Showdown rules dispute, cash gam (2 Viewers)

[AcesUp907]

Trying to settle a rule dispute. Cash game setting

Heads up: Player A goes all-in on the flop and Player B calls. No action turn or river.

Who shows first?

I’ve always had the rule that if you go all-in and get called, you show first no matter which street the all-in was.

*I see that some rules stating that if there is no action on the remaining streets, players show hands in order (left of the button). Just as if both both players checked it down to the river. If there is action on the RIVER and called then first aggressor must show first.

My logic is that there is no action at all after a player is all-in. So that negates the rule of showing in order, similar to if the hand was checked down.

Also poker logic, if a player calls your all-in they have the right to see your hand.

To be clear I am not asking who shows first if a player bets on the flop and is called then checked down to to the river.

 

[Eriks]

Player A shows (or mucks and forfeit)

 

[w00zie]

Trying to settle a rule dispute. Cash game setting

Heads up: Player A goes all-in on the flop and Player B calls. No action turn or river.

Who shows first?

I’ve always had the rule that if you go all-in and get called, you show first no matter which street the all-in was.

*I see that some rules stating that if there is no action on the remaining streets, players show hands in order (left of the button). Just as if both both players checked it down to the river. If there is action on the RIVER and called then first aggressor must show first.

My logic is that there is no action at all after a player is all-in. So that negates the rule of showing in order, similar to if the hand was checked down.

Also poker logic, if a player calls your all-in they have the right to see your hand.

To be clear I am not asking who shows first if a player bets on the flop and is called then checked down to to the river.

I have experienced both variants. But the last aggressor has to show (the last person who has bet/raised and got called) makes the most sense imo.

If you have the nuts just show your hand even if it's not your turn to show.

 

[AcesUp907]

In this case both players missed their draws and neither wanted to show. Player A made a big deal that since there was no action on the turn and river that player B who is in first position must show first.

 

[Eriks]

In this case both players missed their draws and neither wanted to show. Player A made a big deal that since there was no action on the turn and river that player B who is in first position must show first.

That is the rule in some places but it’s dumb imo.

 

[AcesUp907]

I know that it is a rule in some casinos and rooms but is it widely considered THE RULE or is it stated otherwise in other places?

At this point all I can say is it’s a house rule that you must show but if I’m clearly wrong then I will have to apologize about the bad call and change the rule.

 

[BillyBluff]

It's a house rule so there is no definitive answer. In this scenario - in my game - Player A has to table their cards (or muck) first. It is also a common courtesy for Player B to table first if they have the nuts (or close to the nuts).

 

[Eriks]

It's a house rule so there is no definitive answer. In this scenario - in my game - Player A has to table their cards (or muck) first. It is also a common courtesy for Player B to table first if they have the nuts (or close to the nuts).

This is probably what most do

 

[LeLe]

In this case both players missed their draws and neither wanted to show. Player A made a big deal that since there was no action on the turn and river that player B who is in first position must show first.

Player A need to show first

Also, you might want to find a better game with better players pool.

 

[Himewad]

If there are two players all in with cards still to come, don’t both players show right away? That’s what we do.

 

[BillyBluff]

If there are two players all in with cards still to come, don’t both players show right away? That’s what we do.

That's certainly a tournament rule, but not necessarily a cash rule. However, if that's your house rule then that's perfectly fine - as long as everyone knows what it is

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

If they both whined about showing at a home game like this, my apes would berate them, just flip your loser hands and move on to the next hand. Wtf? We get it, both players draws missed, just laugh and the Ace high wins, oh well.

And never apologize for a ruling you made for the good of a game, you had good intentions in mind, baaa.

 

[Dbxela]

+1 to both rules exist, your game can pick either; I like previous bettor first, I also like showing both hands all-in straight away in home game cash games .

 

[Machine]

Both are written in different rule sets, but I feel that the one that most ppl think of is the last aggressor.

Personally I prefer the street starts the order over per street. If it was a tournament it would be different.

You're not going to settle this, only the house with its declared rule set will.

 

[louBdub]

What are YOUR house rules?

That’s all that matters.

See Rule 1, 6, 7, 8 & 1 again.

 

[Santa123]

If I would be player A and don't think my chances are very high to win the hand, I would declare my hand verbally for instance "A high" without giving both holecards away. This allows to quickly find the winner and is well accepted poker etiquette too my knowledge.

 

[allforcharity]

Player A got called, so they have to show first. Player B has 'paid' to see those cards. If A decides not to show and mucks, then obviously the pot has been forfeited to B. There probably should be a penalty for getting called and not showing.

 

[Santa123]

Player A got called, so they have to show first. Player B has 'paid' to see those cards. If A decides not to show and mucks, then obviously the pot has been forfeited to B. There probably should be a penalty for getting called and not showing.

In my opinion Player B didn't pay for seeing the cards. He paid to win the pot. Again I think Player A has to announce his hand strength but not necessarily has to show his holecards. Ultimately you can make him show but it's definitely bad etiquette if Player B knows he has the better hand.

 

[BGinGA]

Player A got called, so they have to show first. Player B has 'paid' to see those cards. If A decides not to show and mucks, then obviously the pot has been forfeited to B. There probably should be a penalty for getting called and not showing.

