Flip all of your cards over ******* and speed the game up. This is like some douche only flipping an ace up on the river in holdem.

That is or should as the rule some places but not many. I think PA is or was that way

Not any more.....
Seriously, whether you had to show the other two cards or not is a house rule issue. Both rules are fairly common, actually. So you were either right or wrong on this, depending on which this room uses.
But you were certainly wrong to lose it, curse, and especially to force your two cards into the muck. This is a lot more serious than you apparently think, and IMO should have gotten you thrown out by itself. (I have seen this, BTW.)

Omaha players gonna Omaha.

A lot of traction on this thread in a short time ... most of it is covered IMO.

1) OP is not first to show, but shows a nutted hand OOT. S1 chooses to muck. Push the pot and move on.

2) The dispute isn't described as IWTSTH. It's over whether or not OP is obligated to show his other two cards. Once S1 mucks and not withstanding a room rule then we push the pot and move on.

3) How the Floor doesn't start with the Dealer is beyond me. How the Dealer sits quiet is also beyond me ... unless a Player actually called the Floor over and not the Dealer.

4) OP is pushing even 'reg' boundaries with the forced muck and other behavior at the table. Probably smart to leave before being asked to leave.

5) There already is a rule requiring a Player to properly table their hand in order to claim a pot at Showdown. But there is also a rule stating that 'last hand standing' also claims the pot. A 'real' Showdown requires at least two tabled hands of which there is zero in this case ... so we defer to a rule we can actually apply (last live hand). If the house wants to modify the 'Showdown' rules then so be it but I don't see a need for it. The Dealer could've stepped in here and explained all of this away AND THEN called the Floor over if the unruly behavior continued.

A) Let Seat 2/3 be mad at S1 for not tabling, forcing OP to show all 4 cards.
B) Let S2/3 be mad at OP for knowing the rules ... which I assume is an extension of OP possibly being a better/winning Player.
C) S2/3 are 'XXXX's for not simply implementing IWTSTH. This hand did go to Showdown, which allows them the right to request it be tabled. Which is also how I would rule here if asked about IWTSTH, not 'must table' the hand as described. The fact that the Showdown came to a abrupt end when S1 mucked wouldn't sway me from the fact that we were at Showdown to begin with (due to the all-ins). GL

The problem isn’t whether or not you’re wrong which you are at most places but that you handled it like an ass.

Wish floor had gone to the tape and seen that 2 did table all cards and got the pot.

You are a real piece of ****.

So, obviously, absent any less common house rules, S2 did not table his hand (even flashing them is not tabling) and his hand is now dead. You get the pot.

From your description of your reaction at the table, as well as your reaction to comments here, it is clear that you are likely youngish and excitable, and not really able to step back from situations and remain objective. If I were you, that is primarily what I would focus on. When people get locked in on conflict, they actually become less rational (it has a lot to do with the limbic system and the lizard brain and all that). You literally get dumber and make less rational decisions when you get drawn into a conflict (though your reaction time increases dramatically). learn to stay out of this zone, and you will be able to handle these situations more gracefully.

As far as how you should treat S1-3 next time you see them, the best approach would be to either ignore the history, or even apologize for the escalation. Whether you were initially right or wrong, you handled it ungracefully and created\escalated drama. Being the bigger man will both make you feel better, and will confuse them as well.

Or you can nurse a grudge and let yourself get steamed everytime they win a hand. your choice.

I am pretty sure that in the US “most”, as in majority or over half, do not require the only live hand to show. At least not in most cases. His behavior is wrong in any room. But his rule interpretation is correct in most.

Remember no hand has been tabled yet and only one player still has live cards.

If you habitually do this I bet you a floor will warn you then either kick you out or try to not award the pot if you continuously do partial showdowns. I thought this wasn’t the case as people do this in holdem habitually and it’s never a big deal but first place I played plo I was warned they would not award me the pot in the future if I did that and I’ve seen it done to others at other casinos.

