This happened in a underground game I play. It's 5-10-20 O8 and a new guy comes in and he is a bit of a distraction and nuisance, but a nice guy. Never shuts up, does weird betting, and basically a bad player, but good for the game overall.

Anyway, he and a regular get into a hand that goes to the river, cards are not important. The new guy bets the whole way to the river and reg calls all bets. As soon as new guy bets the river and reg calls the new guy laughs and says you win and throws his cards in. This reg is bad about not showing his cards at showdown. It's like pulling teeth, so he of coarse doesn't want to show his hand since other player has mucked.

I am not in hand but I say someone has to show a hand to win. Everyone else seems to think it's okay, they say so what are we going to do if he doesn't? The dealer is one of the host temp dealers, so he pretty much lets the players dictate what he does. The host is not there as he usually is the dealer and runs the game better. It wasn't a big deal to me, but I just wondered how this should be handled.

I guess it is a good question what would they do if both players mucked at showdown if one declares he lost. In a casino would they chop the pot if no one showed cards at showdown? I have never seen that happen before.

I don't know about home games but there are a few rooms where you need to show to take down the pot in this situation. In the vast majority of rooms I've played and dealt in you simply have to be the last person with a live hand to win, so no he doesn't have to show.

Declaring "you're good" or similar means nothing. New guy would actually have to muck his hand before reg wins. Hopefully reg at least knew to hold onto his hand.

I'm not positive this is correct, but I think in most rooms the last aggressor is supposed to show first, some rooms it's by position. But assuming it's the aggressor, technically the new guy isn't allowed to muck his cards, and if he is supposed to show his cards every time, there wouldn't be a rule that would fit this situation, because the caller would always have to show to prove they have the best hand.

Pure guess about the simultaneous muck, but it would probably go to the caller? Maybe if someone mucked significantly before the other person they would forfeit the pot but idk

In TDA rules, which many rooms also now use as cash game rules, once the first guy mucked his cards, the other player wins the hand and doesnt have to show. In fact, the IWTSTH rule was changed so that if a player mucks wo showing he can no longer ask to see a called hand. So unless a room still has a "must show to collect pot" rule, the player in OP is fine wo showing

What Reducto and browser said. (My home room is one of the ones that technically requires it, ostensibly because of poorly worded state gaming rules, but most rooms are going to agree that if only only player has a live hand, the pot is his without showing it.)

Though I would amend:

* Saying "you're good" means nothing in most rooms, but some now consider it binding

* TDA IWTSTH rules only allow for seeing the last aggressor's hand ("the hand you paid to see"), so no one can ask to see a calling hand, and the person who is last aggressor cannot ask to see anyone else's hand regardless of whether he mucks, tables, waits to see if anyone else will table first, or asks before doing one of those things. Or rather, he/they can ask, but it requires TD discretion to require it, unlike a calling player asking to see the last aggressor's hand.

Re: simultaneous muck, in a casino, I’d call down to surveillance and ask who the last person with live cards was and give them the pot. Usually this is not an issue.

I’ve never played somewhere that would require a player to show his hand to win in the situation you described. I’m sure places that require this exist, but it seems like a bad rule that slows the game down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That depends on the room. There are rooms where verbal concessions are binding. I recently posted about a hand I played at Bellagio where I was awarded the pot when my opponent said “you’re good” even though he was the only player with a tabled hand.

The hand in question here seems pretty straightforward to me. If the room has a rule that somebody has to show a winner at showdown, the reg has to show. Absent of that specific house rule, the reg wins without showing if he has the last live hand. Pretty sure the vast majority of rooms use the second option?

Foxwoods requires the winning hand to be shown at showdown in cash games. This became the standard once they eliminated IWTSTH.

I have never seen a case of a failure to show the hand at showdown. But the dealers will say that out loud so players always comply. And I would guess that the dealers will protect the muck.

However, if the player failed to show his hand at showdown it is entirely possible that everybody who put money into the pot would get their money back. It is also possible that the last player with a live hand would get the pot and a warning not to do it again.

We always speculated that the pot would remain in the middle and would be a bonus for the next hand if there was a violation like this. But then we also speculated about a lot of things. Lots of time to kill between hands or when we already folded.

