OPINIONS ON SHOWING CARDS

[cincicrappykid]

Can I have the 2010 prize for best thread please ??!!

leave ittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

[Eck]

Shows a lack of class IMO just like slowrolling and doing a monkey dance when you river suckout.

However galloping around the table whilst slapping your arse is completely acceptable imo.

[Shogun112]

Shows a lack of class IMO just like slowrolling and doing a monkey dance when you river suckout.

However galloping around the table whilst slapping your **** is completely acceptable imo.

Saw this on the FT o the Aussie Millions last night.  Win an all-in, jumping and screaming, woop woop woop...  bad bad bad...

[WASP]

Shows a lack of class IMO just like slowrolling and doing a monkey dance when you river suckout.

However galloping around the table whilst slapping your **** is completely acceptable imo.

Saw this on the FT o the Aussie Millions last night.  Win an all-in, jumping and screaming, woop woop woop...  bad bad bad...

Nah eck is cheekily referring to me doing it against the mole at an event in Ireland, however the mole is a mate of mine and we have an agreement  

[Waz1892]

You aren"t allowed to ask to see the cards if you weren"t in the hand anyway

If you were dealt in, you can ask...

Really??...Not heard of this before, that doesn"t seem right to me.  But as you stated some fish need educating.  

[deanp27]

in the hand means being dealt in the hand, not necessarily the guy still in at showdown.

think about it - 2 people to the river and guy mucks his called hand, if asking to see a mucked hand is a rule designed to prevent collusion and the only person that could ask was the guy benefitting from the perceived collusion it wouldn"t be a great deterrent. DUCY?

[pokerpops]

I"m surprised nobody has brought up this hand... http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/09/where-is-the-gamesmanship-a-controversial-hand-7196.htm

There"s a video somewhere too with german commentary I think.

I"d generally just take the pot if my call is met with hands going into the muck and I"m guity of calling and declaring my hand too quickly sometimes for fear of slow-rolling, but there are circumstances where the table bully may have got a pot down to heads up and been called on the river where I can see a reason for asking him to table his hand when called... even if I"ve folded earlier in the hand...

[Paulie_D]

DUCY?

Stop that!

[rivertaff]

I understood that the bettor was saying (by making a bet) that my hand is the best. The caller is saying " No mine is" and has to show the hand to prove this. The bettor can then show their cards to prove they were right in the first place or muck them. They do not have to show the cards unless collusion is suspected.

The caller then has to justify their belief of collusion.

Everyone who plays poker will say that it is a game of skill and not luck. The main reason for this being true, is because of the "bluff" - the best players in the world are probably the best bluffers.

Any rule that forces all hands to be turned over at any showdown I believe undermines the "bluff", and the statement that poker is a game of skill.

[Paulie_D]

Everyone who plays poker will say that it is a game of skill and not luck. The main reason for this being true, is because of the "bluff" - the best players in the world are probably the best bluffers.

Any rule that forces all hands to be turned over at any showdown I believe undermines the "bluff", and the statement that poker is a game of skill.

Bluffing is fine and to be encouraged but is not relevant to this discussion.

If you are called..the "bluff" is gone regardless. I"m not suggesting that all hands be shown whenever a pot is won. just when a river bet is called.

It"s called "SHOWDOWN" for a reason.

The old game (before all this nonsense) had all cards being turned over at showdown. The only reason the "ask for a hand to be shown" rule being introduced was to detect and stop collusion. It"s being abused and diluted by being used for asking for information gathering purposes.

[rivertaff]

If you have had a bluff at the river, and get called, what purpose does having to show the failed bluff serve?

IMHO it only discourages a bluff in the first place.

[MintTrav]

Collusion, collusion collusion. All this talk about collusion. You might see it on telly but how often have you caught someone colluding in a live public cardroom? Never? All this talk about something that virtually never happens.

[rivertaff]

Quite agree with you John, but that is the only basis upon which someone should have to show their cards, once they have surrendered the pot.

[Paulie_D]

Quite agree with you John, but that is the only basis upon which someone should have to show their cards, once they have surrendered the pot.

You see, I agree...but while the rule exists (and is being abused) we have two options:

1. Force all hands to be shown (which I agree is not the ideal solution)
2. Insist that the asker state the reason why he"s asking BEFORE turning the cards over. and get him to justify it.

As I said, if I choose not to show (and if called I always do) and someone wants to see my hand the conversation will go...

V. I want to see that hand
Me. "Why? Do you think I"m cheating?"
V. No, I just want to see what you had.
Me. FLOOR!

[RioRodent]

Collusion, collusion collusion. All this talk about collusion. You might see it on telly but how often have you caught someone colluding in a live public cardroom? Never? All this talk about something that virtually never happens.

You never seen two players check it down when a third player is all-in? Nine times out of ten this is collusion.