Showdown rules dispute, cash gam (3 Viewers)

[Darthhoodie]

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!

+1 to this, I would have told them both to stop holding up the game for this jackassary, show your shity shit cards and lets move on. At this point the entire table knows you both have shit so what's the point? Ugh this would make me mad for sure, probably side eye them both for a while as well. But I would have defiantly made the first to act to act first.

 

[Machine]

Then you move to showdown, which is a separate phase of the hand. Showdown is not part of the river street.

I agree.

If condition 1 is not met, then condition 2 applies.

condition 1 - Aggressive action

condition 2 - Order of operation based on the previous streets (pre-flop, flop, turn, river) the same ordinal position applies at showdown in the absence of condition 1

 

[upNdown]

I agree.

If condition 1 is not met, then condition 2 applies.

condition 1 - Aggressive action

condition 2 - Order of operation based on the previous streets (pre-flop, flop, turn, river) the same ordinal position applies at showdown in the absence of condition 1

Okay, but what is the reasoning behind condition 1? (That’s a serious question - I’m not sure.)
If that reasoning has any validity (and presumably it does, since it’s condition ONE) then I don’t see how you ignore it just because some guy didn’t have any chips left to be agressive on the river.
I’m not just arguing to argue. I think you have a logical problem when you try to combine the rules. So I think it should be one or the other.

 

[Labrat]

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.

Can ah get an AYYYYYY-MENNNNNNN.

 

[AWenger]

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.

This is the rule/process in the cash games I play in; aka, the "first aggressor" rule.

 

[Machine]

what is the reasoning behind condition 1?

Okay lets define conditions, these are my terms not official cited sources.

Speaking of which, I would argue that the rule set needs to be able to change, be current, and provided by a governing body. Of which we don't really have, except in the case of tournaments. Here is how the TDA cites the rule (17:A)

The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no final round bet, the player who would act first in a final betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.). ​

Note: there is a different condition for all-in, which I think we are all aware of and it is handled differently, however I would cite 'tournament' not a cash game.

Also - rule set needs to be able to change, be current, and provided by a governing body
-- Roberts rules are already starting to show signs of being out of date, and while it covers a lot of rules it doesn't really account for everything
-- My preferred rule set was published via book, and costs money, hindering availability and is a point in time breaking the tenants of my previous statement.

I definitely have strong opinions on rules for games, knowing the rule set for a house game or seeing them in print at least allows me peace of mind for consistency which is of the highest priority in my opinion.

For the purposes of this conversation, I can't think of an issue with using NLH or PLO as the focus of the game in question.

Condition 1 - The last aggressive action on the river will go first during the Showdown phase.

This is very verbose, and I could write it differently but even if I say 'previous street' instead of 'river' the ordinal position is the same.

Condition 2 - action proceeds in ordinal position starting to the left of the button.

'Condition 1' would seem to have a higher priority than 'Condition 2' and while that logic holds up we could define it differently. Maybe 'Action Priority' and 'Exception Priority'.


On to the question at hand, how does this make any sense?

Lets use the baseline of the game, ordinal position, I think it is universally accepted that the button has position and goes last, left of that is the starting position.

The game has arguably 5 phases.
Pre-Flop
Flop
Turn
River
Showdown

I think we have a consensus here.

When the flop comes out, the last person to have an aggressive action of the previous phase doesn't have a bearing on the current phase (flop) as to where or how action or play is made. This is the biases for ordinal position and positional advantage of the game.

Again I think we have consensus here.

Each round we have a designated starting location with no bearing on the next phase with the exception of the river.

If there is no significant action *, Showdown would progress in the same fashion as the other phases, however if there is an aggressive action in the previous phase it matters here, as the Showdown phase is different than the others. No new cards are presented, the game has come to a conclusion.

and if you claimed on the last phase that you had the best hand, by action of a bet or raise, then the earnest to claim the pot is on you to provide the evidence.

