Poker

January 6th, 2009
  • If 2 people are playing Texas Hold-em poker and at the end of the hand person A. has three 10's and person B. says that person A. wins as he flips his cards face up. Another person at the table sees that person B. had a better hand the the player did not see. Who should win?


  • Hi notebook-ga, Person B. should win. The rule is "the cards speak" and the best hand wins, even if the player did not evaluate it correctly, if he or she shows the cards. (If person B. had discarded his hand, it would be different.) (If the game is administered by a cardroom or casino, the dealer decides the winner. I assume that is not the case in your question.) I found some web references that supported this conclusion and none that disagreed. The Las Vegas Hilton's detailed poker rule book is available on-line courtesy of the Poker World website. It says "A hand is ranked according to the cards actually in it, not by the player's opinion of his holding. Therefore, the undercalling of a hand's rank or a verbal concession is not binding. 'The cards speak for themselves.'" This is paragraph c. under A31 THE SHOWDOWN. http://pokerworld.com/rules1.htm Caro and Cooke's Rules of Real Poker on the Poker1.com site also go into some detail on this point in section 11.05, headed "CARDS SPEAK": "If the hand is turned over then an incorrect assessment of a hand's rank or a verbal concession is not binding at showdown--the cards speak for themselves. ... Any player at the table may--and should--read a hand which is exposed face up on the table if he sees that the hand is misread and the pot about to be improperly awarded." http://www.poker1.com/mcu/rules/b_article11.asp The PokerListings web site has "Robert's Rules of Poker" by Robert Ciaffone, described as "a leading authority on poker rules and more generally a well-respected poker author, columnist and player." The section on the showdown says "Cards speak (cards read for themselves). ... Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot." http://www.pokerlistings.com/index/rules/general_poker_rules/#the_showdown Dan's Poker Dictionary by Daniel Y. Kimberg agrees in the entry for "Cards Speak": "Cards speak is simply the rule that the value of your hand is determined solely by your cards. You don't have to declare your hand properly in order to claim the part of the pot you deserve." http://www.seriouspoker.com/dictionary.html Another detailed set of rules appears on the Poker-Play.com site. It says "Verbal proclamations pertaining to the contents of a players hand do not hold fast when determining a winner; However, it is deemed unethical for a player to intentionally miscall their hand in hopes of causing another player to fold or alter their own hand." (paragraph 2 under THE SHOWDOWN) http://www.poker-play.com/poker-rules.htm I think it is clear from your description that B. did not announce a better hand than he had in order to fool A. into folding a winning hand, so these descriptions of such conduct as unethical do not apply to this case. Search Strategy poker faq poker rules OR laws showdown poker showdown undercalling poker showdown rules announce poker showdown "cards speak" I hope this information is helpful. If anything is unclear or I misinterpreted the question, please ask for a clarification and I'll do my best to help. --efn


  • But technically if person B. tells person A. to take the pot as he flips over his cards, is he not folding by that proclamation?


  • First, thank you for the rating and the tip. To respond to your request for clarification, I think it could go either way depending on exactly what B. says and how it is interpreted. It seems clear from my research on the original answer that if B. says, for example, "I got nothing," he should win. But what if he shows his cards and also says "I fold"? I went back to some of the same sources and checked on whether such a declaration is binding. The Las Vegas Hilton rules, under A16. WORDS AND GESTURES, says "A statement of 'fold,' 'check,' 'call,' 'raise,' or a specific size bet is binding on an active player. ... The substitution of an irregular statement or gesture for 'fold,' 'check,' "call,' or "raise" is as binding as the regular statement would be in that situation, provided the intent is obvious or it could easily and justifiably be construed as having that meaning." Caro & Cooke's Rules of Real Poker, under 10.09 VERBAL DECLARATIONS OF ACTION, says "1) In Turn: a verbal declaration of action is binding if when it is a player's turn to act he announces a fold, check, bet, call, or raise. The player shall be held to that action to the exclusion of all other actions. 2) Out of Turn: a player who makes a verbal declaration of action out of turn shall be held to that action when it is his turn, unless intervening action changes the action the out-of-turn actor is facing, in which case the player may act on his hand as if he had made no declaration." Robert's Rules of Poker, section 3, GENERAL POKER RULES, under BETTING AND RAISING, says "A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action." So if B. says "I fold" and then shows his hand, he loses. He has withdrawn from the competition and cannot win even if he has the best hand. If B. first shows his hand and then says "I fold," the situation is more ambiguous. It could be argued that he still folded, or it could be argued that once he showed his hand, the cards spoke and folding was no longer an option. I don't think the rules go into this degree of fine detail. It's similarly ambiguous if he speaks and shows his cards at the same time. Aside from the sequence of the declaration and showing the cards, the fundamental question is whether B. was performing the act of folding his hand or just talking. If he folded, he loses, but if he was just talking, he wins. It is not necessarily straightforward to decide whether B. folded or not. We can imagine a whole spectrum of possible utterances, from "I have a pair of threes" (B. definitely did not fold and wins) to "I fold" (B. definitely did fold and loses). Somewhere in the middle may be phrases like "You win" or "I can't compete," which could be interpreted either way, and other phrases may be closer to one end of the spectrum or the other. If B. says "Take the pot" as suggested by the phrasing in your request for clarification, it could be interpreted as "Take the pot, because you have a better hand according to my analysis" or "Take the pot, because I fold." I would consider it closer to the "I fold" end of the spectrum, but not all the way to the end and arguable. Also, considering that the act of folding is not limited to a specific phrase, it would be understandable that someone, especially an interested party such as A., might interpret any statement of weakness or defeat as an act of folding. If we were either investigating this matter scientifically or trying it in a court of law, we might look at the exact words B. used, the meanings of those words in common usage, and B.'s previous behavior patterns. For example, if in many previous hands, B. had said "I give up" and thrown in his cards face down, and everyone including B. accepted this behavior as folding, then if he said "I give up" and then showed the winning hand, there would be a pretty good case that he had folded, even though he didn't say "Fold." Fortunately, I don't have access to the information needed to do this kind of analysis for your question! So perhaps the only conclusion we can reach is that such situations can be ambiguous and it is best for a player to avoid such sticky showdowns by either clearly folding or showing his hand with no comment or a conservative pronouncement such as "I may be mistaken, but I believe I have pure trash." (Theoretical note: In linguistics, doing something like folding a poker hand by saying something like "I fold" is called an "illocutionary act." Another example is swearing an oath to tell the truth in court. http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?illocutionary+act http://online.sfsu.edu/~kbach/spchacts.html ) Thank you for the opportunity to improve my answer. I hope this clarifies the rules of the game, even though it is less clear-cut than my original answer. If you need any further clarification, please ask. --efn


  • A couple of supplemental notes: I found this statement in the Las Vegas Hilton rules: "A hand discarded faceup is still a live hand, even though it has touched other cards, provided it is clearly identifiable." (j. under A31. THE SHOWDOWN) I also consulted a player more experienced than I and his opinion was that once a player has shown his cards, the cards speak and the hand can win or lose, but it can no longer be folded. --efn







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Poker , Please add it free.

    Posted in freedeadaim.com | edit