I'll say that i lean towards NOT allowing the winner to be able to force a hand to be shown, BUT...
I added added the caveat "this is an arguable exception", because:
There are other ways for a player to force another to show their hand( albeit first), either because they called another players bet ( "i called you") or based on position(in a check check situation, many rooms require the first to act to show first)
SO, it could be argued that there is precedence for forcing hands to be shown when there is equal equity. It has nothing to do with collusion.

The third place guy isn't the apparent winner, and neither is the guy that folded on the turn.
"apparent winner"- a tabled hand that appears to have won the game with hands yet remaining to be exposed.

I don't promote the elimination of IWTSTH solely on the fact that "the rule was developed to identify and prevent collusion". I feel , as someone pointed out, that all it does is "cause animosity", you asked him to "cite":
Ok, having dealt for 18 years, i don't think i could count on one hand a situation wherein when someone invoked IWTSTH and it DIDN'T create or increase some amount of strife, it almost always makes someone angry or increases their level of anger. I see many players use it as a tool out of spite.
It certainly has never made a situation BETTER.

Has anyone played a game with people that turn their cards face up every time it goes to showdown? Gotta say, the game runs much more smoothly and you don't get any dumb arguments over who has to show first, who wants to see what, etc... Poker players act like a bunch of divas over this, just show your damn hand.

Then it seems to me that rather than removing IWTSTH from the rulebook, it would be easier to take away the rule that lets you muck at showdown.

Yes I have.
Gotta say the game runs much more slowly when the dealer has to read 6 or 7 hands.

It's a bit slower in those situations, but it is very rare to have that many people make it to showdown. I've had a lot more time wasted waiting for two or three guys that are all in to show their hand, or having 6 people at showdown and NO ONE wanting to show their hand b/c they don't want to show if they don't have to. Not to mention all the arguments it saves...

Kill IWTSTH for players without hesitation, Mike. Leave in a clause that the management reserves the right to see any hand that was played to prevent violations of the rules.

A player that suspects collusion can always go to the floor with their concerns and evidence.

Finally, this is possible and in the near future, I expect that the bigger rooms will be using it on the tables. A player just says, "I suspect collusion" and the floor will be able to look at the hands and make a quick determination.

I'm pretty sure, actually I know if we kill it, it will be with the stipulation that a floor person can look at a hand if collusion is suspected.
I'm looking for an argument that would support keeping it.
I'm well aware of how vocal the people against the rule are and the arguments against it. It does in fact, lead to many disruptions due to unnecesaary needling and to a lesser extent, players trying to gather information. I think it is rarely used to protect against collusion as it appears is the rule's intent.
We have kicked it around in Rules Committee meetings and can't seem to come up with a good argument for it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, maybe it is a progression we need to move to. Like rules in all games, there are some that don't seem to make sense, and this could very well be one of them.

IMHO, the rule is there for a reason: to detect and prevent collusion.

I have twice stopped playing at rooms because they eliminated this rule. I think it is THAT important to have.

That being said, I think it is also very frequently abused -- most players who invoke this rule are doing to only to gain information, not to expose collusion. This is an abuse of the rule.

I think the solution is really pretty easy: allow the rule, but only allow it to be invoked when suspicion of collusion can be justified.

That means:

(1) the rule should *always* require a floor call
(2) the player invoking the rule *must* be able to justify (to the floor) *why* collusion is suspected
(3) procedures must be in place to immediately protect the muck (ie: prevent "turbo-mucking") from the moment the rule is invoked. When cheating is suspected, it should be taken seriously and the evidence (ie: the hands in play) should be put to the side and preserved for inspection -- preferrably by the floor.

Anyway, if it were up to me, that's how the rule would work. 99.9% of abuses would be eliminated by this approach, and value of the rule would be preserved (and amplified).

</.02>

q/q

For the online thing I am guessing it is a whole lot easier to write software to show them all.

As far as the rule, I am a firm believer in going with the intent of the rule. I am sure 100 years ago there were fewer people watching the games so the players had to police themselves even more than they do now.

I used to support the floor person being able to take a look (and I am of the position that the floor can see any hand, called or uncalled) but if a player is willing to say "I think X and Y are colluding" that the players can see and decide for themselves if there is a showdown because the players are better equipped than a random floorperson to determine if two players were colluding. Making this a floor call with the requirement that there be a specific cheating allegation will eliminate all abuse of it. I have had exactly one person invoke IWTSTH based on a collusion suspicion (he is a 2+2er if he wants to identify himself). At that time in that room the rule was the floor would take a look and a then show the hand if it looked like collusion. I looked and did not show the hand.

Recently, a young man who had never played live poker before joined our game, He wanted to see every hand that went to showdown. He didn't think it was rude or 'douchey' because no one ever told him it was.

Is it really that big a deal to have both players show their hands if the hand goes to showdown. It happens in tournaments.

The argument about it taking more time is false, if anything it takes less time since there is no 20s face down while the guy bluffing holds his breath and prays that the other guy shows a winner first so he can muck quietly.

It preserves the dignity of the loser. Really? And do we care? If your skin is so thin that you can't show down a hand that has the other players going,'WTF?' then you are playing the wrong game. Try it, I do it all the time. Its quite fun.
Finally, I don't want to know what the spirit of the law is nor do I want anyone to interpret it for me. Maybe we need better laws but with the game being global and multicultural just have a set of rules that everyone can go by.

ALL games have rules. Good rules are good for the game.

If it were up to me there would be no IWTSTH rule, everyone would show their hand at showdown. Period.

How do we lose like that?

No, it doesn't. Unless one is all in.

