What the muck!?!? (1 Viewer)

[buffalojim]

Had a situation arise on Friday during a tournament I was hosting. Had to make a call on the spot but would like to know what is generally accepted as proper, or right. Small stakes, $40 buy-in, nothing major.

For the sake of making this simple the hand was heads up. Player A is the small blind, Player B the big blind. Nobody is all in, in this situation.

River:
Player A checks
Player B bets
Player A calls
Player B then proceeds to muck their cards, most likely because he was hoping for a fold and didn't want to expose the bluff.

-- Does the Player A (caller) have the right to see Player B's (agressors) hand?

-- If Player A doesn't request to see the agressors hand, can anybody else at the table request this?

I have not read the official rules and made a call on the spot that the agressor was allowed to muck his hand. I was challenged by my cousin, who had folded earlier, said Player A is paying for the right to see Player B's hand, which I don't disagree with either. But, is it a right?

I understand that "house rules" is a thing and also that tournaments and cash games might have different nuances to this, but I'm curious what some people think.

Is this strictly etiquette vs house rules or is this defined in official rules somewhere?

 

[Marius L]

Yes, I belive the caller on the river can technically demand to see the aggressors hand. But it is considered bad etiquette to ask.

 

[WedgeRock]

Typically only done when collusion is suspected.

 

[buffalojim]

Yes, I belive the caller on the river can technically demand to see the aggressors hand. But it is considered bad etiquette to ask.

Ok, so +1 for etiquette then. Thanks!

I just want to be clear that this is a self dealt situation and the cards didn't go into the muck, the player just did not want to show his hand.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

We play by WSOP rules. I believe rule #72 amswers both of your questions.

The remaining player can ask to see the cards.

Others that folded can not.

I know a lot of people call it bad etiquette, but I view it differently. I paid to see. I want to know what a player bluffed with. I catch some fack, but I call it the shitty bluff penalty....show that shit...LOL.

 

[buffalojim]

We play by WSOP rules. I believe rule #72 amswers both of your questions.

The remaining player can ask to see the cards.

Others that folded can not.

I know a lot of people call it bad etiquette, but I view it differently. I paid to see. I want to know what a player bluffed with. I catch some fack, but I call it the shitty bluff penalty....show that shit...LOL.

Haha, you're siding with my cousin then. I kind of like the idea of having to show your shit play in this situation anyway but in the moment I decided the opposite.

Ok, so WSOP rules state the called player has to show their cards? Does it matter if the caller, Player A in this situation, shows first?

 

[JMC9389]

Player A has the right to see. In a heads up situation on the river, the caller always has the right to see what the bettor had.

Always show down. I once river bluffed with king high and got called, and was good.

 

[khp]

I always thought in a cash game you can muck without showing and they can’t force a reveal, but in a tournament all hands must be shown.

 

[buffalojim]

Player A has the right to see. In a heads up situation on the river, the caller always has the right to see what the bettor had.

Always show down. I once river bluffed with king high and got called, and was good.

Going forward this will be the case for my games, you will have to show.

 

[buffalojim]

I always thought in a cash game you can muck without showing and they can’t force a reveal, but in a tournament all hands must be shown.

I tend to want to agree with this.

 

[72o]

Not sure what the “official” ruling is but I play by the rule that the bettor (last to bet) always has to show at the river. If player A (the caller) shows first out of excitement or whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that player B was the last to bet and therefor must show (even if he/she is embarrassed/pissed/disappointed/is pretty/etc).

 

[jpietrella]

I think it's also worth mentioning that while I agree player is entitled to ask to see, I don't think I would. Since it's up to the mucked player to show first, by mucking he concedes the hand. If you're forcing the cards to be tabled, his hand is now live and plays. If he happened to misread his hand or his bluff beats your hand for whatever reason he should be awarded the pot.

 

[grebe]

I would just like to add that ANYBODY who would like to muck their hand against me is always more than welcome to. Why you would want somebody that is forfeiting the pot to have even a slim chance of beating you by forcing them to show their hand is beyond me. Please feel free to muck and do so with the confidence that I will NEVER ask you to show. That's just how nice I am.

If somebody else asked to see mucker's hand if I am being awarded the pot, I would blatantly ask them if they think we are colluding...then tell them to mind their own business.

Whether this stance is per the book or not, it is my stance. Unless you expect colluding, let people muck their cards.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Ok, so WSOP rules state the called player has to show their cards? Does it matter if the caller, Player A in this situation, shows first?

The hole cards are only required to be exposed if the players are all in. A player can muck after betting and getting called - essentially conceding the hand however the calling player (Player 'A') can ask to see them.

I always thought in a cash game you can muck without showing and they can’t force a reveal, but in a tournament all hands must be shown.

No. See above.

 

[Marius L]

I always thought in a cash game you can muck without showing and they can’t force a reveal, but in a tournament all hands must be shown.

I think this is just for the winner of the hand. In cash games you can win without showing, while in tourneys you have to show your hands to be awarded the pot.

 

[cpac54]

Player A paid to see the cards and has every right to ask Player B to show his hand if that's what they want. That's how we play it.

