live players, am I in the wrong?

I'm strictly talking about cash games. You're right it could be just US cash game etiquette. I'm not sure about the rules just what i've seen.

So here is my question. Your in a cash game at a casino, opponent makes a river bet and you call, opponent mucks his cards into the pile, and after you do the same thing. My question is what happens to the pot since my last active hand was not shown? Save it for next hand? The house gets it? If opponent does not show hand why should I give "free" information I paid for by calling?

This is one rule that Horseshoe Cleveland has right in my opinion they do not require player to show cards if opponent mucks in a cash game. The group I belong to here in Cleveland also adheres to this rule.

Also if I called a bet and opponent declares a hand but does not show I will hold my cards and say let me see it. On the other hand if I make the bet on the river and get called I will always just turn my cards over even if I know I'm beat.

If you muck without showing, you are forfeiting your hand. First forfeit loses.......

happens all the time . i have found that rather than having a stare down i will just announce that i have a pair,which than pretty much puts the action on them and forces them to do something with their hand, if they still choose to be pissy then just show my hand . it is after all a game and i have found i play better when i try to make sure i am having fun.

The aggressor is suppose to show first...its common courtesy/ethics. I never EVER show my cards first...i'll sit all day waiting to be shown...

Grossberger said:

So here is my question. Your in a cash game at a casino, opponent makes a river bet and you call, opponent mucks his cards into the pile, and after you do the same thing. My question is what happens to the pot since my last active hand was not shown? Save it for next hand? The house gets it? If opponent does not show hand why should I give "free" information I paid for by calling?

This is one rule that Horseshoe Cleveland has right in my opinion they do not require player to show cards if opponent mucks in a cash game. The group I belong to here in Cleveland also adheres to this rule.

Click to expand...

On your question, if you muck your cards before you've been awarded the pot then... sorry but there's no other way to put this, you're an idiot. And worse, if the dealer allows it to happen then the dealer is an idiot too.

I honestly don't know how you'd resolve that situation - if neither hand can be positively identified then I guess the pot has to be split? If one can be identified and not the other, I guess it has to go to that player.

If the card room follows the "you have to show your hand to claim any part of the pot" rule, though, then this ceases to be an issue.

Had a quick look and the Horseshoe Cleveland doesn't actually post its poker room rules online, you have to ask for them at the venue. Which makes me want to ask the same question I asked Joebob above: have you actually seen this rule in writing, or been told it's the rule by a floor manager? Or is it just something the dealers do as a matter of expediency? Has anyone ever actually challenged it?

As mentioned above, just because the dealers are doing it, it doesn't meant they're following the rules. For example, here's the rule from my local casino:


Pretty clear: the player being called has to show their hand, anyone with a better hand has to show their cards to claim the pot, and ANYONE who was dealt cards in the hand can request to see the cards.

Despite that, on many occasions I've seen what people have described above: player who was called mucks their hand, and the pot is awarded to the other player without a card being shown.

Note also that you're not giving your opponent "free" information - there's been a bet and a call, they have paid to see your hand. Whether they were the bettor or the caller is irrelevant, they've put the same amount of money into the pot that you have. If showing your hand without them showing theirs irks you, you should be allowed to see their mucked hand.

At the Horseshoe Cleveland it has come up many times and the floor has told players that, if they make a bet and get called and they muck their hand then the caller does not have to show their hand to win the pot.

I had a situation last year, player on the river makes a $150 bet into a $80 pot I knew he had nothing and was just trying to buy it so I called with top pair.

Villain "What ya got?"
Me "I called you"
Villain "I got 2 pair, can you beat that?"
Me "Maybe let me see it"
Villain mucks his hand.
Me mucked my hand
Villain "You have to show to win the pot!!"
Me "Not here, you don't show I don't have to show"
Villain "Dealer he has to show!!"
Dealer "No once you muck you lose the right to see his cards"
Villain "FLOOR!!!!!"
Floor "Whats up?"
Dealer explains what happened
Floor "If you muck your hand then you lose the right to see his cards"
Villain "He said he could beat 2 pair, so he declared his hand has to show"
Floor "Dealer did he declare?"
Dealer "No, he was asked if he could beat 2 pair, player responded with maybe let me see the 2 pair, then player mucked his supposed 2 pair"
Floor "I recommend just showing your cards then the other player will either show or muck"
Villain "That's bullshit"
Floor and Dealer " That's the rules here"
Me "BTW I had Ace high"
Villain gets up and leaves.

^ That's pretty close to angle shooting.

