i retract all of my previous statements. you make a pretty convincing argument to keep things the way they are.

ultimately i think mike is trying to make the isle a better place to play. and the question if we get rid of this rule would it make for a better place to play poker?

the golf example is flawed bc when you improve your lie you help yourself. asking to see a hand doesn't improve your hand strength ie 3rd pair becomes 2nd pair ;P

i still think iwtsth is used more often to needle somebody than anything else. taking away a means to needle somebody will lead to a friendlier poker room

I alway felt that if you folded you have no right to see the hand, so if it is a called hand then the only player that has the right to ask is the ones that were in the hand still. not the guy that folded pre-flop, like you said.
So good luck with that, it sounds good but the amount of people arguing will make me want to wear ear plugs.

There is no "right" to see a hand. There is a right to take the chips if the other player chooses not to reveal his hand.

I don't think that IWTSTH was created to stop collusion. I think it was created to stop cheating.

In the olden days, without card counting shufflers, it was easier to add cards to a deck or remove cards from a deck for future use. It is now cliche, but back in the 1890's cards were hidden up sleeves. Also the kinds of games played back then lent themselves to this type of cheating, especially 5 card stud where most of the cards that were dealt were exposed, and a healthy portion of the deck never dealt. In that game replacing your hole card at the end could be extremely profitable.

So lets say that I wanted to give myself aces full and I introduced the A. The other player I'm up against turns over his hand which happens to have the real A. So I decide to muck my cards so I'm not found out. Well at that point guns would be drawn and it would be demanded that my hand be turned over and so the rule was probably an effective way of deterring cheats from introducing duplicate cards into a game.

As pointed out by others IWTSTH will never catch colluders. Because colluders cannot possibly be stupid enough to both get to showdown. If they did, it would only be because they both had big hands and thought the other guy missed the signal.

However what could catch colluders and/or cheaters would be to train dealers and make it known to players that when people who you suspect of collusion fold before showdown, that on request, the dealer can save the hand(s) to the side to be examined by a Floor after showdown, along with an explanation of the betting patterns and specific bets in this hand that lend credence to the argument. edit: This would of course also include hands mucked at showdown.

As a computer programmer I can assure you that it is not a whole lot easier to write software to show all hands. It is a trivial problem to solve. And it only has to be solved once.

I also agree with the policing the games part.

At the time that Foxwoods eliminated IWTSTH, they decided to ensure that two cards had to be shown to win a pot. It had always been a rule there but it was rarely enforced. However now it is always enforced.

I agree with Angus that it is pointless and unfair. If the original bettor mucks when called, the caller should not have to show. Making the caller show will never catch collusion because colluders would never find themselves in this situation. It might catch cheating once in a million years but the cheater would have no way of knowing before the bettor mucked, that he would not be showing his hand. Cheats who are introducing duplicate cards into a deck will always be taking a huge risk of being discovered and I have not heard of this type of cheating in modern times.

I started the other thread on IWTSTH. Palimax, I didn't know that traditionally the rules of Poker required all hands to be tabled at showdown, that's interesting.

But what we've got these days in many casinos is that that rule is honored more in the breach than the observance. It is generally regarded as rude to ask to see a loser's hand, and I would never do it however curious I was. But people without those compunctions happily do so. I would be satisfied if either of two things occur:

1. the casino requires every hand at showdown to be tabled, no exceptions.
2. losing hands need not be tabled, except in some controlled circumstance like those described by earlier posters, where the floor is called, a suspicion of collusion is voiced. etc.

My personal preference is 2 > 1, cause that was how I have always played poker. The situation we have now is the worst of all though. The rules say one thing but common practice dicates another. So the "nice guys" like me are at a disadvantage.

Cite?

Every rulebook I've seen says that all hands are shown, period.
Every rulebook explaining the rule that I've ever seen says that players are entitled to the information as well as their stake in the pot.

---

Oh, and as predicted by me in about my first post in this thread -- people will advocate breaking at least the spirit of any IWTSTH hand rule that they don't like -- quoted from the other thread:

Yeah, I mean... ..why play by the rules, right?

FOLLOW THE RULES, OR WORK TO GET THEM CHANGED

I don't want to see your hand. I just want your hand in the muck.

I disagree with much of this post.

I do not beleive most rule books demand all hands be shown.

I doubt that any rule book explains the IWTSTH as giving players the right to information.

But I could be wrong, please cite which books and add the rules themselves if you would.

I honestly believe IWTSTH is more trouble than it is worth, in it's present form.

I think the floor needs to be involved when there is possible collusion. If someone suspects collusion, they can approach a floor person and express their concerns. The floor then has at his command more tools then just looking at hole cards.

He can watch the game for obvious signs that two or more players are working together. he can access video to back up the observations and he can then check hole cards when he has established a pattern to justify such a step.

If someone is cheating, we want to make sure and deal with such a serious matter professsionally.

That will not happen with IWTSTH in it's present form.

