OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Looks like I might need to snag this, thank you!
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
What the muck!?!? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter buffalojim
- Start date
Correct, not explicitly stated, but it's definitely implied (if it was a "right" like in TDA, you wouldn't be able to have it taken away). Ask to see a mucked hand in a game run by RRoP, and most of the players will think you're asking to prevent collusion. Even if you state you're using your "privilege" otherwise, you'll get some raised eyebrows....
FYP
(there's a specific section for tournaments as well).https://homepokertourney.org/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm
Yep. If a hand is mucked yet still easily identifiable, it can be recovered.
If following TDA rules, they state, "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”) ..."
Not displayed or shown, but tabled. That makes them live, from my perspective.
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
If you're running tourneys, why wouldn't you want to use the TDA's rule set? TDA
Rule18: Asking to See a Hand
Example
1:NLHE. 3 players remain in the hand. There is no betting on the river and no player isall-in. At showdown Player A discards face down and the cards are pushed into the muck by thedealer. B tables his hand,showing trips. C pushes his cards forward face-down. B may ask tosee C’s hand because B has tabled his cards. However, B’s request is at TDs discretion; B hasno inalienable right to see it because there was no bet on the river thus he did not “pay to seeC’s hand.” Neither A nor C may ask to see a competitor’s hand because they have neither tabledtheir cards nor retained them
Rule18: Asking to See a Hand
Example
1:NLHE. 3 players remain in the hand. There is no betting on the river and no player isall-in. At showdown Player A discards face down and the cards are pushed into the muck by thedealer. B tables his hand,showing trips. C pushes his cards forward face-down. B may ask tosee C’s hand because B has tabled his cards. However, B’s request is at TDs discretion; B hasno inalienable right to see it because there was no bet on the river thus he did not “pay to seeC’s hand.” Neither A nor C may ask to see a competitor’s hand because they have neither tabledtheir cards nor retained them
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
I'm not opposed to anything, just looking for different viewpoints and/or rules to go off of.
grebe
Full House
I would rather be slow rolled than have someone NOT IN THE HAND to ask to see my or my opponent's mucked cards.
Please, for the love of Dog, do not let this be a regular thing in your game. Save it for when there are suspicious activities.
Please, for the love of Dog, do not let this be a regular thing in your game. Save it for when there are suspicious activities.
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
100%
We're venturing into Opinionland at this point, but based on my experience, I don't agree.
I've seen IWTSTH used a few times over the years in both card rooms and home games, and not once was it because of suspected collusion. Each time, the player just wanted to get info on what his opponent's hand was.
Many folks run both cash games and tourneys, it's easier to have 1 set of rules that applies to both.
Lots of outdated info in this thread. There is a recent good discussion about modern cash and tourney standards.
Yeah that's a debate for another day/thread, and one that would likely have no winner lol.
I would imagine now that TDA has been around for a while and WSOP has adopted similar rules, there are more players (especially the younger generations) who have played more under these rules and assume IWTSTH is their right so you see it more often across the board. I think I've only seen it asked once at a casino (definitely a collusion check at the Taj) and never in a home game, but I don't play in casinos/card rooms all that much anymore so you can take that with a grain of salt.
ekricket
Royal Flush
I think it’s used sometimes to put someone on tilt. I’ve seen it used like that, not a fan.
I like it when an opponent “gets a read” on me by the two cards I show to win. Makes them easier to manipulate
I like it when an opponent “gets a read” on me by the two cards I show to win. Makes them easier to manipulate
Some of those folks are casinos.
That is the aim of the TDA and of those who subscribe to their rules. The "TD" in the Association's name is a relic from their original purpose.
With these conversations, it's important to distinguish between descriptivism and prescriptivism, as well as what it means to be a (descriptivist or prescriptivist) "standard". Bob Ciaffone realized that there was not a single reference of poker rules. He sought to describe a set of common rules that were observed across card rooms. RRoP became self-referential, in that card rooms based their rules off of RRoP.
TDA takes a more prescriptivist approach, though rooms are still free to choose whether and which parts to implement. Rooms are widely adopting the relevant TDA rules for their cash games in recent years.
If you're interested, there were some great discussions on 2+2 several years ago about this very topic. One of the guys there who I used to know had an extensive collection of poker rulebooks from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and provided a lot of images from these books in making his arguments.
The discussion spreads across a few threads, but you can Google "palimax IWTSTH" and you should find most of them.
Wils
Flush
Player has every right to see the aggressor's cards - they've paid to see them.
