Posing a question here- what input, if any, should you give (as a player) if you are in a tourney (but not involved in the hand in question) and you see something similar to this:

Self-dealt game, mix of experienced and less experienced players. Two players get to showdown, with a double-paired board of middle cards, along with a King kicker.

First player says she has a Queen and tables it. Second players says she can't beat a Queen and goes to muck the hand.


Do you speak up? If so, what do you say?


Some additional questions:
Does it make a difference if you're late in the tourney, or on the bubble, or already in the money?

If the players are experienced, rather than newer players, do you change your response? Men vs. women?

What if the folding player is a friend of yours?

As a player, I keep my mouth shut.

Being able to read the board is part of the game.

One player to a hand.

Now, if Player B had flashed her hand to the table, would your answer change?

I'm assuming flashing the cards to just you wouldn't change your answer.

OPTAH thank you.

Flashed and not tabled? Still doesn't change my answer. I would however roll my eyes and brace myself for the inevitable fight that is forthcoming.

Tabling your hand is making a claim for the pot. Nothing else is.

he mucked... too late... too bad... so sad...

This is a complicated issue. In a cash game, OPTAH and it is not even close. In a tournament you are not permitted to dump chips, so there is an argument to be made that the player should not be permitted to muck a winning hand.

If you extend that argument then every player should have to turn over at showdown to avoid the chip dump. And even more ..... If the nuts are on board you shouldn't let a player fold to a bet.

No matter what stage in a tourney I keep my mouth shut

I think the only way you could make the case for saying anything would be to make the case that OPTAH doesn't apply in tournaments.

It does, you say nothing, next hand.

I don't see how them being experienced, the point in the game, or having a particular gender changes this in any way.

If it was a friend, or an inexperienced player, or if I was just being kind, I'd inform the person of the mistake later.

When a person opts to not table their hand, they take the risk of accidentally folding a winner, and that risk, as well as the perceived benefit of not showing, are theirs to bear.

Of course, I'm arguing with no one since the poll and thread content shows that everyone agrees.

Curious as to the reason for posting to begin with.

Did player A table both cards, or just the Queen?

To see opinions and check counter-arguments.

Tabled both, after saying "I have a Queen".

Is your action different if Player A only shows the Queen?

If they mucked the other card and Player B mucked both then I'd argue for a chop since neither tabled their hand.

Sounds like a home game.
self dealt, new and experienced, 2 girls in the pot....

Although in a real tournament, of course reading your own hand is a skill needed to play poker, maybe in this case to keep it friendly, casually mention that the girl that tabled her hand is playing the board and stop the other girl from mucking.

If it's a serious game, well... point and laugh at the girl who mucked after the entire pot is pushed to the girl that tabled her hand.

Probably best to keep it friendly here though.

Yes, because mocking the bad players and making them get up and leave with their money is the way to play DarnGoodPoker...

Oh I'm witty today.

Is the second player one of the inexperienced ones? If so, player one is angle-shooting so I have no problem telling player 2 to table.

These arguments have been made. As kind of a compromise we have allins must be shown. Prior to that being a rule allins were shown when in the money.

As a dealer the pot is going to the live hand. If I am called to rule as the floor I am splitting the pot with an explanation that everyone in the tournament has an interest in the pot being split among the winning hands and permitting the fold in this spot encourages chip dumping.

I think your ruling makes more sense IF you first find that the player throwing away the hand did so for the purpose of chip dumping (and then impose the appropriate penalty).

And I would not object in theory to requiring all players to show all hands at showdown in tournament play..... my objection would be more about the actual practice and the amount of time that would be wasted trying to get people to actually do it.

So the dealer starts to push the pot and a player asks for a
ruling and you make it look like the dealer was doing it wrong?

This was my response in the HP thread about this. It's a tough one, and highlights the problem with this rule, especially in tournaments.

I know a lot of people believe in "backing up the dealer." I believe more in getting it right. The dealer must follow the rules as written. The floor has the power to rule contrary to a literal interpretation of the rules in an unusual circumstance.

I think the trouble with implementing it is why we don't currently have this rule. When tournaments started going to showing when all in there were a lot of vocal objectors.

This is a spot where I think the rules are a little weak. We have the principle of having to show hand in case it beats someone; yet, we have a rule set that seems to support being able to muck a winner that everyone can see is a winner when there is not an all in.

Personally, I wouldn't be against a "checked down? We're treating it like an all-in; turn over all hands!" rule. That would make it a closer match to the all-in display rules.

If you don't want to show, grow some guts and bet the river, you wimps!

+1