Not really if you have two pair and don't flip your cards up right away when it's your turn to act I'd say that's pretty close to a slow roll (If he would of flipped em over instead of mucked them)

However before I ever throw my cards into the muck I wait till the dealer starts pushing the pot towards me.

the best thing about this thread was the quote "sometimes I run so bad I flop a set and turn two pair"! As a former licensed poker dealer and table owner in MT cards must be tabled to take the pot...but with cash games...often the players in each area of this state have many different ethics....Missoula area....more the bluffy mucky talkie young gunnie area...I prefer solid ethic and preflop allin hands all tabled faceup prior to the dealer proceeding...that is what I like...slow roll me and I wanna pop your head off...so rude and unnecessary and I have seen some bad ones....my thoughts on this thread.

Grossberger said:

I had a situation last year, player on the river makes a $150 bet into a $80 pot I knew he had nothing and was just trying to buy it so I called with top pair.

Click to expand...

Not just close to it - that is angle shooting, plain and simple. The fact that your opponent was stupid enough to fall for it doesn't make it any less douchey.

Prime example of why it's stupid to have this rule too: in addition to leaving the door wide open for collusion, it encourages this kind of angle shooting.

OzExorcist said:

But by stubbornly insisting on waiting for them to turn their cards over, even when it seems pretty obvious that you've just caught them bluffing and you've won you're... disrupting the game. DUCY?

Click to expand...

I'm not "stubbornly insisting" on anything. I'm just waiting on the last better since it is his turn to act. The dealer will inform of that fact if I just wait. He can toss his cards, but then he gives up any claim to the pot.

EPT tourmanents allows a player to take pot without showing if other player mucks blind.

I think the caller "pays" to have the right to see his opponent's hand, but I'm not a specialist, and I won't comment on the rules of the game, but I'll say this: When playing live poker (usually with friends), I try to see as many opponents's hands as possible, and to keep mines unknown to others. I'll ask to see other's hands each time I'm entitled to, and show mine only if asked. Information, information...

Ranny said:

EPT tourmanents allows a player to take pot without showing if other player mucks blind.

Click to expand...

So they do: http://www.europeanpokertour.com/inside-ept/rules/ rules 52-54. I'm genuinely surprised by that - though they at least contain a provision that the rule can be suspended if collusion is suspected.

IMO these are the important points to remember:

- The rule that you don't have to show if your opponent mucks at showdown is far from universal: in fact, Robert's Rules (the closest thing the poker world has to a "standard" set of rules), the wsop and a lot of major casinos state that you do have to show your all of your cards to claim any part of the pot. They have this rule to discourage collusion and angle shooting.

- Don't assume that the rule where you're playing is that you don't have to show just because you've seen a dealer push a pot to someone who didn't show their cards. Dealers are only human, often they'll just do what's easiest, not what the rules dictate.

- If you're in any doubt, ask the tournament director / floor manager what the house rule is. And in the meantime, assume that you will have to show your cards to claim any part of the pot at showdown, and that any player who was dealt cards in the hand is entitled to see the cards of any player that goes to showdown.

If you get to the end of a hand thinking you'll have to show your cards, and it turns out you don't, that's a pleasant surprise. If you go through the hand thinking you won't have to show and it turns out you do though, then you're in for a rude shock.

Fwiw, my cash-game experience has been the same as in Mr Sandbag's and JoeBob's cases. If there is only one live hand remaining at ANY point in a hand (even if there is no pending action and all the cards are out), then that hand wins the pot, with no showing required.

OzExorcist said:

Not just close to it - that is angle shooting, plain and simple. The fact that your opponent was stupid enough to fall for it doesn't make it any less douchey.

Prime example of why it's stupid to have this rule too: in addition to leaving the door wide open for collusion, it encourages this kind of angle shooting.

Click to expand...

My opponent fell for what? He said he had 2 pair and I simply wanted him to show them, If he shows 2 pair then I muck but he obviously did not have 2 pair since he mucked. He was trying to angle shoot me by making me muck by announcing he had 2 pair.

Grossberger said:

My opponent fell for what? He said he had 2 pair and I simply wanted him to show them, If he shows 2 pair then I muck but he obviously did not have 2 pair since he mucked. He was trying to angle shoot me by making me muck by announcing he had 2 pair.

Click to expand...

Here's how you described the action:

Grossberger said:

I had a situation last year, player on the river makes a $150 bet into a $80 pot I knew he had nothing and was just trying to buy it so I called with top pair.

Villain "What ya got?"
Me "I called you"
Villain "I got 2 pair, can you beat that?"
Me "Maybe let me see it"
Villain mucks his hand...