I was told that my partial showdown influenced the player to muck so it was illegal. I could either do a full showdown or wait my turn to showdown THEN if the player mucks I can muck.

Irregardless if a player asks to see a live hand at showdown the player has to show.

Not to nit pick ... but that's what we do here ...
1) We are at Showdown, Players are supposed to show/table their cards. Absent an actual room rule, I think 'illegal' is a bit stiff. Unless you announce your hand incorrectly or are showing a weaker hand as a prompt, on purpose, then I don't think we are even approaching a breach of poker ethics. Certainly room's have to implement 'policy' to control their games.

2) I think you mean your opponent(s) muck before you show/table your hand, in turn. Always take the pot if that happens ... and that also opens up a door to whether or not IWTSTH applies since without a 'first' tabled hand we shouldn't be allowed to request to see an untabled hand.

3) The way the OP describes things the dispute wasn't about IWTSTH, it was about whether or not the rules 'required' him to show the other two cards. TDA has pared down IWTSTH to only Players who are still holding onto (unmucked) cards, which I don't think we have in this case, stating the "I paid to see those cards" as their basis. Once everyone mucks it's too late.

4) I've avoided this until now ... A Player's hand is the golden ticket, protect your rights to 'everything poker' by hanging onto your cards. GL

I think if dinesh were the floor in your room, he'd probably have cowed the regs into behaving better and you would never be in that situation.

I played in a room where the rule is that you must table all cards at showdown to claim the pot even if the other players surrender. One player did not want to show his other two cards. The floor was called over and the player asked what would happen if he shoved his cards into the muck while having the only live hand. The floor told him that he would reconstruct the pot and refund all the players their money. He showed.

I do prefer floors to be heavy-handed and treat players like the large-sized children that they often are when they misbehave.

This should be in the Omaha rule book.

1. I think they usually claim it was akin to slow rolling and I’m assuming it usually escalates to one player showing 2 cards another player showing 2 cards that beat it then first player showing another card that beats those two etc if they don’t stop it quickly. if you continuously do partial showdowns at any casino in Omaha I doubt the floor will allow it very long and players will say something. Whenever they’ve come over in situations like this they always tell the dealer to show the hand and tell all the players to stop acting like kids.

3. I’ve never seen a IWTSTH request in a live cash game denied when the floor comes over. It’s at the floors discretion and it’s the quickest solution to a really idiotic problem.

I call it the 'Once a Month Rule' since if you are doing it more than once a month, it's probably not warranted that much ... if it's even warranted that much to begin with.

One room I played in had a couple of regs going at it and had to squeeze the rule down to 'only' the TDA Showdown Players version since the regs were asking to see every attempted muck by the other in an effort to gain information and show the rest of the table the junk the other was playing. GL

Grunch.

It sounds like the other players hand was mucked prematurely. In this situation, the pot should have been awarded to you as you showed the winning hand and he did not muck due to error. You should have showed all 4 cards, but that is a minor procedural error.

Other players should not have been involved to the extent described, and should be warned by the floor.

He did not show the winning hand and that point should be out of the question? The winning hand consists of all 4 of his hole cards even if only two of them play.

He should be awarded the pot because he had the last live hand. Unless there’s a house rule to the contrary.

FWIW, I am 100% for house rules that a player has to table all 4 cards to claim the pot when showing two cards caused another player to muck.

Though the hand was not formally tabled, he still showed his opponent the winner. The key point here is OP did not mislead the opponent into accidentally mucking the winner or possible winner.

It is a question of terminology. No one is saying he angled, but a winning hand implies a tabled hand with a higher value than other tabled hands. He wins because he has the last live hand.

Showing all 4 cards to verify a valid hand after inducing a muck does not seem unreasonable.

Read what madlex is saying. The question isn't about whether the pot should have been awarded to OP but why. You said:

This is wrong.

