Cash Game Showdown Rules - who has to show first? (2 Viewers)

[CellarDoor85]

Sorry for the simple rule question, but after a rude discussion at my last game, I like to make it clear for me:

At the end of last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first.

What exactly is an "aggressive action"?

Who has to show first in the following examples?
(River, Player 1 is on the SB-Position, all think they have the winning hand )

Scenario 1:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Call 100
P3: Call 100

Scenario 2:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Raise 200
P3: Call 200
P1: Call 200

Scenario 3:
P1: check
P2: check
P3: check

Thanks for helping a naif

 

[pltrgyst]

Cases 1 and 3: P1.
Case 2: P1 has yet to act on the raise.

 

[RocAFella1]

P1
P2
P1

 

[MoeTremper]

Scenario 1: P1
Scenario 2: P2
Scenario 3: I’d say P1, but if they all think they’re winners, I’d hope they are disappointed they didn’t get a chance to check-raise and are willing to show quickly.

 

[RocAFella1]

Some would argue in Scenario 3 it would be the last player who took aggressive action (bet or raise) on the previous street.

 

[Marius L]

Sorry for the simple rule question, but after a rude discussion at my last game, I like to make it clear for me:



What exactly is an "aggressive action"?

Who has to show first in the following examples?
(River, Player 1 is on the SB-Position, all think they have the winning hand )

Scenario 1:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Call 100
P3: Call 100

Scenario 2:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Raise 200
P3: Call 200
P1: Call 200

Scenario 3:
P1: check
P2: check
P3: check

Thanks for helping a naif

Scenario 3, depends on what happened on earlier streets. If no bets have been made all the way, then the big blind is considered the last bet, and thus last agressive action.

 

[CellarDoor85]

As I've assumed - lucky me

Some would argue in Scenario 3 it would be the last player who took aggressive action (bet or raise) on the previous street.

For this scenario I found various rules - but the most books says, that only the last round is the key. In this case the player left of the dealer Button has to show first (if he/she want to win the pot).

Thanks a lot!!

 

[Schmendr1ck]

If you bet/raise and are called on the last street, you show first.
If the last street checks around, I generally prefer "show in order." Others like referring to the previous street, but I think they're a minority.

I also prefer "if everybody else is hesitating to show and you think you're the winner, just table your damned hand and don't worry about showdown order." But last time I brought that up, I got a ton of flak from The Church of the Holy Order of Showdown (in association with I Paid For That Information, Inc.), so I won't mention it again.

 

[CraigT78]

just table your damned hand and don't worry about showdown order

This. All f-ing day. Just show me a damn winner.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Some would argue in Scenario 3 it would be the last player who took aggressive action (bet or raise) on the previous street.

Scenario 3, depends on what happened on earlier streets. If no bets have been made all the way, then the big blind is considered the last bet, and thus last agressive action.

If the last street checks around, I generally prefer "show in order." Others like referring to the previous street, but I think they're a minority.

After watching a bunch of American poker on TV, I "knew" that in scenario 3, player 1 shows first. Then, some years ago, I checked the river in position at a London casino and waited for the villain to show, but the dealer maid me show since I raised the turn. Everyone rolled their eyes at me saying "don't you know the rules?". Only one person spoke in my defense, saying rules differ.

I think the most common rule is that player 1 shows first, though.

Another example is the minimum raise, where it usually is the size of the previous raise/bet, but in some countries your total wager needs to be twice the previous wager, i.e., you raise to 100, I to 200, you to 400 etc. Always learn the rules of the establishment where you're playing, and always make sure you've set the rules at your establishment

 

[BGinGA]

What exactly is an "aggressive action"?

The last bet or raise in the current betting round.

Who has to show first in the following examples?
(River, Player 1 is on the SB-Position, all think they have the winning hand )

Scenario 1:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Call 100
P3: Call 100

Scenario 2:
P1: Bet 100
P2: Raise 200
P3: Call 200
P1: Call 200

Scenario 3:
P1: check
P2: check
P3: check

Scenario 1: P1 (who bet 100)
Scenario 2: P2 (who raised to 200)
Scenario 3: P1 (first to act, he can show or fold)

 

[abby99]

I propose a new House Rule: In the event of a showdown stalemate, a 3-second warning shall be given by the host or dealer. If nobody tables their hand before the countdown is completed, the entire pot is awarded to the house.



(I'm only about 90% joking.)

 

[timinater]

I also prefer "if everybody else is hesitating to show and you think you're the winner, just table your damned hand and don't worry about showdown order." But last time I brought that up, I got a ton of flak from The Church of the Holy Order of Showdown (in association with I Paid For That Information, Inc.), so I won't mention it again.

I'm with you, that is nitty behaviour. Show the potential winner. Bigger the pot certainly the more leeway I'd give for waiting to see "what you paid for".

 

[ando5k]

I don't show my bluffs, why would I show my losing hands if I don't have to. Winning in poker is about concealing information about your hand to make it as profitable as possible.

 

[BGinGA]

I don't show my bluffs, why would I show my losing hands if I don't have to. Winning in poker is about concealing information about your hand to make it as profitable as possible.

No problem. Feel free to fold in turn when it's showdown time. But don't expect others to do exactly what you don't want to do.

 

[JustinInMN]

I propose a new House Rule: In the event of a showdown stalemate, a 3-second warning shall be given by the host or dealer. If nobody tables their hand before the countdown is completed, the entire pot is awarded to the house.



(I'm only about 90% joking.)

Generous to even offer a warning. Just say the house gets it after a 3 count.

