what do you think is the ruling here?

[teaulc]

on my table during the BlackBelt Poker Live,this situation arose: 2 players have played to the river,upon the river card being turned over,player 2 mucked his cards,whereupon player 1 thinking he has won the hand mucks his too? neither player has shown their cards. the dealer then splits the pot between the 2 players. now player 1 is a bit upset over this. tell me what you think is the correct ruling.

[deadlydaveLDN]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? I think the split pot is correct here. If you muck your cards before the dealer has pushed you the pot then you haven't won the pot. Pretty sure he should be showing his cards here, but at the very least he should protect his cards until the pot is awarded.

[glceud]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? Player 2 should be ashamed of himself if he accepted half the chips. You shouldn't need rules in a situation like this common sense should prevail. But then gambling and the people involved in it are no were near as Honorable as they were years back and will argue anything to gain an advantage. (no way you were player 2 Al probably some spotty faced internet kid)

[teaulc]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? i was neither player

[GeordieGaz]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? This is the correct ruling, however as glceud says, common sense should prevail. This exact scenario happened to me in the black belt game too. I called a guy's river bet, he instantly mucked his cards and I asked the dealer if I had to show my cards and he said that I had to. The dealers were quite good and seemed to know all the rulings so this is the correct ruling. :ok

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

Pretty sure he should be showing his cards here' date=' [/quote'] I don't think so. Presumably neither player was all-in, or the cards would have been face-up before the river. I agree that, if player 2 mucked his cards when he could have checked, then it would have been prudent for player 1 to keep hold of his cards until he was sure he was being given the pot, but I don't see why he wasn't given the pot anyway.

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

This exact scenario happened to me in the black belt game too. I called a guy's river bet, he instantly mucked his cards and I asked the dealer if I had to show my cards and he said that I had to.

That's not the scenario that Al described.

[GeordieGaz]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

That's not the scenario that Al described.

Ahh didn't quite read it right then. So there isn't actually a showdown? If that the case then I'm not sure what the ruling is! :unsure

[teaulc]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? neither player showed their cards after the river

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

neither player showed their cards after the river

And neither player was all-in?

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

And neither player was all-in?

... or bet after the river was dealt?

[teaulc]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? neither player was all-in

[teaulc]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

... or bet after the river was dealt?

or bet

[morlspin]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? You MUST show your cards if you want to win the hand If neither player shows then its a split pot Its called a showdown for a reason!

[runadrum]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

This is the correct ruling, however as glceud says, common sense should prevail. This exact scenario happened to me in the black belt game too. I called a guy's river bet, he instantly mucked his cards and I asked the dealer if I had to show my cards and he said that I had to. The dealers were quite good and seemed to know all the rulings so this is the correct ruling. :ok

I think the ruling in Al's example is correct - unfortunately Player 1 should wait for the chips to come his way. But in either example I don't agree that the player left holding his cards after the other has mucked should have to show. I presume both mucking players know they have lost and don't want to give away any additional info by showing, so why should the last man standing have to show ?

[GeordieGaz]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

You MUST show your cards if you want to win the hand If neither player shows then its a split pot Its called a showdown for a reason!

It's not at showdown in this scenario though graeme. The guy has mucked before any betting on the river has commenced.

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? Was Player 1 first to act? So Player 2 mucked out of turn?

[teaulc]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? player 2 was 1st to act

[AJ]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? I would have thought once player 2 mucks he is out of the hand and player 1 wins.

[morlspin]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? He mucked as well tho This is tournament play not cash, its a showdown on the river and if no one shows, no one wins. Simple rule is if you want the win, show your cards

[billy the punter]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? In order to win any pot you have to show both cards, even if the opponents hand is mucked. It's to prevent collusion and to make sure the rules weren't broken, cheating/misdeal etc. If both players muck, it's a split pot.

[runadrum]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

In order to win any pot you have to show both cards, even if the opponents hand is mucked. It's to prevent collusion and to make sure the rules weren't broken, cheating/misdeal etc. If both players muck, it's a split pot.