FYP
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Wow, the discussion is still civil! Way to go guys 
Maybe PCF is turning over a new leaf!Wow, the discussion is still civil! Way to go guys
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
I heard you like cats
Wils
Flush
Wow - must admit I don't see why this wouldn't be a basic rule across the board, but I'm happy to be corrected. Thanks folks for the info.
Schmendr1ck - Thank you, I enjoyed!!!
Reading the discussion, The Palimax was saying it was an integral part of the game, a flush beats a straight, IWTSTH, there is a small blind and a big blind, its all just part of the game. He also does cite Robert, and calls out the term Showdown however in today's game, I hear 'the river' or at the river, meaning concluding a hand as opposed to the showdown. - BECAUSE ... its no longer a showdown, and dare I say no one reading this or that is alive today that avidly plays poker has ever played in a game where everyone in the hand post river betting turns the hand face up every hand.
Others tried to say it was in bad form and its only there to piss others off, The Palimax seemed to be trying to stay on point that it shouldn't be taken out of the game because it is a part of it.
I think as you'll see in the quotation below, its a vestigial of a game we play today. With a global community vying for a standardization, it should be clarified, but is very difficult.
The problem of why people are on both sides of the fence is this (or so I think): It would cause more drama to force a player to say, I think he is cheating please check his cards. This is substantially worse than saying IWTSTH, for the game. When someone asks WHY? it would be better form to cite the rule allows me to than, again I think he is cheating.
It is where it needs to be, if a player is called on the river, they should show their hand. If the other contestants (of the pot, all of them) are content the better (aggressor) is not cheating, then mucking is fine, otherwise the caller(s) should wait in order to expose or table the hand.
Originally Posted by Bob Ciaffone, in an email conversation, April 28, 2010
[Matt S.]Can you elaborate on, “The law has always been that all hands must be shown”? I understand that the rules of the game of poker have always included that, but it seems no casino’s rulebook says that – including your own set of rules.
[Bob Ciaffone][T]he players in the game have the right to see the contents of all the hands that were live at the showdown. That was the rule since I started playing poker at age 9 in my mother’s poker circle back in 1950 and has been the rule ever since in every game I have played in. You can make the winner show his hand by not giving him the pot until he does show. Left unanswered is how to see a losing hand if a player does not want to show it. The dealer will not show a losing hand or ask the player to show a losing hand, for several good reasons. We do not want it to become a winning hand is one reason. We do not want a weak player to be annoyed or embarassed [sic] by having his hand shown. So a player must ask. This was the rule and remains the rule. What to do if a player asks and what to do if the player is uncooperative and what to do if the hand is already in the muck are the parts of the rule that are not defined.
[Matt S.]
And do you know of any resource to obtain a copy of a any casino’s actual poker rulebook – the older the better?
[Bob Ciaffone] No.
I want to point out, I think Bob falls victim as we all do to perception, he says 'has been the rule ever since in every game I have played in' but I think this is more his perception than actuality, and I'm guessing he has seen IWTSTH enforced as often as the average of US have.
Last edited:
Wow, the discussion is still civil! Way to go guys
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
This is spot on, and is why I think it's not only inaccurate but also a little dangerous to say that the only reason for IWTSTH is to prevent collusion.
By restricting it to only that case, you ironically make it less useful as a tool against collusion, because players are less likely to use it unless they are absolutely sure. By then, it becomes kind of pointless.
Actually this is a great discussion, because it's one of those gray areas in poker that we don't talk about much.
Nothing wrong with opening a can of worms if you like to fish!
And if you think this is the case you're likely not going to come back or stick around very long. I know two guys that are best friends and they like to ram and jam like mad, a group of us have pointed it out before, honestly, I've slowed down playing when both are in a game, even though I don't think are trying to cheat.
It gives an avenue to keep the game honest and invites a needed openness to the game. I will note that I don't think it should be used often for curiosity.
OP
OP
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Good, I'm glad. I was reluctant to even post but I know there's a lot more knowledgeable people here than myself who may have had this come up.
My guys are all extreme casuals, so they always look to me for the rules and I don't always know them, and I haven't taken the time to read through them. We have mistakes a lot, people betting out of turn, flipped over cards. I have to look into what to do in these situations as well.
I don't think it should be used often, period. And I have zero problems with home games or card rooms that don't allow IWTSTH. It's used so rarely that it makes little practical difference in how a given game plays.
But if you do allow it, I think it should be allowed for any reason (as explained above).
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
