Hi everyone, there was a big argument at our weekly Texas hold’em tournament last night. At showdown, player A bet $500. Player B called. Player A said “Good call” and threw his cards into the muck without showing. Player C (who was no longer in the hand) said “hey, you were called, you have to show your cards”. Player A replied “no, I don’t, I surrendered”. There was no argument over who won (Player B), but after being called, was Player A required to show? I’m not looking for what would have been the polite thing to do but rather the “official rule”. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Maddog_gk

Hi everyone, there was a big argument at our weekly Texas hold’em tournament last night. At showdown, player A bet $500. Player B called. Player A said “Good call” and threw his cards into the muck without showing. Player C (who was no longer in the hand) said “hey, you were called, you have to show your cards”. Player A replied “no, I don’t, I surrendered”. There was no argument over who won (Player B), but after being called, was Player A required to show? I’m not looking for what would have been the polite thing to do but rather the “official rule”. Thanks.

I don't know if I understood very well, but to see my cards you must pay my bet, otherwise there is no obligation to show them

technically...to the best of my knowledge...player A must show their cards if they are called...calling the bet means "i'll see you"...or..i will see your cards.

However, this 'rule' is rarely enforced in live poker in my experience, and it might be considered bad ettiquette to force player A to show their cards against their will. It would certainly not help the table 'vibe'.
If they muck their cards, without even seeing their oppos cards first, one may presume they were bluffing ( a busted draw) or even an ace high...

Originally Posted by foldeamela

I don't know if I understood very well, but to see my cards you must pay my bet, otherwise there is no obligation to show them

Yes, in this case you bet $500, I called. So, are you allowed to muck your cards (and surrender) without showing me? I paid to see them.

Originally Posted by monkey23

technically...to the best of my knowledge...player A must show their cards if they are called...calling the bet means "i'll see you"...or..i will see your cards.

However, this 'rule' is rarely enforced in live poker in my experience, and it might be considered bad ettiquette to force player A to show their cards against their will. It would certainly not help the table 'vibe'.
If they muck their cards, without even seeing their oppos cards first, one may presume they were bluffing ( a busted draw) or even an ace high...

Thanks. There’s no doubt that Player A was bluffing and you’re right in your table ‘vibe’ comment. I believe he had an obligation to show his cards even though he was conceding.

In a home game, you should plan for this ahead of time by stating whose rules you are following. That way when there is a dispute, look up the rule right then.

After looking at the rules from a few sites, most of them agree with WSOP rule: "Any player who has been a legal part of the game can ask to see a called hand, even if the cards have already been mucked."

I do not believe he has to show if he conceded. He was bluffing, so what.

Yes, I agree, when I pay to see, I want to see exactly what I paid for. I don't want to just win the chips. When we are the caller, it is very important not to eagerly flip our hand over when we know we won. Seeing their cards is worth almost as much as taking the pot - it has ramifications for the rest of the game.

The cardrooms I play at allow a player to muck their hand and concede the pot, even when called. Clearly the bettor was bluffing and doesn't want to convey exactly what they were playing with so that they do not give any hints as to what their range is. Did he open bet and triple barrel with 23off or was he playing a strong AKoff hand that turned into a draw that missed. If it were the AK that whiffed, I am not sure he would be as timid as if he had been playing complete garbage the whole hand. But then again, his best plan is to never share unless he thinks he has winner.

The bettor must always show first, and as the caller we need to be patient and let him do so. Seeing showdown cards is extremely important - we only get to see so many of these.

Good luck and God Bless

I think Bart Hansson (Crushlivepoker) talked about this a while ago in one of his call in hands. The take of Bart Hansson was, that as a "for profit" player its way more important to keep a good vibe on the table than to get information about, what people were bluffing with. Bart would therefore never ask to see a mucked hand, and even less so if he was not involved in the action. So while the player asking to see the mucked cards was technically within the rules, he was honestly being a bit of a dick.

