For some reason, which I don’t really understand, the issue of showing cards at the end of a hand creates a great deal of controversy. First, I think the basic rule that is both the most simple and most sensible is:
1. If there has been action on the last round, the last aggressor (bettor or raiser) shows first.
2. If there has been no action on the last round, the hands are shown in order. The first person to check is the first person to show.
3. If there is one or more side pots, the pot with the fewest participants is shown first.
There is no reason why any game — live, tournament, or Internet — shouldn’t follow this basic rule. Now, we come to more problematical issues. An early-position player shows his hand and a late-position player concedes the pot by folding. Do the other players in the hand have the right to demand to see the folded hand? Do the other players at the table, but not in the hand, have that right? The main argument advanced for enforced showing of a losing hand is that it prevents collusion. This is a very shallow argument, since any colluders with IQs higher than room temperature would realize that any hands they don’t wish to show should be folded without calling the last bet.
My own feeling is that no one should be required to show a losing hand. There are several pluses to this method. It’s faster. It doesn’t embarrass weak players, bluffers, or maniacs. And it prevents the problem of someone who shows his hand when requested having a winning hand. Believe me, this does happen, and when it does, a long discussion ensues as to whether the hand was dead, touched the muck, and so on. This always creates arguments and hard feelings, and in some cases can even break up a game.
If you are playing in a game in which anyone can ask to see the losing hand, I consider it poor form to ask. When someone in a multihanded pot asks to see the losing hand of one of the raisers, it is often a thinly veiled accusation of cheating. Sometimes a nonparticipant in the pot will ask to see a hand, hoping to learn how someone plays or just to annoy him. How can that be annoying? Imagine losing a large pot to a two-outer on the river. You are trying to breathe deeply and maintain your cool, when some jerk across the table asks to see your losing hand. (I’ll save my First Amendment arguments for freedom of speech at the poker table for another column.) If you really are curious, ask a player if he would mind showing his hand. Quite often, someone is willing to show voluntarily, especially if you extend the same courtesy to him on future occasions.
What about showing a card in the middle of a hand? Most tournaments won’t allow it because it gives people an opportunity to influence the outcome of a hand. In a tournament, influencing the outcome of a hand can affect players not in the hand. The origin of this rule dates back to a famous hand in which Ray Zee, no relation, was in contention for a best-overall-player tournament award for his finishes in earlier events. In the late stages of the final event, no-limit hold’em, he needed to advance a few places to win the award and, I think, a car of some kind. He made an all-in raise, and while his opponent considered a call, he showed two aces. His opponent folded, he eventually won the car, and the no-showing-cards rule came into being. In my mind, this is crazy. The decision should have been to outlaw best-overall-player awards, since they continually reward unethical behavior. (A typical situation may find two or more players left in a tournament. One player can win the best-overall-player award, for which his opponent(s) is not in contention, by winning the tournament. If they decide to make a deal, his winning will add additional money to the pot that they have to split. What kind of deal should they make? What kind would you make?) The conditions of a contest should never let this type of situation arise. I am completely convinced that card-showing (and banter) should be allowed in heads-up pots. I think it makes the game more fun to play and more fun to watch, and adds another dimension of skill in the form of reading and manipulating the other players. Again, I ask, “Why deprive skilled players of another tool?” “Because it might influence the outcome of the pot,” you answer. Well, really, isn’t that the idea? Isn’t everything we do at the table designed to influence the outcome of the pot? As long as anyone has the right to do it, it is fair for everyone.
Steve Zolotow Card Player.com
1. If there has been action on the last round, the last aggressor (bettor or raiser) shows first.
2. If there has been no action on the last round, the hands are shown in order. The first person to check is the first person to show.
3. If there is one or more side pots, the pot with the fewest participants is shown first.
There is no reason why any game — live, tournament, or Internet — shouldn’t follow this basic rule. Now, we come to more problematical issues. An early-position player shows his hand and a late-position player concedes the pot by folding. Do the other players in the hand have the right to demand to see the folded hand? Do the other players at the table, but not in the hand, have that right? The main argument advanced for enforced showing of a losing hand is that it prevents collusion. This is a very shallow argument, since any colluders with IQs higher than room temperature would realize that any hands they don’t wish to show should be folded without calling the last bet.
My own feeling is that no one should be required to show a losing hand. There are several pluses to this method. It’s faster. It doesn’t embarrass weak players, bluffers, or maniacs. And it prevents the problem of someone who shows his hand when requested having a winning hand. Believe me, this does happen, and when it does, a long discussion ensues as to whether the hand was dead, touched the muck, and so on. This always creates arguments and hard feelings, and in some cases can even break up a game.
If you are playing in a game in which anyone can ask to see the losing hand, I consider it poor form to ask. When someone in a multihanded pot asks to see the losing hand of one of the raisers, it is often a thinly veiled accusation of cheating. Sometimes a nonparticipant in the pot will ask to see a hand, hoping to learn how someone plays or just to annoy him. How can that be annoying? Imagine losing a large pot to a two-outer on the river. You are trying to breathe deeply and maintain your cool, when some jerk across the table asks to see your losing hand. (I’ll save my First Amendment arguments for freedom of speech at the poker table for another column.) If you really are curious, ask a player if he would mind showing his hand. Quite often, someone is willing to show voluntarily, especially if you extend the same courtesy to him on future occasions.
What about showing a card in the middle of a hand? Most tournaments won’t allow it because it gives people an opportunity to influence the outcome of a hand. In a tournament, influencing the outcome of a hand can affect players not in the hand. The origin of this rule dates back to a famous hand in which Ray Zee, no relation, was in contention for a best-overall-player tournament award for his finishes in earlier events. In the late stages of the final event, no-limit hold’em, he needed to advance a few places to win the award and, I think, a car of some kind. He made an all-in raise, and while his opponent considered a call, he showed two aces. His opponent folded, he eventually won the car, and the no-showing-cards rule came into being. In my mind, this is crazy. The decision should have been to outlaw best-overall-player awards, since they continually reward unethical behavior. (A typical situation may find two or more players left in a tournament. One player can win the best-overall-player award, for which his opponent(s) is not in contention, by winning the tournament. If they decide to make a deal, his winning will add additional money to the pot that they have to split. What kind of deal should they make? What kind would you make?) The conditions of a contest should never let this type of situation arise. I am completely convinced that card-showing (and banter) should be allowed in heads-up pots. I think it makes the game more fun to play and more fun to watch, and adds another dimension of skill in the form of reading and manipulating the other players. Again, I ask, “Why deprive skilled players of another tool?” “Because it might influence the outcome of the pot,” you answer. Well, really, isn’t that the idea? Isn’t everything we do at the table designed to influence the outcome of the pot? As long as anyone has the right to do it, it is fair for everyone.
Steve Zolotow Card Player.com