Click to expand...

Whether villain actually has two pair or not is irrelevant: he's said that he has two pair and then you've outright lied, grossly misrepresenting your hand - there's no "maybe" about it, your top pair doesn't beat two pair. Villain has mucked his hand after you gave him false information.

The suggestion that he was trying to angle shoot you makes absolutely no sense either BTW: if villain thought you had to show to claim the pot after he mucked, then it makes sense that he thought he was going to have to show if you mucked. If it was an angle shoot and it was successful, it was going to be exposed immediately.

If your description of the hand is accurate, then sorry but it's you who's the angle shooter.

From what I understand of the description, it's a big stretch to say either player was angle-shooting. Villain didn't want to have to show his hand, and feeds misinformation (which you seemed to have a problem with when hero did it?)... Hero doesn't want to show first (which he doesn't have to), and makes an ambiguous statement about his hand.

Not sure how hero saying "maybe I can beat two pair, show me yours first, since you bet, and I called" is equivalent to villain outright lying and saying "I have two pair." It's pretty obvious villain isn't going to muck two pair without anyone showing anything, so he's obviously lying here...?

Scourrge said:

From what I understand of the description, it's a big stretch to say either player was angle-shooting. Villain didn't want to have to show his hand, and feeds misinformation (which you seemed to have a problem with when hero did it?)... Hero doesn't want to show first (which he doesn't have to), and makes an ambiguous statement about his hand.

Not sure how hero saying "maybe I can beat two pair, show me yours first, since you bet, and I called" is equivalent to villain outright lying and saying "I have two pair." It's pretty obvious villain isn't going to muck two pair without anyone showing anything, so he's obviously lying here...?

Click to expand...

This.

OzExorcist said:

Here's how you described the action:



Whether villain actually has two pair or not is irrelevant: he's said that he has two pair and then you've outright lied, grossly misrepresenting your hand - there's no "maybe" about it, your top pair doesn't beat two pair. Villain has mucked his hand after you gave him false information.

The suggestion that he was trying to angle shoot you makes absolutely no sense either BTW: if villain thought you had to show to claim the pot after he mucked, then it makes sense that he thought he was going to have to show if you mucked. If it was an angle shoot and it was successful, it was going to be exposed immediately.

If your description of the hand is accurate, then sorry but it's you who's the angle shooter.

Click to expand...

How can villain show if he already threw his cards in the muck or am I just misreading this?

This was not an angle shoot if villain is first to show he should flip his cards over and not pull a Phil Hellmuth

OzExorcist said:

Here's how you described the action:



Whether villain actually has two pair or not is irrelevant: he's said that he has two pair and then you've outright lied, grossly misrepresenting your hand - there's no "maybe" about it, your top pair doesn't beat two pair. Villain has mucked his hand after you gave him false information.

The suggestion that he was trying to angle shoot you makes absolutely no sense either BTW: if villain thought you had to show to claim the pot after he mucked, then it makes sense that he thought he was going to have to show if you mucked. If it was an angle shoot and it was successful, it was going to be exposed immediately.

If your description of the hand is accurate, then sorry but it's you who's the angle shooter.

Click to expand...

How can villain show if he already threw his cards in the muck or am I just misreading this? No one should ever be throwing their hand in the muck without first seeing the winning hand

This was not an angle shoot if villain is first to show he should flip his cards over and not pull a Phil Hellmuth

Scourrge said:

From what I understand of the description, it's a big stretch to say either player was angle-shooting. Villain didn't want to have to show his hand, and feeds misinformation (which you seemed to have a problem with when hero did it?)... Hero doesn't want to show first (which he doesn't have to), and makes an ambiguous statement about his hand.

Not sure how hero saying "maybe I can beat two pair, show me yours first, since you bet, and I called" is equivalent to villain outright lying and saying "I have two pair." It's pretty obvious villain isn't going to muck two pair without anyone showing anything, so he's obviously lying here...?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's obvious that villain is lying - I wasn't there, but based on the description I think he actually does have two pair here. Bottom two pair makes most sense. Given the fuss he kicks up about the hand not being shown, it makes sense that villain would think he had to show his own hand to claim the pot. If he's thinking that... really, how can he have anything other than two pair?!? It'd be an angle shoot that, in his own mind, he'd never be able to get away with.

