn them back over to satisfy a grammatical tone. We certainly want a Player handling/directing what happens to his holding themselves, but a Player can't be held responsible for the actions of others either.
6) Always good to consider Dealer procedure and room 'pot pushed' rules as well to help limit these spots from popping up. GL

I think you are still missing the point of the dive into the definition. The issue that came up was that some people were making the case that if a player mucks his cards face down, and a third party player reaches over and turns them face up, that despite the wishes and actions of the player whose cards they were, that hand is now officially considered tabled and therefore is live and can change the outcome of a hand. My point is that the rules state that a player must be the one who does that, not any random player.

Others believe that if a hand is face up on the felt, it doesn't matter how it got that way, it's a live hand. I think that is as ridiculous as stating that if a third party reached over and tossed your chips in the pot, that it was a valid bet, because the rules say that if chips are placed into the betting area while action is on you, then it is a bet. Of course it matters who placed the chips in the betting area. And IMO of course it matters who tabled the hand.

Saying "if a hand is tabled, it's tabled and plays" without regard to who tabled it is like saying "if chips are bet, they're bet and play" without regard to who bet them. Adding your silly example of what if someone turns my cards over first is like saying if a player tossed your chips into the pot does that mean you could no longer bet those chips.

If posters believe that a third party can physically take actions with another players cards/chips and have that be binding over the desires of the player, wthat's their opinion. I was simply pointing out that in regards to making a claim for the pot, the rules state the player whose cards they are must do it for it to be considered an official action.

I'd like to know what the ruling was if you folks don't mind, tia.

.

Thanks. That's what I get for skimming.

He has two rights to see the cards. One, iwtsth, does not require that the cards were shown. But it also carries the risk that if invoke he can lose the hand. The second is Sosa which definitely does require the cards were shown to another. But that cause for invoking removes the risk of losing the hand. So which rule is used to expose the cards is critical.

The request should be considered a Sosa. No risk of loss is incurred.

You're kidding, right?

Very good chance the dealer and floor just see this as the winner asking to see the losers hand.

Pretty sure he meant "No risk of loss should be incurred".

One of the things we all know 'typically' happens in poker is that players get their 'daily' warning. Sometimes a player will get a warning and the Floor will announce/imply that the warning covers the whole table. This can lead to rulings that are actually not by rule, but by the spirit of the game.

Once we get to Showdown the responsibility door creeps open for everyone at the table to make sure the chips go where they are supposed to go ... the best hand wins. In order for that to happen we need Players involved in the Showdown willing to have their cards exposed first.

Now we might have a Player not involved in the Showdown tabling an attempted Muck ... At this point in time we don't care if it's out of ignorance, suspected collusion, their attempt at IWTSTH before the Dealer completes the Muck or they just can't believe 'this' Player has a worse hand based on whatever thoughts are bouncing around in their head. Regardless of intent, we now have a 'tabled' hand at Showdown.

My feeling is that it falls under IWTSTH. We now have to decide if 'all' IWTSTH requests make this a live hand eligible for Showdown.

From Roberts 'Showdown #5' ... Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

The wording here is actually pretty bad, replace winning/losing with Showdown/Showdown Player IMO and it uses 'folded', not attempted Muck, as a reference. A Fold is defined as a player releasing their cards (and any rights to the pot). But we also know that Folding and Mucking are two separate issues these days so there is a conflict within the rules/definitions and even those don't match Pre and Post-Showdown. We've had discussions that a Player can't 'Fold' at Showdown, only Muck.

You can also see that there is no 'second chance' for the Folding player. Once the hand is exposed via IWTSTH by a non-Showdown Player it's considered dead. Any issues with this Player attempting to Muck a winning hand can now be addressed by the Dealer/Floor, but they don't get the pot!