If no one is so proud as to bet then Showdown will function as the other phases have.

*I don't like this phrasing, please allow me to briefly note another rule citing 'significant action' includes checking and folding, be it misdeals or over / improper betting that has been called - basically causes constancy issues in my opinion. This is discourse for another time.

 

[allforcharity]

Am I missing something?

It's heads up. Both players are all in after the flop. What possible actions are left besides premature fold?

We say "up and over" and run out the rest of the board while everybody watches, comments, laughs, swears, or forages for food.

 

[Labrat]

Fun? At a poker table?

 

[Goosefraba]

Am I missing something?

It's heads up. Both players are all in after the flop. What possible actions are left besides premature fold?

We say "up and over" and run out the rest of the board while everybody watches, comments, laughs, swears, or forages for food.

We’re a little more modest in our game and there’s usually a player at the table that says “show em your tits!”

 

[allforcharity]

We’re a little more modest in our game and there’s usually a player at the table that says “show em your tits!”

And...do they?

 

[Goosefraba]

And...do they?

Manboobs….Manboobs everywhere!

 

[upNdown]

If there is no significant action *, Showdown would progress in the same fashion as the other phases

I’m fine with that

however if there is an aggressive action in the previous phase it matters here

Why? Sorry for asking the same questioning, but what’s the reasoning for the rule? If you have to “pay” for your river aggression by forfeiting your positional advantage at showdown, then why shouldn’t you have to face the same penalty for aggression on the turn?
I just don’t see why the river is different - if aggression means something, then shouldn’t it mean something regardless of street?

So my conclusion is this: the idea that action on the river (and only on the river) should change the natural order of things doesn’t make any sense - there’s no good reason for it at all and so I’d prefer to disregard it entirely and just always have all showdowns happen in order of position.

However.
I think most of us will agree that this should be a non-issue. It really doesn’t matter who shows first. We need a rule simply to keep things moving, but it doesn’t matter. Personally I believe that people who feel strongly about the rule one way or the other are more likely to be the “last aggression” people. So since it doesn’t matter, I’d use the last aggression rule to keep more people happy and I’d extend it to any street because I think it’s simpler and more logical.

 

[Lunettesman]

In your situation: players who made all in either show his hand on the river or muck it and loose.

In my game the rule is: the last bettor has to show or much.

Turn action:
Player A checks and player B bets. Player A calls.
River goes check check. Player B has to show first even if technically player A was first to act on the river.

 

[allforcharity]

Fun? At a poker table?

Heaven forbid. Next, you'll be eating food when you're hungry. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Labrat]

Heaven forbid. Next, you'll be eating food when you're hungry. It's a slippery slope.

Bite your tongue.

 

[Machine]

Why? Sorry for asking the same questioning, but what’s the reasoning for the rule? If you have to “pay” for your river aggression by forfeiting your positional advantage at showdown, then why shouldn’t you have to face the same penalty for aggression on the turn?
I just don’t see why the river is different - if aggression means something, then shouldn’t it mean something regardless of street?

I'm not claiming to make the rules, this is the answer I can give as I understand it.

the Showdown phase is different than the others. No new cards are presented, the game has come to a conclusion.

and if you claimed on the last phase that you had the best hand, by action of a bet or raise, then the earnest to claim the pot is on you to provide the evidence.

Lets take it out of poker for a second.

Lets say there is this dude, call him Russell, and lets say he is an avid tea drinker, its almost a religion to the dude.

And he says, 'Listen, there is a teapot in space, its in orbit between Earth and Mars', he tells you this with all of the confidence that Aces beat Kings. Would you say 'yeah, I know you're correct, it can't be any other way.' or would you maybe expect that he have some evidence? Or do you think maybe you should have evidence that disproves him?

This is the argument for burden of proof, the game progresses in a typical way unless someone makes an exorbitant claim (betting the river), then the burden of proof is upon them.