I try not to show if I can help it. If the aggressor does not want to table their hand I wait until he either mucks it and its in the muck pile or he tables it.

If he tables it then I have a choice. I table mine if it is a winner (no slow rolling), or I muck it if not. He was the aggressor so I have this option.

If he mucks it and it enters the muck pile I win the pot in most casinos. Haven't had one where I had to show and will muck it. If it is a new casino Im playing in I may ask if showing is required.

If I am the aggressor this changes the dynamics. If I have a worthy hand I will table my cards and if I was bluffing and have no chance then I will just muck. Sometimes just a small hesitation on my part will allow me to muck as some players will table there hands immediately even if they were not the aggressor.

Tabling hands and mucking can make a big difference in table image. I want to see the aggressors hands and if they muck they forfeit the right to see my hand normally. Tournaments are different and the above is only for cash.

My room, last live hand wins. Concessions are not binding as it can be difficult to determine whether a player says "you're good" or "I'm sure you're good". Honestly if I'm the last aggressor I just outright table the hand even if I'm caught bluffing as there are times that you bluff with the best hand accidently and I dislike slow-rolling time wasters. I do not show if I'm not the last aggressor and muck my hand facedown if the other player shows a better hand.

I highly dislike when other players try to not show even if they're the last aggressor and I will involve the dealer to get them to table/muck their hand.

I also find it a +ev time move if say you get to the showdown and it's like 6 handed and everyone checks to just table my hand immediately. People seem to start showing faster.

You should do this all the time.

In cash game, you should not be required to show when other plays folds/mucks.

You really should not say anything if you are not in the hand normally.

People will sit there for 30 seconds with dumb face trying to not show their garbage hoping someone will show a better hand so they can save face and muck their s*** cards. I don't care if they see my crappy hand at this point. Just start the avalanche as fast as you can to get to the next hand

How much of an advantage do you get from doing that?

assuming i understand your question correctly, not having to table your winning hand (after villain mucks) is a big advantage in deep-stacked NL games

Generally the less our opponents know about our range the better, especially the pros. Weaker opponents who muck often overestimate our range, and might be surprised by some of the hands we showdown. One byproduct of showing down weaker hands such as a low/middle pair or ax on certain textures, is that our opponents can start playing more agressively, making future hands/showdowns less profitable. Not having to showdown is good for our image, bad for our opponents and makes our strategy harder to predict.

Oh yeah I totally get the theory behind it. I just think people overthink it. The type of player that could punish you for showing up with weaker holdings too often is probably the type of player that just bluffs frequently anyway. As far as mucking the bluff instead of showing, it seems like the +ev of people not knowing your hand and the -ev of not knowing the other person’s hand cancel each other out in the long run.

I have seen a successful bluff call. Dude knew the other player liked to bluff then power muck when called. He says something along the lines of "I don't even know if my 2 pair is good here. Oh well, I call." Guy mucks, dude shows his 8 high as the pot is being pushed to him.

You've already conceded that you were bluffing, does it make that big a difference what you were bluffing with?

He should not have shown his hand. Floor could have easily awarded the other guy the pot

RRoP

"Cards speak (cards read for themselves). The dealer assists in reading hands, but players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot. (For more information on miscalling a hand see “Section 11 - Lowball,” Rule 15 and Rule 16.) "

From TDA

"12: Declarations. Cards Speak at Showdown

Cards speak to determine the winner. Verbal declarations of hand value are not binding at showdown but deliberately miscalling a hand may be penalized."

Well the fact that it was before showdown that he said what his hand was may help him there. Seems like a gray area imo.

That rule that doesn’t apply before showdown is reached.

“I call, I have second pair” is problematic and might be considered unethical. The other way round might be an angle to get the other player to fold but technically can’t be a violation of any showdown rule.

Regardless... he's probably pulled the move many times before and not shown, but couldn't help himself this time. Just pointing out that mucking when your bluff is called is not without risks especially if you're playing with the same people a lot.

I guess I missed the part where it wasn't at showdown. (On reread, still not sure how you infer that it wasn't at showdown).

But yes, a person can say whatever he wants when there is action behind

He hadn't called yet, so no showdown.

In a tournament since you can’t declare your holdings in the hand, the one thing we know he doesn’t have is what he declared to have.

OK, I see your point