# Am I obligated to show my cards if I get called and we go to showdown?

There are two players left after the river card has been delt. Player 1 bets and player 2 calls. Does player 1 HAVE to show his cards, since it's HIS turn and he got CALLED, or is he allowed to muck his hand ?

I always thought he had to show and that it was only the second player, or remaining players, that are allowed to choose either to show or muck.

This is regarding a home play Texas Holdem cash game.

• There are several other posts here about who must show first at showdown. In a cash game, however, you're always free to muck any time if you don't want to win the pot. – Chris Farmer Dec 30 '14 at 14:45

You are not obliged automatically. It is common that someone bluffs, gets called and they muck the hand, and that is not against the rules. However the calling player can ask to see the hand and the request obligates the dealer to turn up the hand, if the hand is still available to turn up.

Related post: Can a bettor concede his hand without showing it?

This scenario will depend on the local house rules. What you are referring to is known as the "last aggressor" rule. Some places do enforce that and would say that since the person bet last, they should show first. However, it is my understanding that this is not universal - in parts of Europe, the last person to act (in this case the caller, not the aggressor) would show first. So it really all depends on the house rules. In your case of a home game, it might be a good idea to establish these rules at the onset so that there are no surprises.

• Much like choosing a set of house rules for a home game of pool, it's a good idea to use rules already laid out by some standard body, like the World Series of Poker. Any player who has been a legal part of the game can ask to see a called hand, even if the cards have already been mucked. – JoeFish Dec 30 '14 at 21:41

If he wants to muck, he may attempt to do so and surrender the pot. But his opponents paid full price to see his hand, and they are legally entitled to see it, so they can ask the dealer to show the hand even if the player mucks. If the player actively tries to prevent the hand being shown, for example, by sticking the cards into the muck directly, he is cheating and should be penalized appropriately by the floorman.

• The player isn't "legally entitled" to anything really. This will all depend on local house rules. They will not be the same across the board. – Unknown Coder Dec 30 '14 at 18:46
• In a tournament you typically would be entitled to ask to see cards, but unless you have a serious (i.e., not just your curiosity) reason related to potential collusion between players at the table, you're labeling yourself as a newbie and general jerk at the table. Don't be that guy. cardplayer.com/poker-news/… – Chris Farmer Dec 30 '14 at 20:27
• It is sometimes perceived as rude to ask to see a called hand. But it is still an absolute right: if you pay to see a hand, you can see it. You can bet that if someone bets $300 into me and I call$300, I am seeing that hand, come hell or high water. Against a player known for mucking called bluffs, I once called a floorman over before calling, and told him to prevent the player from mucking his hand after I called. – Lee Daniel Crocker Dec 30 '14 at 20:37
• It's inappropriate for, say, a third or fourth player in the hand to ask to see mucked ones, even though they are entitled. That rule is about stopping collusion, and can get abused. But the CALLER of a large bet is calling precisely for the purpose of seeing the hand he called. It's even called "seeing" the bet. That's what it's for. If anyone, including the bettor, interferes with the CALLER's right to see the hand he called, it is that person who is cheating, and violating the spirit of poker. – Lee Daniel Crocker Dec 30 '14 at 20:50
• We both agree that the non-callers or the routine every-hand request is generally a dick move, and especially the winner asking to see a mucked loser--that's a real dick move (and even has a special rule). But we'll just have to disagree about the "spirit of the game" on a tough call. I have no problem at all with someone making a hard call wanting to see the cards he paid to see, even with no suspicion of collusion. That's just part of the game. I can give you citations from the 1800s of players coming to gunplay because a bluffer tried to muck his hand unseen. – Lee Daniel Crocker Dec 30 '14 at 22:10

I have been saying this for years... Back in the "good ole days" , you had to show at showdown no questions asked. But now there are so many poker cheaters and/or weaklings, that this mucking at the showdown is so commonplace that it is allowed. Lee D. Crocker is totally right on this issue. Well, if everybody started playing chess and that became popular out of the blue, they would omit at least one chess rule I am guessing as well (say for instance, they would just do away with the en passant rule because not that many people like that).

• This doesn't answer the question, and as a side note, chess is popular, and there's no chance of the en passant rule going away. – Herb Wolfe Oct 12 '17 at 2:23
• Yes it does, if you could up your reading comprehension : "Lee D. Crocker is totally right on this issue". I had an old set of bicycle poker rules that stated "ALL players at the showdown show their cards" . What part of "ALL" don't you understand? Also , at least here in North America, poker is some 40 times more popular than chess, that is , after the poker boom of 2003. – Jesse Hoffman Oct 13 '17 at 3:23
• That is not answering the question. Please consider taking the tour, poker.stackexchange.com/tour, and reading this section on answering, poker.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer – Herb Wolfe Oct 13 '17 at 3:38

The "ALL IN" and later fold and Muck player is totally within his or her rights. When you forfeit claim to the pot, no further action is required of you! You have performed an abort and all following assumed actions are nolo! Your motivation to the point of the call is no one's business but yours since you have abandoned the quest of winning.....

• Hi Lou, this doesn't make much sense which is why i suspect someone down-voted it. Could you edit it to be clearer? For example, there is no"ALL IN" player as you suggest. – Toby Booth Jul 2 at 22:40