So my conclusion is this: the idea that action on the river (and only on the river) should change the natural order of things doesn’t make any sense - there’s no good reason for it at all and so I’d prefer to disregard it entirely and just always have all showdowns happen in order of position.

This is the second best option to me, either way it seems that you are at a different opinion that when we started the conversation.

 

[upNdown]

I'm not claiming to make the rules, this is the answer I can give as I understand it.

Lets take it out of poker for a second.

Lets say there is this dude, call him Russell, and lets say he is an avid tea drinker, its almost a religion to the dude.

And he says, 'Listen, there is a teapot in space, its in orbit between Earth and Mars', he tells you this with all of the confidence that Aces beat Kings. Would you say 'yeah, I know you're correct, it can't be any other way.' or would you maybe expect that he have some evidence? Or do you think maybe you should have evidence that disproves him?

This is the argument for burden of proof, the game progresses in a typical way unless someone makes an exorbitant claim (betting the river), then the burden of proof is upon them.


This is the second best option to me, either way it seems that you are at a different opinion that when we started the conversation.

The conversation has gotten me thinking, yes. Thanks

 

[Machine]

The conversation has gotten me thinking, yes. Thanks

There was a situation where a guy was using it to angle, and slow roll; 99% of the time regardless of position or betting I roll my hand over, but I can't stand for someone to get over on others in this way.

 

[natumes]

I have always used the player that moves all in as a raise shows first at showdown. The 'no action on final street' is not relevant when it is not possible.

In your situation: players who made all in either show his hand on the river or muck it and loose.

In my game the rule is: the last bettor has to show or much.

Turn action:
Player A checks and player B bets. Player A calls.
River goes check check. Player B has to show first even if technically player A was first to act on the river.

This is why there is argument on this topic. In the case of check check on the river, showdown should be in order or position, not by previous street aggression. The key difference is that action was possible and was not taken.

Perhaps we can look at it like this, the order of showdown is decided by the final street where betting action was possible. I think this covers the different scenarios effectively. If there is no betting action (check, check) on the river, players show in order of position. A bettor who is called on the river must show first. A player who raises all in and is called before the river must show first.

 

[allforcharity]

Bite your hot dog sandwich

FYP

 

[Frogzilla]

I have always used the player that moves all in as a raise shows first at showdown. The 'no action on final street' is not relevant when it is not possible.


This is why there is argument on this topic. In the case of check check on the river, showdown should be in order or position, not by previous street aggression. The key difference is that action was possible and was not taken.

Perhaps we can look at it like this, the order of showdown is decided by the final street where betting action was possible. I think this covers the different scenarios effectively. If there is no betting action (check, check) on the river, players show in order of position. A bettor who is called on the river must show first. A player who raises all in and is called before the river must show first.

I assumed this is the rule everywhere I’ve played. Although I don’t play that much cash and the situation doesn’t come up all that often. And if I think it’s your turn to show I just stare at you until you show your cards or announce king high or whatever. I don’t think I’ve ever had the dealer/floor get involved to opine on a showdown order.

Has anyone had this situation happen at a legitimate casino/card room and the floor/dealer enforce the showdown order? It’s surely as @natumes described?

 

[chippitydoodah]

In many of the all in hands on Brad Owen's cash game video blogs, neither player turns over their cards right away. Typically, Brad will show his hand and his opponent doesn't. I always wondered why. Stupid

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

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.

To help take care of this, I recommend using a fixed set of rules. I use WSOP rule for both cash and tournament. Yes...I sometimes get the "well those are tournament rules" BS. Response is easy. NOPE...those are my rules!! Anyway, here's what I enforce to take care of this.

70. Face up for All-Ins: All cards will be turned face up once a Participant is all in and all betting action for the hand is complete. If a Participant accidentally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned up, the Tournament Staff reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards if the cards are clearly identifiable.

