Do really think hiding information is a reason to award or not award a pot? Really? The best hand takes a back seat in deciding who wins?

You sir, need to read this, and I mean right now: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/0...-hand-7196.htm

When there is only one player left with a hand the winner has been determined, showdown is over.

Push the pot to the last player with cards.

why would you award the pot to someone that decides to relinquish all claim to the pot?

I have not read the article yet, but omg I'd be shocked if pokernews has any sort of biased reporting. I'm sure tonyG would never side with RDW.

Information in poker can win or lose you millions in a big tournament. So yeah, I think hiding information is a big deal.

I agree mucking is irrelevant to betting being completed. But it's not irrelevant as to who takes the pot, and it's not irrelevant to showdown being over.

What if instead of flipping my hand over I decide to rip my cards into a million little pieces and then set them on fire? Obviously not exactly the same as mucking, but you should get the idea.

I really think you're a troll now.

How am I a troll if you're the one coming up with scenarios that are not even close to what is being discussed? You just had the biggest run around argument ever.

"What if I bet and you fold?"
"We never made it to showdown then."
"We didn't make it to showdown if everybody mucked."
"What?"
"Because showdown is over"

????

So tell me again what your post #260 was trying to say? Which rule wasn't followed?

Post 259 you say:
In post 260 I just gave you an example that a player need not show his hand to win a pot.

You want me to spell everything out, yet you throw out these rules without context.

You cannot grasp the idea that a player can muck his hand at showdown, instead of flipping it over.

I'm done with you troll.

That rule is from showdown. Post 260 doesn't have anything to do with showdown.

Wow...people...c'mon...just read the rules and your done with this. It doesn't matter that he showed the King - get over it. Show me in the rules where a player can stake a claim to a pot by only showing one card at the showdown and I'll change my mind. Until then, he discarded his hand and gave up all claims to the pot. You can't "unfold".

Gobbs

People have, but you keep ignoring it.

Rule #1.

Gobbs,

1) Are you advocating if after De Wolf showed his king to Tobais that if Tobais mucked (as most people would have), De Wolfe should just muck since he already won the pot?

2) Are you advocating that what Tobais did is just filed under "good strategy"? Would you encourage players to not table their hand until the first agressor has (because you never know, he could not table both cards and fold the best hand)?

I can't really remember what I was thinking there but I do agree that in tournaments at showdown, we need to see a two card winning hand. As a matter of fact, I would consider invoking IWTSTH if one player flashed one card and the other player mucked. I wouldn't do that in a cash game though since I'd also want to flash only one card to win a pot.

Rule number 1 specifically says that you can do what is fair for the game. Allowing a player who was not acting on incorrect information and voluntarily discarded his hand to unfold his hand is fair? That's in the best interest of the game. That's a huge stretch.

Just to make sure I understand, you think it's in the best interest of the game to allow the following:

- Allow a player to try to place his cards under the burn pile because he wants to make sure that nobody can possibly see one of his cards. (NOTE: This is an act that could possibly even be worthy of a warning or penalty.)
- Allow that same player to change his mind and "unfold" a hand that touched the burn cards just because he finds out that he actually had the best hand. (NOTE: He didn't discard his hand because he relied on incorrect information. He didn't discard his hand because the dealer told him to do it. He discarded his hand by his own choice.)
- Allow a player to retrieve his hand even though he failed to protect it like the rules say he should.

You really think it's in the best interest of the game to thumb your nose at three rules DeWolfe violated or ignored? Really?

You really think it's in the best interest of the game to award a pot to somebody who willingly gave up his right to win the pot?

You really think it's in the best interest of the game to award a pot to somebody who would have lost it beyond any doubt if the dealer had correctly done his job and mucked the discarded hand instead of turning it over?

I'm not ignoring Rule #1, it simply doesn't apply. The rule is not in place to protect a player from making a mistake like DeWolfe. The rules is in place to protect the game. Giving the pot to somebody who willingly relinquished his rights to the pot and even tried to hide his cards in the burn card pile is certainly not in the best interest of the game.

Gobbs

1) Neither DeWolfe or Tobias can legally muck their hand. Only the dealer mucks (or kills) a hand. Players fold or discard their hands. But if Tobias discarded his hand after DeWolfe showed the King, the dealer should have killed it. If DeWolfe then discarded his hand, the dealer should leave it sitting on the table and tell DeWolfe that he has to show it to claim the pot. The dealer should never (and I mean never) turn over a player's hand, but request that the player do it. (NOTE: When DeWolfe discarded his hand, hte dealer should have immediately killed it, but for some strange reason, turned it over instead.)

2) I would encourage players to follow the rules. The rules quite clearly state that players who think they have the best hand should table them. Clearly, Tobias did not think he had the best hand and was under no obligation to table it. In the absense of somebody tabling a hand, I would advise players to follow the standard procedure as stated in the rules or house rules of the casino. The last aggressive act tables first in most casinos. If that player does not wish to show his hand, he may discard it (as stated in the rules) and relinquish any rights he has to claim the pot.

All of that is pretty clearly stated in the rules and the Dealer's Handbook. The fact that DeWolfe showed a King is absolutely meaningless.

Gobbs

Why does he have to show it to claim the pot? I thought the agreement was that as long as he is the last one to discard, he wins it no matter.

You seem far more argumentative than conversational.

When you want to talk about it, let me know.

You thought wrong.

Gobbs

I'd call it 'debating', but you can call it arguing if you like. Nevertheless, they are legitimate questions. Answers?

Gobbs

That's what you said in your post earlier. If both players discard, the last player to do so wins the pot.

Please stop taking things out of context and truncating quotes. You've done that more than once. You are really hurting your side by doing so.

What I said was that the last player discard wins the pot, but he still needs to show his hand. In fact, I stated that even the dealer shouldn't turn over the hand, but insist that the player do so.

Gobbs

I am locking this. If anyone has a point to make that hasn't been made let me know and I will unlock it. There isn't any reason to keep passing the same points back and forth. I will say one final word about it. Anyone that thinks this is a simple decision is wrong. There are many concepts involved here (all of which where brough up in the thread) some indicate it should be a dead hand and some indicate it should be a live hand.