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

---

Request for Answer Clarification by notebook-ga on 15 Nov 2003 14:48 PST

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?

---

Clarification of Answer by efn-ga on 15 Nov 2003 20:44 PST

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

---

Clarification of Answer by efn-ga on 16 Nov 2003 22:07 PST

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

This researcher was very thourough and answered my questions and comments perfectly.