First none of this has to do with a request to see the cards, IWTSTH. That rule is far from universal. I see more rooms all time that either never had that rule or have removed it. Since that rule normally only applies when a “losing” hand is mucked at showdown, I am not even sure it would have applied were it invoked here.

You claim (or appear to) you have seen pots withheld from a player with the only live hand for not tabling a complete winning had when his cards were the ONLY LIVE HAND? Where? There are a very few places with this rule but few. Now if the other hand was tabled or someone else has a live hand, tabling all four cards is a standard rule.

The times I have seen a player not get a pot is when A tables his hand. Then B shows two that beat A. A then turns over and has the dealer muck them. But B never tables four cards. In this scenario A will get the pot in most rooms since B hand was never tabled AND A HAND WAS. In this case only A has a live hand even if the cards are in the muck now they are still alive.

The whole idea about influencing other player to muck is an error prone rabbit hole. He did not lie and or over represent his hand. What did he do illegal to influence op to muck? Are there legal ways at showdown to influence? What if A mucks on his own and then claims B influenced him?

Fact should be that the only live hand remaining always gets the pot. After the hand, floor can warn repeat and he may be told to leave. Or some other punishment. But unless there is a nonstandard rule specifically on point, he gets that pot. Best hand wins and since his is the only hand it is the best.

Maybe it is reasonable but that is not the standard rule. Standard rule is that best hand wins and the only live hand is the best.

I agree showing just one in Hold’em or just two in plo can be a DB move. But even a DB deserves the pot when he has the only live hand.

The typical scenario is DB1 shows his best two cards. So DB2 shows his two best. DB1 then mucks but thinks that DB2 now “must” show or table all four. Why? If he wants to see all four of his ops cards all he has to do is table his four cards.

I've never seen it actually not rewarded to the player but I think borgata does what BDHarrison described. Fort Myers will kill your hand I believe and the other player actually wins the pot but that place is ridiculous and I think the PLO game moved because the floors did incompetent things like this.

I have seen a lot of warnings on the matter and the floor almost always says the same thing. If you do not show your cards this time (or from now on if he already mucked the other two) then I will not award you the pot (or you will be asked to leave if they do not do think gaming will allow that there). Never seen someone stupid enough to not show their cards or not do it again.

You guys seem fascinated on who wins the pot as proof he's right. Just because he doesn't lose the pot doesn't mean he's not right. He will be asked to leave if he continuously does partial showdowns and the floor will expose his cards when he comes over and kick him out if he jams them into the muck.

1) AAJT gets the pot. The other player mucked, he still has cards, that's all there is to it. Anyone calling for his hand to be killed and the pot left for the next hand or even more bizarrely given to the player who mucked first is out of line. If you want to ban him for the day for force mucking half his hand or whatever that's fine but he gets that pot.

2) People that puke out "show one show all" or who demand to see all the cards who aren't in the hand are out of line unless they're doing it because there's some concern of collusion or other incorrect play. With that said, most rooms I've played in have a PLO rule that it takes four cards to win a pot and if you show two and someone invokes the rule just go ahead and show the rest. As an analogy 99% of the time when you get a ticket for a rolling stop instead of a full stop at a stop sign it's probably BS, but it's on the books and you have to live with it when it happens.

3) If people do a show one show all or start getting fussy about seeing cards when you're trying to be nice to your buddy or the fish at the table or whatever I just tell the guy I was goofing around with "Sorry can't show any more today, these guys are going to spoil it" and move on.

4) AAJT you need to simmer down buddy

No one has fascinated over or fixated on the winner being right. Most have said or alluded AAJT was a DB. the questions and discussion have been on the correct ruling. And that is simple, best hand wins pot. And only hand by default is best.

A very few rooms have a must show your only live hand to win rule. If a room chooses to have such a rule, fine. I have no problem. But that is a very rare rule to have.

As to floor kicking you out, he can choose to do that anytime you are a DB. But barring a specific rule to the contrary, you will nearly always be taking the pot with you.