I Want to See That Hand, Again

Earlier this year, I wrote a column titled "I Want to See That Hand." In that column, I talked about the rule that allows players to see the called hands of their opponents. My contention was that the rule was designed as a measure to detect collusion, and not for curious players who want to see what cards their opponents were playing.

I recently received an e-mail from Brian about that column. Brian was frustrated with a different rule that allowed another player to slow-roll him in a hand. Brian suggests changing a common rule that reads: "If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay." Brian wants to change the rule to read: "If everyone checks (or is all in) on the final betting round, the first player left of the dealer button is the first to show the hand, followed by the next player(s) in turn. A player may muck his hand at any point after the final round of betting. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay."

Brian's thinking is that by forcing all hands involved at the showdown to be shown in order, fewer people will ask to see hands. This may be true in specific cases, but most hands are not checked on the river. In addition, this forces only the first person to show his hand, and still allows all others to muck. The only rule that would stop players from asking to see a hand would be: Everyone has to show his hand and cannot muck. That is a rule that should not be implemented, ever.

Since I wrote the original column, I have received many e-mails in which people told me they thought they had a right to see a called hand. Brian described it this way: "One of my biggest issues with my opponent being able to muck his hand is that if I have called him down, I have paid to see his hand, and that is valuable information for future play."

The whole idea that a player has a right to see another called hand, even if that player does not want to show it, is where I think the problem lies. Poker is not a game that requires all of your secrets to be revealed. One of the things that makes the game challenging and mysterious is that you don't get to see what everyone did and what cards they played. Each player needs to use past information on how a hand played out or how a player bet to determine that player's style. In other words, poker is not a game that plays as an open book.

Just recently, I found out that a poker room in Las Vegas changed its rule about asking to see a called hand to read as I had suggested in my earlier column. I hope that all poker rooms will consider this rule: "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. This rule is intended to detect possible collusion, and the requesting player must be able to substantiate the reason for asking to see a hand." Of course, that reason can no longer be, "I wanted to see what he was playing."

Let's put some of the mystery back into poker and make people use other gathered information to put together what a player might or might not have had. After all, that is an important part of the game, and allowing players to see any hand takes away from that.

Live games are not being televised and are not the extremely exciting no-limit hold'em tournaments played out on television. Live games are a true test of poker and shouldn't be messed with just to add a little excitement or satisfy someone's curiosity.