72. Showdown: During a showdown where no Participants are all-in and if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the Floor People may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive Participant on the final betting round (final street where betting is possible) must table
first. If there was no bet on the final betting round, then the Participant who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.) Participants not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down without tabling their cards; lose any rights or privileges they may have to ask to see any hand. The winning hand must be shown to claim the pot unless there are no other live hands at which point the pot can be awarded to the only live hand remaining. If a Participant refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the Participant in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with Rules 41, 114, and 115.

 

[drdr]

I think a lot of us are getting caught up on the all-in aspect.

To help take care of this, I recommend using a fixed set of rules. I use WSOP rule for both cash and tournament. Yes...I sometimes get the "well those are tournament rules" BS. Response is easy. NOPE...those are my rules!! Anyway, here's what I enforce to take care of this.

70. Face up for All-Ins: All cards will be turned face up once a Participant is all in and all betting action for the hand is complete. If a Participant accidentally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned up, the Tournament Staff reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards if the cards are clearly identifiable.

72. Showdown: During a showdown where no Participants are all-in and if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the Floor People may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive Participant on the final betting round (final street where betting is possible) must table
first. If there was no bet on the final betting round, then the Participant who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.) Participants not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down without tabling their cards; lose any rights or privileges they may have to ask to see any hand. The winning hand must be shown to claim the pot unless there are no other live hands at which point the pot can be awarded to the only live hand remaining. If a Participant refuses to show their hand and intentionally mucks his or her hand, the Participant in violation will receive a penalty, in accordance with Rules 41, 114, and 115.

This the WSOP tournament rules, right?
Still would work for cash, but I thought the show cards before river when no further action possible was a tournament specific rule that evolved later than original rules about showing down.

For cash we could simplify and state a) if cards are to be shown immediately when no more action possible, then aggressor shows first, and b) otherwise order of show reverts to order of play if later community cards are dealt.

 

[AcesUp907]

Okay so Ive read all responses. Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated.

Seems most of us are in agreement that there is a rule that states cards must be turned over in order of position but we also agree that rule is dumb and ridiculous. My house rule has always been, if you get your all-in called you have to show regardless of what street it happened on. Ive been running a game for a looong time and this always comes up when players dont want to show their shit hand and want to muck if possible without giving up information. I dont run a friendly game with childhood friends, many of my guys/gals dont even like each other. The money moving around is enough to get someone heated pretty easily. Sometimes my rules are not aligned with "Casino" rules and I just like to make sure I am doing whats right by my players.

*In tournaments we showdown as soon all the chips go in the middle.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

I think a lot of us are getting caught up on the all-in aspect.

This the WSOP tournament rules, right?
Still would work for cash, but I thought the show cards before river when no further action possible was a tournament specific rule that evolved later than original rules about showing down.

For cash we could simplify and state a) if cards are to be shown immediately when no more action possible, then aggressor shows first, and b) otherwise order of show reverts to order of play if later community cards are dealt.

For simplicity, and consistency, I just enforce the WSOP rules as is. But any rule works as long as it is enforced consistently IMHO.

 

[drdr]

For simplicity, and consistency, I just enforce the WSOP rules as is. But any rule works as long as it is enforced consistently IMHO.

True.
Was reflecting on how this turmoil originates. Seems many people first play and learn poker with tournaments. So the tournament practice of aggressor immediately showing hands seems the norm for them. Then they play cash, expecting the same rule to apply.

 

[drdr]

I assumed this is the rule everywhere I’ve played. Although I don’t play that much cash and the situation doesn’t come up all that often. And if I think it’s your turn to show I just stare at you until you show your cards or announce king high or whatever. I don’t think I’ve ever had the dealer/floor get involved to opine on a showdown order.

Has anyone had this situation happen at a legitimate casino/card room and the floor/dealer enforce the showdown order? It’s surely as @natumes described?

I've had it happen at a casino limit cash game. Two blokes getting under each others skin. One (in position) purposefully delayed showing until river to force the other to show first. Floor enforced the rule.

 

[BGinGA]

A single set of rules works best imo.

...there can be only one...