Its a bit like, when the independent tracking sites first came out, and did not require people to opt in, as for instance Sharkscope does now. They basically did illegal datamining against the TOS of all the poker sites. And by publicly showing, who the big losers in high stakes games were, they embarrassed some of them enough to make them quit the game. Not exactly the smartest thing to do, if you want to make money in the poker industry.

Originally Posted by Maddog_gk

Hi everyone, there was a big argument at our weekly Texas hold’em tournament last night. At showdown, player A bet $500. Player B called. Player A said “Good call” and threw his cards into the muck without showing. Player C (who was no longer in the hand) said “hey, you were called, you have to show your cards”. Player A replied “no, I don’t, I surrendered”. There was no argument over who won (Player B), but after being called, was Player A required to show? I’m not looking for what would have been the polite thing to do but rather the “official rule”. Thanks.

When looking for "official rules" I suggest using Tournament Directors Association handbook available at:
TDA Poker Rules - Poker Tournament Directors AssociationPoker Tournament Directors Association (pokertda.com)

In the case you are asking about I think this is the guidance you need.


.18: Asking to See a Hand \
A:Players not still in possession of cards at show down, 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.

I think this was fine. I know the rule that you have to show your cards if you want to win the hand starting with the first player after the button.
Folding the cards instead of showing them seems to be valid action to me.

Originally Posted by Maddog_gk

Yes, in this case you bet $500, I called. So, are you allowed to muck your cards (and surrender) without showing me? I paid to see them.

No, by rules if he muck his cards he does not need to show it. Technically it means that he lost the pot even if he has, for example, stronger hand than his opponents.

I think the rules say that the original player should show, but this is rarely enforced. This actually cost me money...I won the pot when the bettor mucked, so I threw in my hand as well...I had a full house queens over 9s, which would have won the high hand of the hour...$300.
I have another question: if bettor gets called, mucks, but the dealer turns over his cards, and it winds up being the winning hand...who wins the hand?

Originally Posted by SPANKYSN

I have another question: if bettor gets called, mucks, but the dealer turns over his cards, and it winds up being the winning hand...who wins the hand?

The following is from the TDA rules found at:
https://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/



13: Tabling Cards & Killing Winning Hand
A: Proper tabling is both 1) turning all cards face up on the table and 2) allowing the dealer and players to read the hand clearly. “All cards” means both hole cards in hold’em, ...
B: At showdown players must protect their hands while waiting for cards to be read (See also Rule 65). Players who don’t fully table all cards, then muck thinking they’ve won, do so at their own risk. If a hand is not 100% retrievable and identifiable and the TD rules it was not clearly read, the player has no claim to the pot. The TDs decision on whether a hand was sufficiently tabled is final.
------------------------
So my advice is be very careful with the handling of your cards because it is easy to forfeit your claim to a deserved pot.
Some advice to all that I gained from experience: Do not surrender your winning cards to the dealer or muck until the pot has been pushed to you. Timing is everything. If you have a dispute but no cards as evidence you may lose. Keep your cards; keep your money.

My belief in this matter is that the player who was called is supposed to show his cards first. I can't recall a specific example of a player whom I had called attempting to muck his cards to avoid showing, but I do believe that in that case the dealer would be obligated to show that person's hand if I asked to see it. As far as a third person asking to see the hand, I'm pretty sure it is within the rules, however it may be considered bad etiquette. But as far as me being in the hand and paying off their bet, I want to see their cards. If I paid to see them I want to see them, especially since I am a player that will often forgo a value bet on the river and opt to check back when I'm sure I hold the winning hand, in order to insure that I will get to see my opponent's hand. I have even been known to call a river bet, knowing that I am beat, once again in order to see my opponent's cards, because there is value to that information. If the other player is supposed to show first, I will not turn my cards up until they show theirs. And if I pay to see your cards, then I want to see the cards I paid to see.

Not sure what the correct ruling is but if the better folded after the call, I would not think the winner would need to show him the cards as well. Again this is just my thought as I have no idea what would be the correct ruling.