I provide the history of IWTSTH because it forms the context of my opinions on the rule.

So first, let me summarize: Prior to Texas Hold'em being popular in casinos -- a recent invention -- the rule and law of the game has been that all players show their cards at showdown. They do so for two or three reasons (depending on how you want to count):

In the earliest of poker games, "cards speak" was more than a funny euphemism for "turn 'em on your back and the dealer will figure it out." Players were then encouraged to lie about their hands if it suited them. You were expected to say "aces over" when you had aces up. Players put all cards face up and the player's speak was ignored and the cards spoke as to who won the hand. Additionally, turning cards over fulfilled two additional purposes: (1) It was a safeguard against cheating and collusion - preventing whipsaw tactics and guaranteeing that weren't duplicate cards in the game - and (2) it provided information. "I paid to see that hand" was applied equally to both the winner and the loser.

Obviously today players are not expected to lie about their hands. The rules of the game have evolved to not include that. ...but what about other evolutions? What about cheating and information?

The last 30 years or so of poker "history" are murky. No true "missing link" has been found that says how "all show" disappeared and IWTSTH appeared in casino rulebooks. Casino rulebooks...

Online sites implement IWTSTH by the use of a history button, generally. They recognize that all showdown hands are public information -- as the rule of the game. THE RULE OF THE GAME is that this information is public.

Those opposed to IWTSTH seem to think that the information is over-valued. That the "cost" of this information isn't worth angering players; but I think that the high cost comes from players who don't understand the game and repeated lies from IWTSTH's detractors.

The problem isn't that IWTSTH is used for information, or that it's only so-so on deterring cheating. The problem with IWTSTH is that players have been conditioned to think that IWTSTH is some sort of unreasonable request which they must respond to with piss and vinegar.

FIX THE PROBLEM

If you've got a problem with IWTSTH in your poker room, and you're looking for a solution, then fix the root of the problem. Don't change the game itself to appease a handful of people who want to get into fistfights because someone wants to see their bluff. Educate your dealers to treat the request matter-of-fact. Educate your piss and vinegar players to understand that they need to "don't hate the player man...hate the game."

Everybody who says "nothing good" comes from it presumably means: "The situation gets worse." ...because something good likely came of it for the player who wanted to request to see a hand. He got to know what his opponent's cards were -- something he's entitled to do per the rules of poker.

The problem is that we're not playing "poker," in casinos. We're playing this game that closely approximates poker and allows casinos to take $200/hour in rake/tips.

If you're looking to protect poker, leave IWTSTH alone and educate your players.

If you're looking to up your casinos $200/hour to $205/hour, cut IWTSTH requests out.

--

I respect the opinions of those who think IWTSTH is the devil; but I disagree. Poker, the great American game, is worthy of not being dumbed down to make the casinos a couple bucks an hour more while appeasing a few jackasses who get grumpy when they have to follow a rule that's existed for at least a hundred years.

--

Also, if someone could send me a copy of the Harrah's PDF, I'd love one.

I do this research as a labor of love for the game of poker. Being made out to be some sort of bad guy because I do so sort of sucks... Being made out to be some sort of evil crusader because I'm a traditionalist sucks as well.

Pali, I don't think anyone thinks you're a bad guy. Reasonable people can disagree without thinking whoever disagrees is evil.

As I said before, IWTSTH makes someone upset every time it's used. It looks like the majority of people in this thread, across the B&M Forum, and across my experience in B&M poker think poorly of the rule and would like to see it abolished. I think that because of all those things, eliminating the rule would be a step forward.

I don't think you're a bad guy. We just disagree on whether IWTSTH should be retained. Not a big deal.

This is not realistic.

You have attempted to educate the very small percentage of poker players who give a hoot. And they seem to refuse to be educated.

It is hard enough to educate players in a cardroom as to rules that have an impact on the game. Things like OPTAH, placing both cards on the table face up at showdown to claim a pot, protecting your hand so the dealer won't muck it, etc.

Trying to educate players that they shouldn't feel upset when they have just lost a hand and the guy who just beat you wants more than just the pot is never going to work. Half the table is pissed because we are wasting their time and the other half is pissed because the guy who is asking for the info may very well be rubbing the loser's nose in it and they don't think the ******* should be rewarded.