 

[JustinInMN]

I have seen both rules written in the even of no action on the last street. But I think order of position is the modern norm.

 

[Jeff]

This. All f-ing day. Just show me a damn winner.

Generally, if you have the nuts this. I have played with 1 guy that consistently waits for others to table their hand no matter the action so as to get information. He's the only person I 100% insist on following the rules with. He's not seeing my f-in hand if he bet or (if no action) he is in front of me out of position.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I don't show my bluffs, why would I show my losing hands if I don't have to. Winning in poker is about concealing information about your hand to make it as profitable as possible.

Just out of curiosity, @ando5k, if you've bluffed the river with A high and someone calls and waits for you to show (without budging), what do you do?

 

[navels]

I'm going to assume @ando5k misunderstood and thought the thread was about when you *have* to show your cards, rather than the order in which players have to show if they want a chance at the pot.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Just out of curiosity, if you've bluffed the river with A high and someone calls and waits for you to show (without budging), what do you do?

Generally in this spot I'll just say "Ace high." If they table a better hand, I toss my cards. If they continue to stare at me, I table my hand and say, "I said, 'ACE HIGH.'"

 

[Mr Winberg]

Generally in this spot I'll just say "Ace high." If they table a better hand, I toss my cards. If they continue to stare at me, I table my hand and say, "I said, 'ACE HIGH.'"

Yeah, I was curious about @ando5k's "never show" post, but navels is probably correct regarding the misunderstanding:

I'm going to assume @ando5k misunderstood and thought the thread was about when you *have* to show your cards, rather than the order in which players have to show if they want a chance at the pot.

 

[Cackalacka Slim]

If you think you have the winning hand and you table it, you're at least guaranteeing that you will either win OR see the other hands, since nobody can respond to that with "You lost. Just trust me."

 

[Mr Winberg]

I could be mistaken, but isn't this thread nr 1000 in the Tournaments and Cash Games category? Shouldn't we be posting tourney and cash pr0n to celebrate?

I'll start small with my milanos and china clay Paulson knock-offs:

If this is not the 1000th thread, the mods may move this awesome pr0n to the correct jubilee.

 

[JustinInMN]

Just out of curiosity, if you've bluffed the river with A high and someone calls and waits for you to show (without budging), what do you do?

You are obliged to show or muck at that point.

Showing is probably plus EV, someone mucked a hand once after I tabled a missed 4 high flush draw once. The occasional pot is probably worth more that being so worried about giving out information.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Yes, know, I was more asking about @ando5k, what he does, but I probably misunderstood him.

For the record, if I bluff and get caught, I wip those cards up as if they are the nuts. This whole "eeeeehhhh I don't know man, watcha got? Gotta pair, eh?" when you are first to act at showdown is not my thing.

 

[JustinInMN]

Generally in this spot I'll just say "Ace high." If they table a better hand, I toss my cards. If they continue to stare at me, I table my hand and say, "I said, 'ACE HIGH.'"

Just table or muck in turn the first place. (If your use of all caps indicates raising your voice because they didn't show, that's out of line.) You shouldn't be waiting for someone to show out of turn for your benefit.

This is the worst of both worlds imo. You are refusing to show because you don't think you can win, but you are also refusing to release just in case you are somehow good.

If they figured out you were bluffing, showing the exact two cards you held doesn't give them that much added info. So you had 9 hi. You are going to have to show you play 9 high when the hand improves to a winner anyway. You can just muck it too if you really don't want to show and know you have no shot, but if you do this, you don't have a right to expect the winner to table.

 

[JustinInMN]

Yes, know, I was more asking about @ando5k, what he does, but I probably misunderstood him

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense.

I don't show my bluffs, why would I show my losing hands if I don't have to. Winning in poker is about concealing information about your hand to make it as profitable as possible.

You don't have to show bluffs so long as you muck in turn. One advantage to showing is that it obliges the winner to table to claim the pot. Seeing the calling range may be more to your advantage that the specific cards you showed in your bluff.

No matter what you do, just act in turn, it's basic courtesy.

 

[ekricket]

I don't show my bluffs, why would I show my losing hands if I don't have to. Winning in poker is about concealing information about your hand to make it as profitable as possible.

Hopefully you show both cards when you have to.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Just table or muck in turn the first place. (If your use of all caps indicates raising your voice because they didn't show, that's out of line.) You shouldn't be waiting for someone to show out of turn for your benefit.

This is the worst of both worlds imo. You are refusing to show because you don't think you can win, but you are also refusing to release just in case you are somehow good.

If they figured out you were bluffing, showing the exact two cards you held doesn't give them that much added info. So you had 9 hi. You are going to have to show you play 9 high when the hand improves to a winner anyway. You can just muck it too if you really don't want to show and know you have no shot, but if you do this, you don't have a right to expect the winner to table.

Yeah, I was being a little saucy in the interest of humor, but it played better in my head than it did on the page.

Most often in this spot, I'll say "ace high" and table at the same time. Sometimes I'll just say it before even grabbing my cards, Villain tables, and I muck. It happens very quickly, so it's not like I'm delaying the game or trying to gain an advantage. If there's even a slight hesitation on Villain's part, I'll immediately table.

I'm not doing this to gain any kind of advantage. When I'm playing low stakes in the local card room, most players wouldn't know what to do with the info anyway, and since I'm usually pretty ABC, I'm happy to show an occasional bluff to loosen my image and get a value bet paid later.

In my home games, everybody thinks I'm a maniac. I've been in this spot more than once where I said "ace high," Villain looked a little sad, I tabled and I was good.