*sigh*

Cite?

I know bigfishead in real life. He is definitely qualified as an original source.

edit to add: The traditional rule (I don't have a link to the Las Vegas Hilton Rules, but it is written this way in there) is that IWTSTH only applies in games with less than a $1k buyin. In games with a $1k or higher buy in the floor will be called and the hand will not be revealed to satisfy the curiosity of another player.

Why hasn't anyone answered according to the guidlines of the post. Bunch of idiots authoritatively stated wrongly that you must show everywhere all the time. Is that specific knowledge of specific cardrooms like he asked? There are plenty of places, among the most prominent card rooms in the world, where you can declare board, muck, and chop the pot.

Only guidline I see is,
Can't speak for the other voters but I did adhere to the guidline.

Then I posted what I hoped would be helpful to the OP.

I will have to dispute the edit portion. I've read the Hilton rules more times than I can count, and that's simply not in there.
It does say that IWTSTH is a priveledge and should not be abused our it can be revoked.
I have yet to see a reputable older rulebook that specifies whether IWTSTH is to protect against collusion or gather information. But perhaps youcan enlighten me.

CR

Bellagio: Declare "board" and throw them away. That is good enough.

What it says (I might have them on an old computer) is that in games with a $1k or higher buyin (which would have been super nosebleed at the time) that the floor had to be called and that the hand would not be shown to satisfy a curiosity.

I will see if I cn get a chance to get my old computer out of the closet and see if I have them save on it.

You must table your hand in order to be awarded a share of the pot.

For those disagreeing with this, how is this a case of IWTSTH? Isn't this simply a show in order? I 100% agree that IWTSTH should not be for information.

More specifically, if someone declares the board and then reveals a hand that beats the board and is the winning hand, is his hand dead? If not, then it is perfectly fine to wait for the bettor to reveal his cards, IMO.

I know some of you would argue that this is so rare and specific that there is no reason to discuss it. If that is how you feel about topics here, I cannot figure why you would post at all.

Also, I understand the advice that it is sometimes better to let opponents break the rules because they are good for the game. I also don't see how that is relevant to a discussion about the validity of a specific rule.

Before deciding on what to include in your new rulebook I hope you find time to read the "I play the board" decision at Commerce

My advice would be to do everything possible in your freshly written rulebook to require people to table their hands (assuming there's a showdown) if they want to have a claim on the pot.

~ Rick

in most places (i wont say all after i said it and got smacked down last time) a tabled hand speaks regardless of what the player tabling it says. If i say "I play the board" then table a hand that beats the board, the hand that beats the board is what I end up showing down.

I did once meet a gentleman from australia who claimed that in his home casino, misdeclaring your hand did, in fact, kill it. But i have no idea whether this was true of merely his misapprehension of the rules.

I wonder what they do if the dealer misdeclares the hand

I look forward to you finding that rule.

What it does say is that a player can declare playing the board and throw their hand away. It also says a winning hand at showdown by virtue of the opponent discarding his own hand without waiting to see it should still be shown to the table before awarding the pot.
Kind of similar but opposite rulings

BTW, although I am an advocate of the Hilton rules, I voted they must showdown the hand. Not because i want to gather information, but to protect the integrity of the game.

As I think about it, I'm in favor of allowing someone to declare "playing the board" only if another player is also playing the board, even if the player mucked before this was made apparent.

This prevents people from playing the board and insta-mucking as an angle to get information without revealing it, and also protects those who will surely feel somewhat cheated if, for example, they muck to "I have two pair," not recognizing right off that the other person has an underpair to the two pair out there. I am not one who wishes to publicly humiliate or shame those who are weak at poker, since I don't see how that's ever a +EV proposition, and in that example one player did make a declaration, so the information masking is not a concern.

In other words, I vote for using a little common and contextual sense.

OP, I hope you read that thread and don't repeat the mistake of Commerce. That's pretty bad.

After reading the Commerce post, I seem to remember that back 20 - 30 yrs ago, the IWTSTH was only available for the people in the pot at the end of the hand. I think the Hilton rules changed it to anyone can see a called hand at showdown.

Now that you mention it, that's how it was when I was dealing in Vegas 15 years ago.

You may be in favor of allowing that but it is in direct contrast to the rule as written.

9. You must declare that you are playing the board before you throw your cards away; otherwise you relinquish all claim to the pot. (The rule for tournament play is you must retain your hand and show it if asked, in order to win part of the pot.)

Rules are worded for a reason and most people apply the rules as written. Your unwillingness to somehow benefit from new/inexperienced players while generous is not what the rule says.

I am not being a rules nit.
This is not petty.
Robert's Rules are what we play by and we interpret the rules as written, not as we want to read them.

Right, that is how it usually is, so I see no problem with, when calling a bet, sitting there until someone either reveals his hand or mucks, regardless of any verbal declaration, including "i play the board"

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Robert's Rules are not a command from on high as to how the game needs to be played. Robert's is an observation of how the game is played. Rules change all the time, and this rule isn't consistent in all places. The rulebook is mostly about etiquette and how to deal with abnormal situations, when common sense doesn't work.

I'm after what's in the best interest of the game as a whole, not what necessarily fits within the narrow framework of the rules. The rules are a guide, not a mandate.

We have plenty of people on these boards who are in positions of power in cardrooms. When these sorts of questions come up, I don't find it unreasonable to bring up various points of view.

If you're interested in a sign of how rules can change over time, check out a page from this 1897 rulebook (thanks, Palimax!):

Wow!! Where did you find that?

Re: Must Table Hand to Play Board?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:


Robert's Rules are not a command from on high as to how the game needs to be played. Robert's is an observation of how the game is played. Rules change all the time, and this rule isn't consistent in all places. The rulebook is mostly about etiquette and how to deal with abnormal situations, when common sense doesn't work.


WOW!
You cannot be serious with these comments?
Most of us agree the majority of card rooms in the U.S. follow Robert's Rules.

RRules are not an observation.
RRules are rules to be followed.
I am not talking about home games or where these rules are not followed.

Re: Must Table Hand to Play Board?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I'm after what's in the best interest of the game as a whole, not what necessarily fits within the narrow framework of the rules. The rules are a guide, not a mandate.

This is why home games are popular.

We have plenty of people on these boards who are in positions of power in cardrooms. When these sorts of questions come up, I don't find it unreasonable to bring up various points of view.

You don't have to be in a position of power in a cardroom to be able to read a rule and understand or interpret it.

Your interest in what's in the best interest of the game does not/should not trump a poker rule.

heres my take on best interests of the game...

here you have a hard and fast general rule -- a player must show down his complete hand to be eligible to recieve a share of the pot. I think you would agree that this rule should be observed 99% of the time. For example, if there is an ace and no king on the board when the players show down, and one player shows KK, it is not sufficient for another player to show only his ace -- he must show his complete hand.

my question is -- how is it beneficial to the game to carve out a very narrow exception to this generally held standard? It doesnt seem to be an unreasonable hardship that a player who wants to claim all or a portion of the pot table his hand... as a matter of fact it is 1000% standard and expected almost all of the time.