Since the IWTSTH rule was abolished at Foxwoods things have gone very smoothly with regards to players wanting to see a loser's hand. Somebody asks to see the hand, they are informed that Foxwoods no longer supports IWTSTH, they say something like "oh I didn't know that" and we move on to the next hand.

Whereas at Commerce a few years back, a guy asked to see a hand after showdown, the dealer made a mistake and mucked the hand, the guy then went on a rant calling the dealer "an animal" etc.

Good riddance to IWTSTH. I spent over a year lobbying the Floors at Foxwoods to get rid of the rule. Every time we had an incident I would speak privately to the Floor explaining how bad that rule is for the game. And they could easily see it. A happy go lucky table turns into a bitter silent table just like that.

Someday, page 27 of the newspaper, under the ad for a washing machine sale, the caption will read: "The Palimax found dead in alley. Police interviewing several hundred good suspects."

My only problem with the opposition is the hyperbole (99.9% of the time!) and the dealer/headache bias. Those who don't like the rule are going to yell the loudest -- because they're already the ones who yell the loudest when someone asks that they follow the rules I don't get upset about IWTSTH for two reasons: (a) it's the rule, and (b) it doesn't do anything except raise my blood pressure if I do. I'm getting too old for that.

I'm trying not to be grumpy with dealers today, despite having one YELL at us while he was making a small mistake last night. [Apparently the place I played last night has a rake reduction promotion for Omaha from 4+2 back to 3+2, and he didn't get the memo. ...and the entire thought of it getting sorted out BEFORE he dropped 4 again was out of the question.] He's been a good dealer 99.9% (!!!) of the time I've had him before, so I gave this one a pass.

...but 99.9% of the time the drop is wrong it just leads to arguments and angering people. I propose that as a solution: we get rid of the drop. I mean, right? It just makes people angry and we need the shortest path to a solution, right?

"It's the rule" doesn't work because Mike is asking whether it should be the rule, not if it is the rule. You've done a great job of proving that it is the rule. But I say it shouldn't be the rule because it only serves to make people upset.

The analogy to removing the rake doesn't work because you need the rake to pay employees of the room. Without the rake, there is no game. But without IWTSTH, there is not only a game, but a more pleasant game.

I understand the argument. I just think that's the much more pleasant game isn't "poker."

I might still play it - and I've probably played in rooms with no IWTSTH rule, or a floor-only IWTSTH rule - but I submit that it's only a poker-like game if you remove seeing all called hands from its rule-set.

For me, it'd be like American League Baseball. ...sort of like baseball, but not quite.

I for one, appreciate all the work you have put in researching the rules and you were certainly correct on your first post. I still haven't decided what we'll do or why, but I see excellent arguments on both sides. I think we can probably all agree that IWTSTH doesn't protect against collusion, but the question may come back to the integrity of the game for me. Without jumping on a soapbox, I believe those of us in charge of running poker rooms have also been given the duty of protecting the integrity of the game. Does IWTSTH protect the integrity? It certainly doesn't hurt it, but it does lead to hurt feelings, arguments, and threats.
The rules have slowly been changing as we have sped into the no limit era and again, I can see the valid arguments on both sides.
Thanks again for your research

Quite frankly, the amount of research you did on this is truly impressive. I envy you owning those great older rule books. I may trade in Clancy novels but I never sell a poker book once I get it.

Okay I may never read the bad ones again but I keep the book.

We obviously disagree but we should be able to do that and respect the right of the other to have a differing opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I spent the entire drive to Sams Club (for gas, sheesh...) and back thinking about my last statement.

For me, this is very much an American League Baseball sort of thing. I understand that plenty of rules have changed (e.g. mound height), and that other still will be necessary for baseball to survive; and I understand that procedural rules are necessary (i.e. check swings), but baring radical change, I'm going to be a National League guy until the day I die.

This doesn't mean that I don't like American League baseball. It just means I'd prefer to watch an NL game, or prefer to watch inter-league games played on NL fields.