 

[buffalojim]

The hole cards are only required to be exposed if the players are all in. A player can muck after betting and getting called - essentially conceding the hand however the calling player (Player 'A') can ask to see them.

Ok, interesting. So in a all-in situation the cards need to be tabled.

Let me ask you this, and maybe I already know the answer, but if Player B mucks before Player A shows, does he or she still have to show to win the pot. I'd say no, basically Player B folded, yeah?

 

[buffalojim]

I'm getting several different viewpoints here, which I kind of expected. Appreciate the responses.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

From TDA 2022:

17: Non All-In Showdowns and Showdown Order

A: In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no final round bet, the player who would act first in a final betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.).

B: A non all-in showdown is uncontested if all but one player mucks face down without tabling. The last player with live cards wins and is not required to table the cards.

18: Asking to See a Hand

A: Players not still in possession of cards at showdown, or who have mucked their cards face down without tabling, lose any rights or privileges to ask to see any hand.

B: If there was a river bet, any caller has an inalienable right to have the last aggressor’s hand tabled on request (“the hand they paid to see”) provided the caller tabled or retains his or her cards. TDs discretion governs all other requests such as to see the hand of another caller, or if there was no river bet. See Illustration Addendum [adopted 2013].

 

[Irish]

Seems to be vary based on the rules you use. TDA/WSOP already given above (which I find very interesting), for RRoP:

-- Does the Player A (caller) have the right to see Player B's (agressors) hand?

Calling the bet gives you the right to win the pot, it doesn't necessarily give you the right to see mucked cards *** see next reply for caveat

-- If Player A doesn't request to see the agressors hand, can anybody else at the table request this?

Technically yes, but as stated above it's meant to prevent collusion

RRoR Section "The Showdown" point 5:

5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

I've always played by RRoP, so the idea that me calling a bet gives me the right to see the mucked cards just feels... odd. Really interesting distinction in the two sets of rules, sounds like a fun topic to discuss at our next game.

 

[buffalojim]

From TDA 2022:

Well, thank you for that. Seems pretty definitive as far as the TDA is concerned.

 

[aggie]

From TDA 2022:

This!

I would add/clarify that if the final aggressor’s hand is tabled (by choice or not), then it is live. In other words, there is no “mucked but still have to show” option — the caller may have paid to see them but they still have to beat them.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

Haha, you're siding with my cousin then. I kind of like the idea of having to show your shit play in this situation anyway but in the moment I decided the opposite.

Ok, so WSOP rules state the called player has to show their cards? Does it matter if the caller, Player A in this situation, shows first?

I don't think so. This rule used to be more explicit and say that the anybody in the hand had the right to see any other remaining players hand. They have softened the language and made it less direct over the last couple of years.

A few years back, they allowed anybody at the table to ask to see a hand whether or not they were in. That went away 4 or 5 years ago.

 

[Moxie Mike]

If Player B mucks before Player A shows, does he or she still have to show to win the pot. I'd say no, basically Player B folded, yeah?

No - in that scenario Player A is the only one with a live hand, so they are awarded the pot and they don't have to show. They only need to table a winning hand if the other player shows.

 

[Irish]

......inalienable right.....

Haha that made me chuckle, they had to throw "inalienable" in there? We're playing poker, not determining criminal culpability, lol. Whoever wrote that obviously feels very passionate about the addition

 

[buffalojim]

Seems to be vary based on the rules you use. TDA/WSOP already given above (which I find very interesting), for RRoP:



Calling the bet gives you the right to win the pot, it doesn't necessarily give you the right to see mucked cards *** see next reply for caveat



Technically yes, but as stated above it's meant to prevent collusion

RRoR Section "The Showdown" point 5:

5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

I've always played by RRoP, so the idea that me calling a bet gives me the right to see the mucked cards just feels... odd. Really interesting distinction in the two sets of rules, sounds like a fun topic to discuss at our next game.

Yeah, definitely different. Thanks man!

I feel dumb, but what the hell is RRoP?

This is not something that has occurred before in our game. Dude was just embarrassed his bluff didn't work out and he got called down. I think as a "house rule" I'm just going to require that a called hand needs to be shown first, end of story. Make it black and white.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Technically yes, but as stated above it's meant to prevent collusion

I might be wrong, but I don't think any current rule sets explicitly state this.

So while it may have been the original intent of the "I want to see that hand" rules (and even that is open to debate), a player under RRoP can ask to see the hand for any reason. They can also lose the privilege if they abuse it.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Haha that made me chuckle, they had to throw "inalienable" in there? We're playing poker, not determining criminal culpability, lol. Whoever wrote that obviously feels very passionate about the addition

I think this is there specifically to contrast with rules like RRoP, where it is a privilege that can be taken away rather than a right.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

what the hell is RRoP?

Robert's Rules of Poker. It's the unofficial gold standard for cash games.

 

[buffalojim]

This!

I would add/clarify that if the final aggressor’s hand is tabled (by choice or not), then it is live. In other words, there is no “mucked but still have to show” option — the caller may have paid to see them but they still have to beat them.

So, this is interesting.

This is going under the rules where the agressor can muck but the caller has the option to see the cards, right? If they ask to see cards that were tabled face down, did or did not hit the muck, then flipped over then they are live again and the caller still has to beat the hand?