However, players will continue to get what they think is valuable information about another players cards and playing style as they slow down the game and anger other players.

I'm in favor of killing this antiquated rule given the nature of todays game. In my 17 years of playing live poker I've not once seen this rule actually catch people colluding. But I have seen people use it strictly for info gathering or for tilt value. It's become a problem and I think it's time to give it the axe.

Cite?

I suppose you might mean to say that "secret cardroom rulebooks that players aren't allowed to read that govern play in modern casinos" don't contain this? Well, they might or might not. Nobody will ever know.

I'm willing to believe you, of course - but what I'm saying, and have repeatedly said, is that the rules of poker, not "room rules" require that hands be shown.

I'd provide history on room rules, but no mortal is allowed to see those...

So, if your assertion is that modern casino rulebooks don't demand this -- then I agree 100%.

Again? How many times should I post the same cites? Here's the oldest example, and it's the one I have handy because I'm at work.

The other examples just describe the all show, no muck, we all see... The first example is from a much larger tome and has some reasoning behind some of the rules...

http://omaha8.org/186-187.jpg

My 1907 book (different publisher) has a much more brief explanation [which is why the 1897 copy was such a find...].

http://omaha8.org/1907-286-287.jpg

http://omaha8.org/1880-draw-8.jpg



You may be correct. It doesn't appear to be a problem here in Arizona, and we're not that small of a pond. Oh sure, people still get upset, but again, I believe it's idiots, and they deserve to be upset

Why does everyone like this solution? I like no-IWTSTH better than floor-IWTSTH. Neither solution covers the fact that the rule of poker is that all hands are shown (again, see online implementation and, oh, every rulebook ever), and the floor-IWTSTH solution requires that I jump up out of my seat, open my mouth and point like Donald Southerland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and yell CHEATER! Yuck.

Well, I'd hate for us to follow the rules of the game if it's going to cut into hands per hour...

Fortunately, it's origins and legitimate uses include: "information."

Whew!

I deal between 32-40 hours a week. And it IS a problem from my perspective, NO GOOD ever comes from it, it causes problems on almost every occasion that it is "used". Someone who isn't mad gets mad or someones anger get heightened, not once have i seen a situation improve because of it.

Should we revert to playing poker according to the rulebooks that were written 100+ years ago?

I am sure there are many rules that have changed over time, and current rules can be traced back to them in many forms. Poker has progressed (regressed in some aspects im sure)... we have to identify and adjust to the climate of modern day poker.
"Back then" all hands were forced to be shown, it wasn't a choice/request being made by the players.

Your argument that "in the beginning" all hands were shown is valid if we were arguing as to whether THAT rule should be enforced in present day.
Reality is , all hands are not forced to be shown in any modern day casino card room that i am aware of.
Do you force it in your home games?

I don't necessarily argue that IWTSTH was designed to "identify and prevent collusion", though that may be part of it.

I think IWTSTH is bad for that game as it is NOW, and as i state previously, it almost never does any good. ( i only say almost because perhaps somewhere sometime, it didnt cause a riff)

I deal in a room that uses current poker rules, not rules from 19th century. Some of those rules may have survived but not all of them.

Do any of the books you cite mention automatic shufflers?

How about hole card cameras?

Is tournament poker described in any of the older books?

Plastic playing cards?

Where is the section on straddles?

Do the books mention women players or for that matter, do the books mention Texas Hold'em?

Seems the books fail to mention a number of things that are common place today but are not part of the "rules of poker".

You want to call Anne Duke and break it to her that she is not allowed to play with the menfolk anymore or should I?


BTW, Edmond Hoyle died in 1769, close to 100 years before poker originated.

We ALL play live poker in rooms with rule books based on the changing face of poker.

Poker has changed as time has gone by just as other sports has.

In the early 1900's, if you sold golf clubs, you were considered a professional player and could not enter amature events. In fact, professional golfers were treated as members of the working class and could not become members of the country clubs they worked for.

Times change, rules do as well.

Gee, Hoyle was dead for 200 years before Poker was invited? Shocking news to me... ...since I've explained the concept in nearly all of my posts documenting the rule.

Sorry you don't like the cites. I should have realized that no return of information was going to happen, but instead I'd get a lecture about old rules, blah blah...

Several other pages in the book deal with the practical procedure of reading hands at showdown, who should show first (if not everyone), and letting people muck. But you can't say... ...oooh, hundred years... ...and ignore current information too.
Those recent enough? I admit, I don't have a copy of the 2010 (2009?) reprint though.

My 1956 Hoyle -- which was amazingly written by Richard L. Frey -- gee, thanks for the head's up about Hoyle... ...well, it has this to say 50 years later:

Unfortunately that's a paperback copy here, and it doesn't elaborate.

My 1990 era copy of Hoyle contains this:

Also referenced, and still available from the US Playing Card Company are the 1940-1941 "Laws of Poker" - http://www.bicyclecards.com/game-rul...php?page_id=32

Which has exactly the same verbiage.
It's a hundred years of the same rule -- not a "hundred year old rule" per se.