Getting rid of IWTSTH is not like adding a designated hitter in baseball. In poker it doesn't affect the hand in play (with the exception of correctly awarding the hand to the rightful winner if he mucks and the current winner of the pot invokes the rule) . It only affects future hands based on information gleaned from the hand in play.

Its more akin to allowing teams to look at tapes with a view from center field to see the opposing teams catcher's signals after a game for use in the next game or games. Or even to allow taping of a third base coach to try to pick up signals for future base running situations (possibly in the same game but for a different/later play). Do these "rules" fundamentally affect the game? Not in my opinion. Neither does IWTSTH.

I also have to offer my appreciation to Palimax for his research and respect for his level of knowledge about the game of Poker. Discussions like this one help us to understand others perspectives and are productive overall.
We cant be( and aren't i believe) so arrogant to believe that our own opinion is absolutely correct. And i think we do respect the opposing argument(s)

There's a fundamental difference between poker game (a) where the full contents of all showdown hands are available for review, and poker game (b) where the full contents of all showdown hands are NOT available for review.

I'm happy to disagree about the merits of removing (or not removing) IWTSTH from a casino's rulebook - but I think it's folly to suggest that it's not a fundamental change to the game of poker.

I just plain don't thing that is true. In low stakes games and even more often in limit games it might be a problem, but I have seen IWTSTH used so many times over the years and most of the time it is not a problem as players that have any amount of experience learn that its the rule and get used to it. I played regularly at foxwoods before and after they changed the rules and if the floor had not told me they had problems in the low limit games I would never have known why they did it as it was just not a problem.

I have been cheated and I like any protection I can get. I also like information. That said I would not mind IWTSTH gone if a house enforced clear rules about who has to show first and then lets others muck if they wish. I hate the long stalls to show cards that only exist in rooms where the dealers dont strongly make the last better show first. (including in the OP's which I do play at occasionally since I moved to Florida). So if you get rid of the rule please make the dealers keep the game moving by forcing the players who do have to show or fold to act quickly.

I wonder why you would use the word "folly" to address my arguments. I have not chosen to belittle yours. You expect to be treated in a civil manner and yet you provoke unnecessarily.

I have played a substantial amount of on-line poker where every hand is available for review after showdown is complete. And I have played a substantial amount of brick and mortar poker where no hand is available for review after showdown is complete. And the two games are fundamentally the same, IMO. The mechanics are identical. The betting rounds are fundamentally the same. Aside from rules based on time from an internet perspective, there are no differences to how the games are procedurally played.

The skill sets of the players are far more advanced on the internet so that 5/10 LHE on the internet may be the skill equivalent of 20/40 LHE live but I would not assume the skill level difference in the games are a result of people being able to see all hands on the internet. I would say it is far more likely that the most skilled players find they can play far more hands per hour online than live and can multi-table as well.

For whatever reason you seem attached to IWTSTH. But it seems that you need to defend your arguments that IWTSTH is somehow part of the essence of poker by belittling others instead of letting your arguments stand on their own. I for one am not convinced by either your arguments or your hyperbole.

IWTSTH is a necessary evil...

Well, we disagree on what a fundamental difference is, then I guess.

Yes, for whatever reason. I guess I haven't been clear about that.

(a) I'm sorry if you find my post(s) belittling. It's not my intention.
(b) I do my best to avoid hyperbole when it's not appropriate. When I use words like "every," I either mean every, or I hope the context is clear enough that the reader understands that it hyperbole for hyperbole's sake or that they'll find a snarky emoticon nearby. [You're welcome to go hyperbole hunting, I suppose. You'll never find any.]

---

Unrelated to Rick and my disagreement on what rules are fundamental to a poker game, I had a conversation with "Ken" tonight in my home league. Ken played some of the biggest games that Vegas and LA had to offer starting in 1959.

Ken does not recall a time where in a Las Vegas card room that all hands were, by nature, shown. He only recalls an era where player (a) would show the nuts and player (b) could fold.

For what it's worth, his vote (as my entire table's vote) was to keep IWTSTH, for the standard reasons -- information, collusion.

So, for those of you building time-lines: Add a marker at 1959 as, "Las Vegas has IWTSTH roughly as implemented today."