I think it's fair to say that we will get different rulings from Floors in these spots, but I think it's pretty clear that a player shouldn't win a pot unless they or another player involved in the Showdown 'somehow' direct that those cards are exposed and ultimately tabled. We obviously want each Player to turn over their own hand, but if they request that they get tabled in some other manner then I would consider it a live hand ... The key is who decided/asked for them to be exposed and they accept the risk that they will be tabled correctly. (Leave that to another thread.) GL

PS .. Yes, I know I'm going the opposite of my own #4 from above here. But #4 from above is my opinion (hand out warnings) and I'm now interpreting the actual Rule here.

Please define mucking for me.

By the Rules or by practice? A Fold is pre-Showdown and a Muck is at Showdown and are basically the same thing in practice. A Player 'throws their hand away and relinquishes their interest in a pot' is a Fold via Robert's.

The difference arises twofold when, one, we apply the concept that a Player can't 'Fold' at Showdown since they aren't facing action. AND two, at Showdown we allow for a Player to reverse their decision to 'Muck' if the cards are still identifiable.

In Robert's there are two definitions of 'Muck'. One being the actual pile of 'discarded' cards and the other being to 'discard' a hand.

So while a Player facing action prior to Showdown 'Folds' their hand, with no recourse, into the Muck (pile) a Player at Showdown may 'Muck' (discard) their hand ... and in most rooms their hand is still live until the cards are unidentifiable in the Muck (pile).

I think I got that right ... It reads weird, but a Player may Muck his hand into the Muck at Showdown. GL

IMO a player tossing his hand in face down is folding.
Then I muck them by sliding them into the muck pile.

Occasionally a player fires his hand directly into the muck pile. He has folded and mucked in one motion.

Answer20, thank you for so eloquently explaining this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In your room, if, at showdown cards are identifiable, and a player wants to table them after having thrown them forward, are they live or dead? In my room they are live. If not at showdown and facing a bet, they are dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if I quickly grab my cards back and toss out a call,
the dealer will give me back my bet and take my hand from me?

Where did you come up with this?

I go away for a few days and this thing got stirred up nicely I see.



From the OP... That is all the relevant info needed here to make a decision.

IWTSTH is used when a player requests to see a mucked hand at showdown. Generally if the winner is the one who asked then the hand becomes live. Anyone else asks and the hand is dead.

SOSA is used when a player shows his cards to another player and doesn't show it to everyone. It does not make the hand live if it happens at showdown.

According to the OP, Player 2 showed his hand to another player and then mucked. Player 1 asked "what did he show?". To me, this is a request to see the hand because he showed it to another player. It is not a request to see a called hand at showdown. This distinction has to be made in order to make a proper ruling.

Those of you saying that because this is at showdown, it has to be IWTSTH, are wrong. If you muck your hand and the winning player asks to see it, he is using IWTSTH and your hand becomes live. Once you show your hand to another player, you have given everyone else at the table a right to see it INCLUDING the winning player without making it live. If Player 2 didn't show his hand to his neighbor, this thread doesn't exist. As soon as he showed it to his neighbor and mucked he lost his chance to win unless he was able to reach out and turn his cards over himself.

IMO "show one, show all" trumps "IWTSTH".

No. Read what I said. IF FACING A BET and you throw your cards forward, they are dead.


Edited: sorry, it was me who misread! Yes. It’s a dead hand. I believe that to be a standard rule.

In my room they will.

If I tossed out a call I must have been FACING A BET.

Yes, I edited. Sorry. It was me who misread you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the flop utg bets and I toss my hand forward but quickly grab
it before anyone has acted behind me and call... my hand is dead?

I would expect that in the huge majority of rooms if someone bets, and in response to that bet you throw your cards forward face-down, and then attempt to retrieve them and call that you will not be able to do so.

In our room, when facing a bet, the cards are dead when they are released forward and face down. They can't be retrieved. But at showdown, they can be retrieved if you grab them back before the dealer gets them.

I've always felt that there should not be that distinction, and in both cases they should be dead. The player at showdown has a choice to table or muck. I don't see why if he chooses to muck, he is allowed to change his mind, and it can depend on whether the dealer mucks the cards quickly for one player but slowly for another. If he needs to make sure what his hand is, or what his opponent has, etc, he needs to do that before he mucks, not after.