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