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 nig
1. You're rarely getting any useful information by making the opponent table his cards.
2. You're rarely giving away any useful information when you do show your cards.
3. You're putting a target on your own back when the rest of the table realizes you're a rules nit.
You mentioned speeding up the game, but you seemingly dismissed it, so I'll bold this one.
4. By showing your cards right away, you're speeding up the game. Assuming you're a winning player, more hands per hour means more profit per hour.
And here's one more good reason.
5. There's always a chance that your opponent might muck a winning hand if he was fixated on a draw that never got there. By making him show first, you're obligating the dealer to read his hand and get it right.
I agree that nit rules lower profits and ruin the fun. I would never advocate always saying "you show first." If I have top pair at show down after calling down multiway small bets, I usually flip over first and never ask others to show first. I just mean as a general strategy, until you get read on a V, you want to consider you-show-first as the default. You cannot turn betting patterns into firm reads without seeing a V's hole cards. It's the only way to confirm a mistake, and it is give the hero a huge advantage exploiting Vs. The reason for the aggressor-shows-first rule was that the caller had to pay. In the movies, poker plays say, "I call. What do you got?"
I agree that nit rules lower profits and ruin the fun. I would never advocate always saying "you show first." If I have top pair at show down after calling down multiway small bets, I usually flip over first and never ask others to show first. I just mean as a general strategy, until you get read on a V, you want to consider you-show-first as the default. You cannot turn bettin
Say that then. It's a lot friendlier than "you show first".
I will make every effort to be polite and say "what you got?" I do not want to be the party-pooper. I still insist that position gives you informational advantage at showdown, and you lower your winrate if you do not exploit it.
"I called you pre-flop, show me your hand! I don't care if we checked it down, I want to see that hand!"
Since I last entered this discussion, unless I have the nuts, I always turn to my right and say: you show first. I now never show my cards first if I am in position. Except to speed up the game, why would the hero ever want to show his cards in position?
Just noticed the trolls. How unpleasant.
You are definitely hurting your win rate in three different ways:
1. You are unnecessary slowing the game down thereby hurting your hands per hours.
2. You are being unlikeable at the table. Forcing people to do what they do not want to do makes you unlikeable.
3. You will never ever get to play on juicy private games. In those games forcing people to show first will quickly get you on the do not invite back list.
If telling you the truth makes me a troll, then consider yourself trolled.
There are very few reasons to make another player show first. They are rare and it should be a conscious decision to make them do so. In general, if you need the opponents to show first in order to get information then your game is probably severely lacking.
For one, you should generally be putting your opponents on a general range, not a specific hand so seeing a specific hand is not as valuable as you think.
For two, if you are generally better than your opponent, you should already know their range and should know if it includes some weird crazy bluffs. If you are not better than your opponent and need to see the specific hand to get info, it is likely you are not good enough to understand the information gained. You are going to be focused on the results, not the process which leads to bad thinking. In the games I am profitable in, I generally do not need them to show. I called for a reason. That reason is that I think that I am good more often than not (given bet and pot size).
I can think of very few instances where I was reluctant to show first. One rare example would be where I was trying to verify a very specific read. I distinctly remember playing with a player who I discovered handled his chips very differently when he was bluffing (or at least unsure of his standing in the hand) than when he had a made hand. I got to the river and called him based on nothing more than his handling of the chips. I wanted to confirm a very specific read.
The other instances were where I called someone really, really light. So light that I am almost embarrassed to show if I am behind.
Point is, when you get to showdown if there is any delay, show your cards. There is no reason for you not to. Of you think you are gaining major information by waiting then you are only fooling yourself.
One other reason to make someone show first, is if it's one of those guys who bets, gets called, and then always says, "What do you have?" This guy always refuses to show first, whether he was the last aggressor or not.
So in this case, responding, "I called you" is a perfectly reasonable tact. Because F that guy.
To get a read on opponent with a small sample size (100 hands), you must see hole cards to confirm the inferred range. You will miss exploits if you are just counting limps, RFIs, and 3bets alone.
Example: Hero has watched V for 50 hands. V opens LJ, hero with QTs 3bets button , V calls. Run out is 7Q3J2. Dealer says let’s see a winner. V stalls. Hero says you show first. V shows KK.
Why would you ever pass this opportunity to see hole cards?
I also think hero puts himself at a disadvantage to the other Vs because they now know hero 3bets light.
With known players who know you, it’s obviously whatever.
The only 2 situations I really give a shit about being a stickler on who shows are
1. When I have a very marginal bluff catcher and opponent says you're good. I will damn sure wait for him to muck his cards and dealer retrieve them.
2. If the opponent is a giant dick.
Both of these are so rare I can probably count on one hand the instances of each.
To get a read on opponent with a small sample size (100 hands), you must see hole cards to confirm the inferred range. You will miss exploits if you are just counting limps, RFIs, and 3bets alone. Example: Hero has watched V for 50 hands. V opens LJ, hero with QTs 3bets button , V calls. Run out is 7Q3J2. Dealer says let’s see a winner. V stalls. Hero says you show first. V sh
50 hands! lol All you know from 50 hands is your opponent's range is any two cards.
One other reason to make someone show first, is if it's one of those guys who bets, gets called, and then always says, "What do you have?" This guy always refuses to show first, whether he was the last aggressor or not.
So in this case, responding, "I called you" is a perfectly reasonable tact. Because F that guy.
You are spot on. I forgot to lost that. Waiting to show in order to irritate another player is valid. Just realize you might be irritating others as well.
Perhaps a better way of doing it is to only make it apply to that street.... so what happened before doesn't matter. If BB checks the river and the button bets, BB calls, then button HAS to show since he was the last aggressor.
But if instead the river just goes check check then BB has to show as technically no one was the last aggressor. Good idea?
that is exactly what the position rule is. no one is confused when someone bets the river. the issue is what happens if the river checks through. do you go back to previous streets to figure out who the last aggressor was, or do you just say closest to SB in order shows first.
This is how poker was a long time ago. At showdown everyone had to show. Things changed as poker modernized and it was decided to let people discard without showing.
Perhaps a better way of doing it is to only make it apply to that street.... so what happened before doesn't matter. If BB checks the river and the button bets, BB calls, then button HAS to show since he was the last aggressor.
But if instead the river just goes check check then BB has to show as technically no one was the last aggressor. Good idea?
This is how most rooms do it. It makes sense to me. You can’t ask the dealer for information from prior streets, so why should this info you can’t ask about be used at showdown.
Also if you view showdown as the conclusion final street, which it isn’t really, my aggression on the turn doesn’t give me priority to act first on the river so why should it make me show first. Otoh, when my river bet or raise is called, the action is now back on me so logically I am next to go and go means show.
Ime, many dealers who believe that it is last aggressor regardless of the street, are often wrong if you can get access to the official room rules and procedures. They read or are aware of the last agressor part but miss the subsequent no bet on river part.
With that said, I know of a room that specifically does say you go back to prior streets for last aggressor. Don’t really like it but it is their rule.
Personally, for most opponents, I don’t care and just show but there are a couple of villians who do all they can to not show even when they were the aggressor AND are closest to SB, some are also notorious slow rollers, and for those few I will insist we follow what the rule says. But the others, esp if I think I am winner, I just show.
yea, even worse is then ppl are all in when there are cards to come and they don't flip their cards up.
Sure let’s drag that discussion to another thread. We know you want the cards on their backs and will even shout at them while dealing to insist they do it, but I think we already beat that horse dead.
mod: If you want to continue it, do it in that thread, don't pollute this thread with it. Thanks.
