Ask Jack -- Who Wins When Both Players Muck?

I disagree with Jack's analysis that if there are two players, and one mucks the hand and the other does not in a pot with no river bet, then the one player remaining with a hand is the winner. The one remaining player has to beat the board, or else he is also playing it. That may be a rule from the past, but it should still prevail. It prevents angle shooters from declaring a hand that they do not have, and in response their opponent mucks his hand believing in the angle shooters declaration.

I disagree, texasroadgambler. There's already a rule that if you misrepresent your hand, causing the other player to muck, your hand is dead. That's the best way to prevent angle-shooting. If you say you have a certain hand and the other person mucks, you should have to show your hand. If you hand was of a lesser value than you claimed, your hand is dead and the other player should win the pot due to your mistake. However, if you do NOT declare your hand and your opponent mucks, it doesn't matter if you beat the board, you have the only live hand and you should win the entire pot. It's their fault for mucking, claiming that they thought they could not win the pot.

Think about it this way, Texas: Say we both just checked on the river, and I'm out of position, so I technically have to show my hand first. I know I can't win, but I really want to see your hand. So, based on your rule, I'd want to open-muck, which means you'd either have to show your hand to win the pot or we'd split. Thus, I wouldn't have to show my hand, but I'd force you to show yours, even though technically I was the one who should have had to show his hand first, according to betting order.