You kidding? A YHTSYH rule. (YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR HAND) How could that possibly cause the game to slowdown? Now you'd have three Hollywooders instead on one.

Not only that, it could cause some players to play in such a fashion that they wouldn't pay off at the river if they had to show the cards they had decided to play, or even worse, they would change their play to better hands because of the "shame factor".

I don't want to bring up the online vs live argument but it doesn't make anyone play any differently online. People play in the way they think will help them win, not because of any shame factor

People are slow showing their hands now because they want to avoid showing it IF they lose. If it doesn't matter cards on backs and move on.

I don't think he is arguing for the preservation of IWTSTH.

He is presenting a radical concept. That stating a falsehood (ie the original purpose of IWTSTH was to prevent collusion) in defense of your argument (to eliminate "data mining" uses of IWTSTH) is not OK.

I understand the argument. I'm merely a traditionalist.

What is the problem we're trying to solve? We've got a solution (changing IWTSTH) in search of a problem here, and that's just about pounding square pegs in round holes.

If the problem is that the showdown somehow doesn't move efficiently, and we think something has to be done about it, sign me up for following the rules - and demanding everyone turn over their damned cards.

I propose we change things by removing the modern courtesy of allowing mucking

As a guy who's written a bit of code in his day, I'll tell you -- it's a trivial matter to show the winning hand and muck the rest. ...as evidenced by the fact that observer logs show less information than player logs on most sites.

...the problem with making this a floor-call is two-fold:

• This presumes that IWTSTH is only for collusion, and I honestly believe that it's only a side-effect of the rule. That the "law" of poker is that everyone is supposed to show and that law happens to also deter cheating.
• It requires any player who wants to invoke IWTSTH to slow down the game, get out of his chair, point, and yell CHEATER! THAT GUY IS A CHEATER! at someone who should by rule of the game, just be turning his cards over.

Again I ask: What problem are we trying to solve by removing IWTSTH that isn't better solved by all players instantly turning over their hand.

fact- iwtsth pisses at least one person off at the table whenever invoked. may not be the person mucking, but somebody at the table will get upset and say hey that's rude, you're not supposed to do that.

I'm gonna go with my normal abusive response here and although your post count would dictate differently i'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never played B&M poker :O

or you play in a place with very classy people. have you ever been to south florida? I have one of the most obnoxious friends in the world and when he plays poker in florida he's as quiet as a mouse bc he's worried he'll say something to the wrong person. people in florida are ornery.

Tell you what. I'll do a field test today. if nobody gets mad i'll come back here w my tail between my legs and apologize.


so mike is asking if anyone has a good reason to keep the rule. anyone have one?

Players want to lose in peace.

Something you are missing is that all rules exist for a reason. I think what you have shown supports the position that the rule that you show your hand was made to prevent collusion. There has never been a poker rule made because they wanted to have a rule just to have a rule.

more evidence that you've yet to set foot inside a B&M casino ;P

which do you think would be easier to implement? abolish iwtsth or everyone at showdown has to table their hand


and by the way, dealers in fl are bad enough. don't give them more work. if 6 players get to the showdown and the dealer has to read 6 hands their head may asplode

To be honest, at this point, I'm arguing for not eliminating for the wrong reasons. My playing in a poker room won't be swayed by the rule existing or not. I suppose if there were two identical casinos, exact in every way except one had arbitrarily removed IWTSTH from it's rulebook, I'd likely play at the one who had it, but it's such a small, small, issue for me, that it honestly doesn't matter. I'd much rather go to the one with free nachos. One has free nachos, right?

I believe that the rule of poker is that all hands are to be shown at showdown, in much the same way that I believe that players have an opportunity to see the previous trick taken in a game of Spades (but not the ones before that). ...because that's the rules of the game.

I have no problem allowing the courtesy of mucking 99.999% of the time. I think I've asked to see a hand fewer than 5 times in nearly 20 years of playing (casually) in casinos. I think I've been asked to show my hand that few times as well. I simply see it as someone asking that we follow the letter of the law -- and I support the law.

The only problem with IWTSTH is that people get upset about it. They get upset because they're uninformed about it. They get upset about it because we lie and poison them and tell them they're douches for even DARING to think about using IWTSTH - when it fact it's harmless.

Turn over your hands at showdown, stop pretending that (a) you're on television, and (b) that the idiots on television are entertaining with their childish antics... And once a year or so, politely comply with an IWTSTH request if you do want to muck. Wow. Problem solved.

Sorry. It irks me that people get mad about following the rules. If that's the rule, FOLLOW IT. If you want to change the rule, have a problem first, don't just be looking for reasons to cross off something you don't understand.

I disagree.

And I'll tell you exactly why all hands are shown.

In 1900 or so, players were liberally encouraged to lie about the strength of their hands both before and AT showdown. That's right. You were expected to turn over your aces up and say "aces over". ...but only the cards themselves would actually speak.

Further, BEFORE the "...prevent collusion" quote I gave above, appears this sentence:

Again. The rule of the game is to show all hands. And most games required a penalty be assessed to players who did not show. Collusion prevention is an added bonus.

Read: SHOWING HANDS on the bottom right.





I understand that players are crybabies. I do indeed.

I've played poker casually in casinos for about 20 years now, although mostly in the Southwest.

I've seen IWTSTH invoked without incident many times. I've seen people upset by it a few times as well.

Plenty of things in this world are tough to do, but it doesn't make them wrong.

I've posted a great reason to keep it -- it's the rule of the game, and poker is a great American tradition. I'm sure golf would run smoother if players could move their balls to better lies on a whim or carry extra clubs. ...but that's not the rule either.