That's bs. Player B paid to have a chance to win the pot, nothing more. Your reasoning only holds if the showdown is on the same street as the bet/call.

Player A made a big deal that since there was no action on the turn and river that player B who is in first position must show first.

Player A is correct; unless there is a specific house rule stating otherwise, the player first to act on a street with no betting action must show first.

 

[upNdown]

Player A is correct; unless there is a specific house rule stating otherwise, the player first to act on a street with no betting action must show first.

Wait. Should that apply in an all-in, heads up situation? There COULDNT have been any action on the river.

Personally I prefer that the last aggressor, regardless of street, shows first. My guess is that the more common rule is that if the river is checked, players have to show in order of action. But I question whether that applies here.

I don’t have a rule for this for my home game because only dinks fight about this. Show your cards! Nobody cares! Or muck them. Because nobody cares!

 

[BGinGA]

Wait. Should that apply in an all-in, heads up situation? There COULDNT have been any action on the river.

Yes. First-to-act means exactly that..... act FIRST. Either bet/check, or show cards if there is no possible betting action.

 

[Machine]

Wait. Should that apply in an all-in, heads up situation? There COULDNT have been any action on the river.

the eligibility of action matters not.

In the words of yoda, 'do or do not'

 

[upNdown]

the eligibility of action matters not.

In the words of yoda, 'do or do not'

The reasonableness of the rule matters not.

That’s it! I didn’t care before, but now I do. Spite rule!
In response to this idiocy, new rule at my house: last aggressor, regardless of street, shows first.

 

[BGinGA]

The reasonableness of the rule matters not.

That’s it! I didn’t care before, but now I do. Spite rule!
In response to this idiocy, new rule at my house: last aggressor, regardless of street, shows first.

That's fine, just make sure it's written down.

My personal house rules are the same for cash as they are for tournaments: all-in players show their hole cards immediately.

Anything else is idiocy and lunacy, imo -- just flip all the frickin' cards and get on with it.

 

[Machine]

The reasonableness of the rule matters not.

Okay, I'll engage in discourse with you.

I think you are being sarcastic and saying you feel that the logic behind our previous comments doesn't seem reasonable... the action resets on new community card.

I think that we can agree that if we allow the game to go un-managed that players will argue who shows the cards first right, this would cause disruption?

I believe that the 'last aggressor' was written in conjunction with the action per street, but that the majority of people are lazy and don't care to understand the rule completely, and took shortcuts in other versions.

I would further argue that if you don't maintain order by street then why doesn't the action continue on the Turn from the last aggressive action previously?

While this may seem almost rhetorical, the answer is positional advantage, skipping a few perhaps redundant premises, the conclusion would be the same positional advantage to carry through the entire hand.

 

[ekricket]

don’t have a rule for this for my home game because only dinks fight about this. Show your cards! Nobody cares! Or muck them. Because nobody cares!

lol I laugh at this all the time. Same 8 guys been playing same stakes for 20 years, grew up together and hunted frogs when they were five and six, yet they are afraid if they show one more card than necessary they will give something away about how they play and their ranges to their lifelong friends.

 

[upNdown]

While this may seem almost rhetorical, the answer is positional advantage, skipping a few perhaps redundant premises, the conclusion would be the same positional advantage to carry through the entire hand.

Except it doesn’t. Because if I’m on the button and you’re in the big blind, I have positional advantage. But if you check the river and I bet and you call, suddenly I’ve lost my positional advantage and have to show first?

 

[Goosefraba]

Interesting thread and I like reading which side everyone is taking.
So here’s my take.

Player B “called” Player A’s bet no matter if they’re paying to see the cards or win the pot. In turn after a bet is called the action continues to the next player in rotation unless there is another aggressor which would move the final action after any calls for that player to flip their cards.

Heads up: Player A goes all-in on the flop and Player B calls. No action turn or river

Since they’re heads up I’m still on the side of player B called player A and Player A should be the first to show their cards.

Of course there’s no action on the turn and river! You went all in!

 

[Machine]

But if you check the river and I bet and you call, suddenly I’ve lost my positional advantage and have to show first?

you haven't lost positional advantage, you've enacted it; This is a moot point, as there is no 'reset' based on a new card, this would follow the part of the rule you agree with.

Edit:
Consider this:

You bet the turn from the button, you get 1 caller.
The river comes out and it is checked to you.

You
1) Bet
This would typically indicate that you have a better hand than the checker, or you don't think the checker can call.

2) Check
This would typically concede that the checker could have a better hand, or that you're soft playing.

The bet follows the rule we both agree with, so moot.

The check allows you to graciously fold if the other player has you beat.

All that said, I'm usually the first to roll my cards over.

 

[upNdown]

you haven't lost positional advantage, you've enacted it; This is a moot point, as there is no 'reset' based on a new card, this would follow the part of the rule you agree with.

Nah, I think that “new card” “reset” argument is poop. The street is over once the BB calls. Then you move to showdown, which is a separate phase of the hand. Showdown is not part of the river street. If positional advantage dictates showdown order, it shouldn’t be affected by action on the river.

I’d be fine with always making people showdown in order, based on position, regardless of any action on any street.

And I’m also fine with making the last aggressor regardless of street show down first.

But combining those rules creates some logical inconsistencies. At least as I see it.