My Texas Hold 'Em app has a weird system. It only reveals the winner’s cards; so even if more than one player is in the pot, only the winner’s cards are revealed.
Is this some weird variant of Texas Hold 'Em played somewhere (for example, in Japan, where I think my app was developed)? Or are the developers just lazy?
Second question: Let’s say that the community cards are the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and 10 of Hearts and something random, like the 6 of Spades. Peter has the 2 of Hearts, and Paul has the 3 of Hearts. Both players have an Ace-high flush, so is the pot split? Or does Paul win the pot since he has a higher fifth card?
Does it always show only the winner’s cards? Because that would be strange. Per Robert’s Rules of Poker (which aren’t definitive, but we have to start somewhere.), during the Showdown:
So, if the first person to show has a hand that none of the other players can beat, they aren’t obligated to show their hands. I am unclear as to whether the winner can compel the loser to reveal what they had, and IIRC, it’s considered a breach of etiquette to require the loser to do so. When I had enough time to play online, the PokerStars app would sometime say that the other player mucked their hand, and not reveal what that hand was. Funnily enough, the recorded hand history did reveal what the other player had, but you had to go back through the hand histories to find that out, it wasn’t evident during the course of play.
As to your second question, first, you have listed six community cards. There are only five in Hold 'Em. Second, the winning hand is made by the best hand out of the five community cards and the player’s own two cards. In your example, if there’s a flush formed by the five community cards, and that flush is better than any flush (or any other hand) any other player can make using their own cards, then yes, it’s a tie. The pot will be split between all players still in the hand at the showdown. (Assuming no side-pots are present)
The most popular poker variant in which you have to use cards in your hand is Omaha hold 'em. You get 4 down cards and their are 5 community cards. You have to use 2 in your hand with 3 community cards. Not so in Texas hold 'em.
To try and clarify the issue: Is there a case where two players have a 5 card flush with 4 suited cards in the community cards, but a SINGLE higher valued suited card loses to TWO suited cards. (e.g. 9s 3 -vs 6s3s.)
These were the rules in every game I’ve played. No one is ever compelled to show their cards (but of course, lose any claim to the pot if they choose not to do so and there is anyone else left in the game).
The reasoning was that if you lose a hand at the showdown, you may have had good cards that you reasonably expected could have won, or you may have been bluffing. Knowing whether you were bluffing or not is valuable “soft” information for subsequent rounds – if you acquire a reputation for bluffing other players are more likely to call your bluff – so it is entirely reasonable to want to keep that information secret.
With these cards, Magdelena has a straight flush (K through 9 of Hearts) which beats any simple flush, including Mary’s A-high flush.
No. Flushes are compared card-by-card, starting with the highest card. Only five cards matter, and there is no rank of suits. The fact that one player happens to have 6 cards of one suit has no effect.
But your example above could be seen as an exception: if the player with six cards of the same suit can make a straight flush, this will always beat a simple flush.
As noted, this is a bad example, since Magdalena has a straight-flush (9-T-J-Q-K of hearts), so she wins in either case.
I think what you meant to ask was something like
Mary: Kh, 6c
Magdalena: Qh Th
Board: Ah, 9h, 8h, 6s, 3h
In this case, Mary’s five best cards are: Ah, Kh, 9h, 8h, 3h for a A-K-9-8-3 flush
Magdalena’s five best cards are : Ah, Qh, Th, 9h, 8h for a A-Q-T-9-8 flush.
It doesn’t matter what either player’s leftover cards are. Mary wins because an A-K-x-x-x flush beats an A-Q-x-x-x flush.
If you make a bet, and I call you, I’m ‘paying’ to see your cards, in effect, and in most card rooms, the original better has to show both cards to make a claim for the pot.
But if you bet, and I call, and the original better mucks (knowing that I’d almost certainly only call with a hand that beats him), then in most card rooms I’m not under any obligation to show my hand, even though I won the pot. I posted a hand on here not too long ago where I turbo-called an obvious bluff from a steaming, drinkin’ reg with something like bottom pair and he turbo-mucked just as fast. I didn’t need to show my cards, but did on purpose specifically for the purpose of further putting him on monkeytilt, knowing I called his huge bet on the river with such a weak holding.
I should also point out: I don’t play tournaments all that often, so I don’t know all the ins-and-outs, but I believe ‘show your hand’ rules are stricter in tournaments - for example, when two players go all in, even pre-flop, both players have to immediately turn over their cards, etc. This is mainly to prevent collusion (i.e., one player ‘dumping’ tournament chips to another player). This is obviously irrelevant in cash games where a) you can get up and pass money money back and forth all you want away from the tables and b) you can top up your stack any time you want up to the table max.
It’s my impression that in at least some card rooms, any player at the table can request to see any hand that made it to showdown…
So you get to the river. Bob bets, Frank calls. Bob reveals his hand, Frank mucks. At this point, Joe, who is also at the table, can request to see Frank’s hand.
This is considered poor form and unsporting, but it is allowed, with the theory (I believe) being that Frank and Bob could be colluding by working together to drive other people out of the hand. (Although in that case you’d think it would only apply in a situation where a third player was in the hand up through the river… so on the river, Joe and Frank and Bob were all in. Frank bets, Bob calls, Joe folds, but asks to see the hands, because if Bob’s hand was weak, his call was clearly insane EXCEPT that he might be colluding with Frank.)
Anyone know more more precisely what I’m talking about?
I’m not a real poker player, but did play some low-stakes low-ball in Northern California once upon a time. The rule quoted by other players seemed to be: Any hand that called or made the final bet had to be displayed upon request.
Is that incorrect? Googling gives mixed answers, including (my emphasis):
What’s the Straight Dope?
(PS: I thought learning about players’ styles was a valid reason, independent of collusion worry.)
I thought that “best practice” was to NEVER show cards. Full stop.
If you want to show, you do at your detriment, or for false advertising for later. Personally the flow of the game dictates this for me. If I’m bluffing more than I usually would, I’m sure to show you when I’ve got the goods. Most often, I get better cards in the immediate next hand after I just bluffed.
In learning to play, I read that beginners should show their cards, especially if there are side bets. The idea being that beginners might erroneously think they have lost or that they have no chance at a side pot.
Gambler’s Fallacy? Or maybe you bluff on the truly worst hands so you have nowhere to go but up?
Oops. :smack: I phrased this wrong. Where I played, the player who made the final bet had to show his hand (to win the bet or on request) only if that bet was called. (The issue is whether losing hands in a called pot have to show if so requested.)