Grossberger's statement, on the other hand, was only ambiguous to someone who didn't know what cards he was holding. If he was holding two pair as well then there's some ambiguity - maybe his two pair is better than the villain's, maybe it isn't. It depends which two pair each has. Grossberger knows he's only got top pair though. Saying that he can "maybe" beat two pair is an absolute lie, a misrepresentation of his hand and an angle shoot. The only way he can beat two pair is if his opponent mucks the better hand.

Long story short: villain may or may not have lied about his hand (I think it's unlikely he was lying, but whatever). Grossberger definitely lied about his hand.

Going back to my broader point about the rule, if you have the "players must show their cards to claim any part of the pot" rule then this problem simply goes away. There's no potential for angle shooting from either party. Players can't muck their hands to hide collusion. The stupid time-wasting Mexican standoff of players not wanting to show their hands ends pretty quickly when the dealer tells the players that somebody has to show their cards if they want to get paid, so less time gets wasted. And since the rule applies to everyone, everyone gets and gives the same amount of so-called "free information" in the long run.

OzExorcist said:

I don't think it's obvious that villain is lying - I wasn't there, but based on the description I think he actually does have two pair here. Bottom two pair makes most sense. Given the fuss he kicks up about the hand not being shown, it makes sense that villain would think he had to show his own hand to claim the pot. If he's thinking that... really, how can he have anything other than two pair?!? It'd be an angle shoot that, in his own mind, he'd never be able to get away with.

Grossberger's statement, on the other hand, was only ambiguous to someone who didn't know what cards he was holding. If he was holding two pair as well then there's some ambiguity - maybe his two pair is better than the villain's, maybe it isn't. It depends which two pair each has. Grossberger knows he's only got top pair though. Saying that he can "maybe" beat two pair is an absolute lie, a misrepresentation of his hand and an angle shoot. The only way he can beat two pair is if his opponent mucks the better hand.

Long story short: villain may or may not have lied about his hand (I think it's unlikely he was lying, but whatever). Grossberger definitely lied about his hand.

Going back to my broader point about the rule, if you have the "players must show their cards to claim any part of the pot" rule then this problem simply goes away. There's no potential for angle shooting from either party. Players can't muck their hands to hide collusion. The stupid time-wasting Mexican standoff of players not wanting to show their hands ends pretty quickly when the dealer tells the players that somebody has to show their cards if they want to get paid, so less time gets wasted. And since the rule applies to everyone, everyone gets and gives the same amount of so-called "free information" in the long run.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything I bolded, though it's not my experience of the rules. Not saying it should or shouldn't be that way, just saying what I've seen.

But I really don't see how lying about your hand is the same thing as angle-shooting. It's poker, and so long as they are HU in the hand, even if action is over, who gives a crap what they say? The only rule about talking about your hand that I know of is that you can't say exactly what you have (with action pending). If you get villain to muck just by saying "I might have two pair," then that's just downright dumb. I've seen people say similar as a joke many, many times. Verbal hand declaration is not binding so far as I know, so if villain DID have two pair and then was stupid enough to muck it with hero only saying he MAYBE beats two pair (which wouldn't be a verbal declaration of hand strength anyway), then that's villain's own fault.

No angle-shoot, just villain not thinking with his brain.

Scourrge said:

But I really don't see how lying about your hand is the same thing as angle-shooting. It's poker, and so long as they are HU in the hand, even if action is over, who gives a crap what they say? The only rule about talking about your hand that I know of is that you can't say exactly what you have (with action pending). If you get villain to muck just by saying "I might have two pair," then that's just downright dumb. I've seen people say similar as a joke many, many times. Verbal hand declaration is not binding so far as I know, so if villain DID have two pair and then was stupid enough to muck it with hero only saying he MAYBE beats two pair (which wouldn't be a verbal declaration of hand strength anyway), then that's villain's own fault.

Click to expand...

I agree, it was impossibly stupid of villain to muck his hand if he had two pair here. Doesn't change the facts though.

Lying about your hand before showdown is absolutely fine, obviously. But once the hand has gone to showdown, it's a very different matter. The relevant rules from Robert's Rules are actually this one, Dead Hand rule # 2 (emphasis added by me):


...and this one, Showdown rule # 2 (again, emphasis added by me):


I'm seriously disturbed if the poker room in question doesn't have these rules or the equivalent on their books, BTW. But the point is, villain folded his hand after Grossberger deliberately miscalled his hand and gave the villain incorrect information.

FWIW if the cards couldn't be retrieved and verified by either the dealer or the floor then you've only got one player's word against another, and I can't argue with the decision they made - they have to award the pot to the last player that had cards.

We're not in that situation though, because we've got information that the floor didn't have: Grossberger has told us what he was holding.