I've always wondered why you have to show your cards on the river to win the pot if your opponent(s) muck?

For instance, you are heads up, you get to the river, check/check, and your opponent says, "I missed," and mucks, but you still have to show to win the pot. (If you bet and they fold, you don't have to show, which makes sense.)

Are there games/rooms in which this isn't the case? (I honestly can't remember when I was in Vegas last if this was the rule, but it is in the other games I play.)

I have never heard of a cardroom that requires you to show your hand in that situation.

In the case you described it should NEVER be the case!

In a cash game you 'should' never have to show your cards if an opponent mucks facing a bet on any street or at showdown. If you are at showdown and you verbalize a hand thus 'causing' your opponent to muck some rooms will make you show.

In a tournament you have to show if anyone else in the hand is all-in.

Once again, in your case ... When you make a bet and your opponent folds/mucks you should NEVER have to show your cards. GL

Sorry, Angus and answer, edited the post as you were posting. It's when there is no bet on the river and player mucks. I'll have to start questioning this, because it's happened a few times lately. I don't know if it's actually in the house rules or not.

I do think you should have to show if you announce your hand and opponent folds.

There are or were some jurisdictions who's gaming regs require the winning hand must show at showdown. But those are few. Most places if heads up and one player voluntarily mucks, the other hand wins and does not need to show.

There are many threads about this. NJ and PA regs (may) require it - the wording of the gambling legislation is very poorly worded and ambiguous, basically saying that the winner must be "properly tabled and displayed" when a hand makes it to showdown.

Historically all the AC rooms required it, and when PA opened up shop 5 years ago they basically just copied all the wording from NJ. I'm told that in the past year or two, some AC rooms (including Borgata) no longer require it, and some PA rooms may not either. Mine (Parx) definitely does. I think Foxwoods does as well, though I am not certain.

Agreed that in most jurisdictions, you are not required to show in this case, and I wish it were this way universally.

I agree with Fore .... but this ideal is 'old' and rooms have moved on. In general the thinking is that the less bluffs you have to show the more action it will create. Some rooms don't separate cash and tournament rule enforcement, but even then ...

... Check/Check/Muck should never force a tabled hand, not even in a tournament without a player all-in in a multi-player hand. And even then ALL hands could be shown down before pushing either pot.

This goes back to the days when you couldn't check-raise! Rules/Regulation changes, some rooms/GCs just don't implement them as fast as we would like. GL

Can’t think of a room in Vegas where that’s the case, certainly none of the big ones on the Strip?

As mentioned, the only time you should have to show at showdown is if you declare a hand causing the other player(s) to muck. Otherwise if everyone else mucks and you have the only live hand, there is no reason to show.

Also, as mentioned, some places will require you to show in order to get the pot by rule and those places are very few and far between. I personally have never been to one, just heard of them here.

it might have been an inexperienced dealer. NJ/PA rooms I play in you never have to show.

Yes, it does. This rule was put in when IWTSTH was eliminated at FW.

It used to be standard in AC that if a hand went to showdown, a hand had to be shown. That's gone away in the last couple years, at least at Borgata. I haven't played anywhere else in more than three years.

it used to be standard a lot of places, WSOP got rid of this rule a few years ago and a good chunk of the country has as well, for good reason IMO, but as always there are a few rooms that are behind the times

I think the intention behind when that rule is applied has to do with collusion more than anything, but I agree not many places (or any I can think of personally) still require that in cash games in the scenario you described.

The rules are (always) whatever the dealer/floor says they are for that hand. But usually , almost always , nowadays , common sense rulings prevail about not having to show down for a winning hand.

I have played in rooms where you are required to show a hand to claim a pot at showdown. I don't think I gain any advantage from not being forced to show my hand even if my opponent surrenders.

Really? I gain a ton of advantage by not having to show -- whether it's a bluff or the nuts (or something in between).

I think the games I play in force the show because they are "underground." Stopping collusion makes some sense in these games.

If you have two players and neither mucks, someone has to show to win.

What I don't understand is - why do you have to show TWO to win when you show the nut card (like the Ace on a 4 card flush board with no sf possible and no paired board)

1) To prove that you actually do have 2 cards ... although, yes, I can see your other card

2) To prove that your cards aren't exactly the same or one isn't a Joker. GL

They used to have that rule at Hollywood Lawrenceburg Indiana. IDK if they still do. Saw a guy show a K only that totally won the hand. Dealer pushed the pot to the other guy. Dealer said house rule was show both or lose the pot. I showed an A once at a session and got a warning. In this case, however, the dealer
Would not let the player show the second card. Most of the table ( me included) made a little noise. Ruling stood. Player with K racked up his remaining stack and left. Silly rule , and their poker room is not very popular these days either BTW.

The dealer didn't give the guy a chance to turn over the 2nd card? Harsh.

I think the guy who showed a K was just an occasional player. The 2nd best player might have been a reg (friend to the dealer) or something IDK for sure. The table was quite upset for the guy, but the dealer claimed that both cards must be shown to win a pot. And the pot was already pushed. I had seen warnings galore about this at Hollywood (got one myself) but I had never seen the rule enforced like this time. Harsh is a mild way of describing it. Now cash games were few (1-3 tables max) in those days and dealers were mostly tournament deallers so maybe that has something to do with it. IDK

Never been as I go to Harrah's of Joliet if i'm in that area. Seems harsh without a warning. Confused Dealer, management sets the tone or possible Dealer/Reg connection .. maybe even Hero doesn't tip and Dealer found a spot to stick him.

I've pretty much found that most tables have 2-3 people who are more than willing to show how much they know by interjecting into a spot, especially for a newbie/rec. It just makes sense to try and cultivate the player pool.

What do you think this Hero is going to say about the room? Perhaps he wont say anything out of embarrassment but he will most certainly skip his next trip into that room for either the pits or a different location. GL

This was just an isolated incident, 3 or so years ago ,but Hollywoods poker room has become a near ghost town the last few years as players moved on to Horseshoes/Jack casino in Cinn. This certainly did not help.

I've never played at a card room that has this rule...

If it heads up and they fold, you win. No need to show your hand. If the Villain wants to see your hand they need to show theirs, obviously.

It's like if you bet the river and someone folds, you don't need to show your hand. Silly rule.