Who has to show first?
I’ve been playing poker for 49 years and always thought the last aggressor had to show first at showdown. Last night, on the turn, I checked, and V on the button bet. I called. I checked the river and v checked back. I was waiting for V as the last aggressor to show. Dealer said I have to show first because V’s check back on the river is like calling my bet of nothing.
Good grief just turn over your hand or muck it at showdown. Nothing more annoying and unnecessary than these “showdown standoffs”. Wasting everyone’s time. The info your opponents gain is so trivial. Are you embarrassed you were bluffing or missed your draw? Fire it into the muck. 49 years playing and you’re still a rules nit. SMH
All Maryland rooms it's closest to SB in order
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have always been amazed that the dealers at casinos I play in don't do what you do.
But I think they don't do it because they want to make sure everybody will tip them when they win hands.
No one has ever got upset with me for that.
If they question it I calmly say,
"They called you." or explain "We go by position here".
I say they should let them have a gunfight for a mexican standoff.
Shoot, check-raising used to be against the rules in our Charity Rooms here in Michigan!
Check raising used to be against the rules in a lot of places and was seen as a scummy thing to do. "Dont try to trick me, just bet your hand"
Horseshoe casino in Tunica, MS still has "Check raises are allowed" on the Poker Rules posted on the wall. So clearly there was a time when it wasnt allowed.
I've never played in a room where last aggressor on a previous street mattered but have met a few random regs who think that is the rule.
Always seems weird to me people have such different experiences.
I've never played in a room where last aggressor on a previous street mattered but have met a few random regs who think that is the rule.
Always seems weird to me people have such different experiences.
GNLC. All the dealers use that procedure. They all will swear it is like that everywhere. Ofc most have never dealt in another city, so how would they know. They claim the house rules state this though when I asked to see the rules, I was refused.
Being the prick I can choose to be sometimes, when I have time I am going to ask gaming (state police here) how I can see the rules and do so. I really doubt it is in their rules as such.
These same dealers swear that in a dead button game, the button must move forward. When ask them then what is a forward moving button rule, they either never heard of such or claim that is the rule they are following.
Check raising used to be against the rules in a lot of places and was seen as a scummy thing to do. "Dont try to trick me, just bet your hand"
Horseshoe casino in Tunica, MS still has "Check raises are allowed" on the Poker Rules posted on the wall. So clearly there was a time when it wasnt allowed.
Any room where I have ever noticed rules being posted have had that rule included, even ones which were pretty new. I think it's just a common thing to post and doesn't mean there was previously a rule against it in that particular room.
As I've seen it happen, the following scenarios are common. (1) and (2.1) are what probably most people agree on. Where the discussions tend to take place is in a scenario like 2.2 where people usually want MP to show his hand as he went all in but MP, referring to the tda-rules, wants to go clockwise from the blinds.
(1) If there was an aggressive action on the last street, the one who took it shows first and then the reamaining players show their hands clockwise from him.
(2.1) There was no aggressive action on the last street, and there could not have been one anyways (MP goes all-in, BTN who is covered calls his all-in, SB who covers both calls as well), then the first to move all in shows and then clockwise from him (MP then BTN then SB).
(2.2) There was no aggressive action on the last street, but there could have been one (MP goes all-in OTF, BTN and SB call him and check it down).
Do you guys know how 2.2 would be handled correctly (in cash games)? According to the tda-rules, it should probably go clockwise from the blinds. But intuitively it seems legitimate for the two players calling the all-in and checking it down to see MPs hand.
I don't know where you got "there could / could not have been an aggressive action on the last street". That's a new element to this thread and is not typically a consideration when resolving showdown order, regardless of which rule a card room follows.
TDA would have the outermost sidepot resolve first, with anyone competing for that pot following the normal showdown order. Then we fold inward toward the main pot, resolving each pot along the way with the same showdown rules.
I don't know where you got "there could / could not have been an aggressive action on the last street". That's a new element to this thread and is not typically a consideration when resolving showdown order, regardless of which rule a card room follows.
TDA would have the outermost sidepot resolve first, with anyone competing for that pot following the normal showdown order. Then we fold inward toward the main pot, resolving each pot along the way with the same showdown rules.
So is it basically only
(1) The one who took the last aggressive action OTR shows first and then clockwise from him.
(2) In case there was no aggressive action OTR, hands get shown clockwise starting from the blinds.
I. e. in a scenario like:
MP goes all-in for 10k and gets called by BTN and SB (both have him covered) who then proceed to check it down to the river
It's simply the SB who shows first? People usually bring up an argument like "we paid your all-in to see your cards", which I feel is somewhat intuitive. But that's simply wrong?
There are a few things going on here. First, (1) and (2) are the logic for the same rule (last aggressor OTR). In the scenario you provided, with that rule in effect, the SB would show first.
The other common rule is that the last aggressor on any street shows first. In your scenario, that would be the MP.
If there is one or more sidepots, then your resolve those pots from the outermost inward toward the main, following whatever showdown priority rule is in effect for each set of contenders.
Finally, I believe that the TDA requires all hands to be tabled during an all-in situation, and so questions of order would be moot.
I have never heard of a showdown order rule that considers whether aggressive action could have happened on the final street. MP would be correct in your original post that showdown order should be clockwise from the button if they are following the "last aggressor OTR" rule. There was an opportunity for river action, and all players who could check did check.
I see that I have commented in this thread before.Without looking, I'm sure I gave the correct answer - Just show your damn cards.
ETA: Yup. Nailed it.
As I've seen it happen, the following scenarios are common. (1) and (2.1) are what probably most people agree on. Where the discussions tend to take place is in a scenario like 2.2 where people usually want MP to show his hand as he went all in but MP, referring to the tda-rules, wants to go clockwise from the blinds.
(1) If there was an aggressive action on the last street, the one who took it shows first and then the reamaining players show their hands clockwise from him.
(2.1) There was no aggr
If there's a side pot, then the side pot people would show first in a cash game, and this will go by position from the button.
If it's a heads up all in, the casinos I've played at will go by whoever went all in or put the other person all in will show first. But this won't apply in a multiway pot unless they have the exact amount of chips which is pretty rare.
In tournies, of course as soon as everyone is all in, all hands get turned over so order doesn't matter at all. It's only in cash games where there is an option to muck would anyone even care about this.
In the last specific case, there's only one player all-in and 2 others with chips behind, so nobody's showing until after the river here anyway.
Good grief just turn over your hand or muck it at showdown. Nothing more annoying and unnecessary than these “showdown standoffs”. Wasting everyone’s time. The info your opponents gain is so trivial. Are you embarrassed you were bluffing or missed your draw? Fire it into the muck. 49 years playing and you’re still a rules nit. SMH
So, you have no interest in ranging the hands your opponents are playing? Also, haven't you ever heard of a bluff-call? That's where you think the other guy won't show, and just muck - yes it happens.
In the last specific case, there's only one player all-in and 2 others with chips behind, so nobody's showing until after the river here anyway.
I know, but that's the scenario where people usually start arguing about who has to go first and refer to the one who went all-in with "yeah, but he was the one who took the last action by going all-in."
I guess it's just:
(1) There was action OTR: the one who took it shows first and then clockwise from him.
(2) No action OTR: clockwise from the blinds.
(3) An all-in on an earlier street and no more action possible: all streets are dealt after which the person who went all-in shows first and then clockwise from him.
(4) An all-in on an earlier street after which it gets checked down by the remaining active players: clockwise from the blinds.
Edit: As @albedoa said, there are apparently places who would go by last action taken, regardless of the street, but that might make things too complicated leading to confusion and discussions.