...

SO, WHO HAS A 1988 HILTON RULEBOOK - OR WHO CAN PESTER BOB?

Oh, and, thanks for being so civil about all this...

not sure what the year of publication my copy is..its in PDF format and doesn't have a date included: but the section on showdown reads as follows:

A31. THE SHOWDOWN
If two or more players are still in contention for the pot after all the cards have been dealt and the betting is over, the players show their cards to determine who has the best hand and wins the pot. A player may discard a hand without showing it, but any player in the deal has the right to see a discarded hand upon request, even if it has touched the muck. (A player should wait until a hand has actually been thrown away before asking to see it.) A hand winning the pot at the showdown by virtue of the opponent discarding his own hand without waiting to see it should still be shown to the table before the pot is awarded.
The right of any player to examine the contents of a discarded hand at the showdown is not to be abused. A player using this right as a method of irritation should be warned to stop. If he does not heed the warning, he is subject to having the right revoked by the management.

So according to Hilton, hands are not REQUIRED to be shown, but conversely the right to ask to see a hand is confirmed.
I will point out, "A player using this right as a method of irritation should be warned to stop" needs to be considered regardless of intent. Asking to see a hand for the sake of gaining information has a latent function of being irritating whether intentional or not, and is as i witness it, more often used intentionally for that effect.

I did not call Bob but I did look at version 11 of RRoP.

Under Glossary, he defines "Showdown" as

Now, here is the rule you are defending the imfamous "I want to see that hand" rule.

You support this rule and claim, as I understand it, that showing cards is "The Rule of Poker" yet the wording of the rule pres-upposes that the hands have been mucked or player wish to muck them. The rule does not say the player cannot muck them.

Another rule in RRoP says:

RRoP is based on what the most common rules are, not what Robert Caiffione thinks they should be. In fact there are rules he does not like in their current form but he is reporting what the rules in use are.

BTW, the room I deal in uses RRoP for the basis of ourt rules, as many do, and our definition of showdown is the same as his.

So the most common source for rule books does not list a rule that requires all players to show their hands and even specifies that players may discard their hands.

Just to muddy the waters more...

OP asked us random posters to comment on a proposed rule change at a particular card room, the one he manages. The rule change was, of course, removing their IWTSTH rule from their card room rule book.

First of all, OP was not "abusing" the IWTSTH rule, he was allowing us random posters to comment on the proposed rule change to terminate it. OP will (or will not) change the rule the "right way"... by changing the rule.

I also used to believe that IWTSTH was all about preventing collusion, as I have heard that for over 25 years playing live. But, after reading the excellent posts here (and posting my foot into my mouth), I have learned that I was mistaken. I now understand that there is a strong tradition, which is well documented in the historical rule books, that everyone show their hands.

And here is where these IWTSTH threads seem to always go off track...

People like to endlessly argue about IWTSTH: about whether it was designed to deter collusion, whether it is effective deterring collusion, whether it is a vestige of a "Everyone Show" rule, whether if it is acceptable to gather information using it, how obvious abuse of it should be handled, what other rules might better deterring collusion, whether players have a "right" to see a hand, etc.

But poker is a game. The rules of games evolve over time. OP was not asking for a history lesson on IWTSTH. OP was letting us comment on whether IWTSTH should be terminated in his card room. The fact that OP was considering terminating IWTSTH at all means that OP does not believe that IWTSTH should be kept only because it is a historical rule (or historical remnant of a "Everyone Show" rule). ITT it should be fair game to evaluate and discuss whether IWTSTH is a useful rule going forward, in the context of a modern public poker room with it's own formal rules.

My opinion is that it no longer has a place in modern public poker.

Regardless, what happens now at showdown is pretty stupid. If the dealers handled things a little different it would be better... In the case where one player should show first (better, last raiser, or left of the button, depending on house rule), the dealer should focus on that player to immediately show his hand. If multiple players must show their hand (if we had a "Everyone Show" rule, or someone has invoked IWTSTH) the dealer should fucus on the player to the left of the button to immediately show his hand. Repeat to the left as necessary. This is the real problem.

Mike, I think it's great that you're looking at getting rid of IWTSTH. I've been playing B&M poker for about four years and the only time I've ever seen it do any good is when two idiots sat there and stared at each other for about ten seconds at showdown before a third player said, "Dealer, please show all the hands." That request got the showdown to happen immediately thereafter. Of course, one of the players with cards was incredibly upset at the requester, but he brought it on himself by wasting everyone's time so I don't have any sympathy.

In my experience, 99.9% of the time one or more people at the table get upset about IWTSTH when it happens. That ratio suggests to me that it isn't worth keeping the rule.

When was the last time someone invoked IWTSTH because they actually suspected coullusion, 1996?

Close, it was late 1995.

100 years of tradition, unhampered by progress... Change the rule Mike.

This is the correct answer, imo.

Ding Ding Ding! Winner