Huh? He already called. "Action" isn't on him, we are at showdown.

player was not making a bluff call , he was really on tilt, that in the next hand he lost his stack with q2off

. i was the lucky one to be able to stack 2 players on that hand but he was 100% not bluff calling with queen high,

which by the way , queen high would have made a straight

Then why is this even a question?

Beeeeeecause the player doesn’t know if he has to show?

I'm just not buying this.
There's no home or underground game where he gets the pot here.
Or do people in these games just say "I beat that." and grab the pot without showing?

The dealer was asked a yes or no question, which he answered properly. Don't see how you think it was deceptive; it almost certainly was not deliberately so.

While I think he could have said something more, it's wrong to assume malicious intent here.

in a situtation like that hand , its possible. i have only seen it 10 times or so lifetime .

usually its a reg that knows his hand will never win with the bluffing hand , getting called while having 6high, low busted flush draws, hands like in the op.



If you come from a regulated casino or online background, this being possible is hard to grasp .

if you come from a home game/underground game background you have definitely seen this

You play in some bonkers/shady games if you've seen that many instances of a mucked hand beating a tabled hand at showdown

This is the equivalent of a player thinking a straight beats a flush and saying "well I've seen home games that do that so if you haven't played home games, that concept my be hard to grasp"

He doesn't have to show, and he was told the correct answer (nothing to see here).

He has to show if he wants to contest the pot, which is obviously the reason why he was asking. If I ask my boss "do I have to come in today" and they say "no" and mean "no, but you'll be fired if you don't" that's not a good answer.

It's also literally 100% that he had a winning hand.

Do you agree with the outcome in the story shared where the person showed one card which was enough to win, asked if he had to show the other, and the dealer said "no" then killed his hand and awarded the pot to the other player?

I agree with this, and can envision an autopilot response that doesn't immediately consider the action, the board, the players, etc. I don't want to KITN the dealer, but I definitely think in the cold light of day it's very suboptimal. "to win the pot" is clearly read into the question, it's the only reason he would be asking. People read into questions the context and intent constantly. How stupid it would be if someone asked "Do I have to post the big blind" and the answer was "no" and then they disqualified him for refusing to post. "Well you don't have to, you can just forfeit herp derp"

saw a Bart hanson video regarding that if that is what you are talking about

https://youtu.be/_tTedGOMvJY?si=vdkJ2IX0v8euYrbA

Nope, I was referring to dinesh's story in post 20 in this thread. But sounds like pretty much the same thing in this video.The hand in the video sucks, and as the opponent I'm never taking the pot especially since I know for a fact he had a non-fouled hand. Good on Bart for saying the same.

The dealer should ask the player to clarify their intention. You can ask a player to clarify intention without advising them what action to take. Trying to technicality people out of money without the best hand is garbage behavior.

100% agree and i dont blame the dealer as he was probably on auto pilot a bit.
it was super bowl weekend at 2am and he was on hour 13.

Well the dealer isn't a mind reader, idk how she can know he's tryna claim the pot. It looked like he was beat and was asking if he still needed to show.

The other situation is a lot different, since there was a claim being made for the pot. The dearer should just say "you gotta show two to win". A dealer saying no then killing his hand is horrible.

It looks like a player who calls a pot size bet on the turn and the river is beat when opp says "good call" and tables king high? The only way the player is beat is if they called pot size bets on turn and river to literally play the board. If they aren't playing the board they have a pair, a straight, or ace high.

Again, the dealer can get there on autopilot, but to say right now that it looks like the player lost to king high and thinks they must table the losing hand is just disingenuous.

I don't know why showing one card silently is a "claim for the pot" but this other situation requires mind reading. The other player asked the same question "do I have to show the other card?" Why isn't saying "no" the exact same as this? They don't have to show the card unless they want the pot.

Which is why clarifying intent without advising is the way to go. Dealer shouldn't say "turn both your cards face up" without qualifiers but can/should say "To win the pot, need to see two cards that beat those" or ask "are you mucking or making a claim for the pot?" or whatever.

If the first player shows a pair of tens or such, should the dealer still clarify?

I think the caller asking if they have to show is usually wanting to contest the pot. That makes it a bit odder/closer. But I think a standard answer or "You can show and I can push the pot to the best hand or you can not show and I can push him the pot" or similar doesn't give advice and conveys full information.

that new player to casino poker would have been better off getting tens showed to him because then he shows.

i think new player to casino thinking no way he calls with worse than king high (no one does there) was his downfall for that hand

I get that. My question remains; if the first player has a hand like a pair of tens, do people think the dealer should still say something to the effect of “only if you want to win the hand”?

It's almost borderline OPTAH if the dealer says yes you have to show and the player didn't realize he had bottom pair while almost mucking the winner unknowingly, that would be similar to a neighbor seeing someone was about to muck the winner and then telling him to table his hand.

Also, if that player claims to have played in private games, even in a private game you still have to show your hand to win the pot so did he really think he can just tell the dealer he had him beat and expect the pot to be pushed to him?

Allegedly this is not true

I don’t like the dealer saying “yes” without qualifier either. “Yes, if you are making a claim for the pot” is a factual statement of the rules of the card room and then leaves up to the player to decide how he wants to proceed.

And I can def imagine informal home games where the bettor says “good call” or “you’re good” and shows a total airball that everyone acknowledges the pot goes to the caller and just moves on. Usually the bettor also just mucks so that’s what is making this unusual, the verbal concession (which I’m not arguing is binding) combined with a tabled hand.

part 2 ,100% , especially if its a rec that hates to show you allow him that courtesy , can he angle shoot there. possibly but these people afforded that dont care about the money in the pot enough to ever do that

I dealt a hand in a major poker room where player 1 called every street in a 2/5 NL game including a $500 river bet. The board was QdJdTs7s6c. I was 100% sure it would be a chop. The bettor turned over AK for broadway. Player 1 turned over A2 for A high. I announce straight, and go to muck player 1s hand. He puts his hand over his cards and says "I have a straight too".

I stop, trying to figure out if I somehow misread something. I say "you would need a K for a straight" and he responds "what about the deuce?" Now Im just frozen speechless trying to process his question. Then his friend sitting next to him leaned over and said "I dont think deuces are wild here".

I tell that because after that I never assumed anything at all about what a player's hand is going to be based on betting or calling. So in the OP I would never assume the player had a better hand than K high just because he called. Maybe he misread his hand and realized it after he called and doesnt want to show what a mistake he made. So given that, I dont blame the dealer for saying no. And I would never say anything like "yes, if you want to win". IMO that's encouraging a player to table his hand when he may not.

But in this particular situation, I would instead just recite the house rule, like "I can only read tabled hands" and leave it at that. If the player still mucks after that, its on him.