I bet, everyone folds, I don't show, I take the pot No checking re collusion, cheating, misdeal etc Why is either scenario presented in this thread any different in terms of the last man standing having to show ?

[billy the punter]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

I bet, everyone folds, I don't show, I take the pot No checking re collusion, cheating, misdeal etc Why is either scenario presented in this thread any different in terms of the last man standing having to show ?

I don't know to be honest. But will find out, I'm sure there is a reason, I'm too frazzled to think what it could be at the minute. Will speak to the TD's I know and come back. Bit busy tonight due to Cheltenham but will find out for us. Although someone may know the answer already. :ok

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? In this particular situation, there doesn't seem to any reason to make player 1 show his cards to guard against collusion, because if they were colluding and didn't want the hands shown, they could simply have gone check-bet-fold. My guess is that whoever made the ruling misunderstood what had happened, and thought it was a showdown situation. If player 2 had folded out of turn, I suppose you could argue that the first legal action was player 1's mucking (and therefore folding), but Al says that's not what happened.

[morlspin]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? Duncan, it only matters at the end of the hand after all action on the river has taken place. Its a showdown and to claim the prize you must declare your winning hand. Betting and winning the hand prior to the showdown allows you the option of showing or mucking if you chose, no player went with you so its your choice, however at the end of all the action you must declare to win:ok

[slapdash]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

Its a showdown and to claim the prize you must declare your winning hand.

Why is it a showdown? If you call a player's bet on the river then you've paid to see his hand, and you have a right to do so, but here you've folded before he's bet. If you're heads-up on the river and first to act, and you know you're losing and your opponent is likely to bet, then if you check and fold to his bet, you don't get to see his hand. Do you really think that if you fold, instead of checking, then that buys you the right to see his hand?

[AJ]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here? Ahh, sorry thought it was a cash game

[dik9]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

on my table during the BlackBelt Poker Live,this situation arose: 2 players have played to the river,upon the river card being turned over,player 2 mucked his cards,whereupon player 1 thinking he has won the hand mucks his too? neither player has shown their cards. the dealer then splits the pot between the 2 players. now player 1 is a bit upset over this. tell me what you think is the correct ruling.

Player 2 has 3 options as the first person to act Bet, Check or Fold (just as online you can fold too, online you get a pop up saying are you sure you want to fold as it is free at this point to go to showdown) the fold is dubious as it could be seen as collusion OR he has a bag of bollocks and knows that if player 1 checks he would have to show his cards first. The TD should keep on eye on this but at this point it isn't classed as collusion. If player 2 has folded on his turn then the hand is over. Player 1 hasn't had the opportunity to act, therefore wins the pot by default and does not have to show, as it hasn't got to a showdown situation. HOWEVER If both players have ACTED by checking, then player 2 chucks cards in the muck, for player 1 to receive the pot he must show his hand to prove it is valid. i.e. no jokers or doubletons and that he indeed has 2 cards and 2 cards only, regardless of how shit his cards are. The dealer is paramount in this situation and should follow the correct procedure, a decent dealer will have the mucked protected between his/her arms at the bottom of the board. Also if player 1 wishes to see player 2's cards before he exposes his hand, then the dealer should kill the hand (by touching the muck with the corner of cards) and turn it over on request as by rights player 2 should have shown first in a check check situation. Bad etiquette to request though. If it does get to the point that all players cards are in the muck without any player showing after a check check then the pot should be split.

[dik9]

Re: what do you think is the ruling here?

Duncan, it only matters at the end of the hand after all action on the river has taken place. Its a showdown and to claim the prize you must declare your winning hand. Betting and winning the hand prior to the showdown allows you the option of showing or mucking if you chose, no player went with you so its your choice, however at the end of all the action you must declare to win:ok

All of this is correct, however ALL the action on the river has not taken place, as player 1 hasn't even had the opportunity of acting as player 2's action was to fold, therefore he is the last man standing with action pending against no players and therefore wins the hand by default. As been said before though, Player 1 should wait until the pot has been passed by the dealer before throwing his hand towards the muck.