You're point, that online poker is very tough and tough games are oftentimes unfriendly and I'm not sure what else, seems completely irrelevant to the discussion I'm having with Aaron. I'm really not sure what you're getting at, so I can only assume that your intention is to be argumentative.

The thread explicitly specifies that we're playing in a friendly, loose, easy game.

Are there times to go for the throat and squeeze every bit of information we can out of our opponents? Sure.

Is a friendly, loose, easy game one of them? Not in general.

Does squeezing information out of opponents make the game less friendly, less loose, and less easy? Definitely, probably, and maybe, respectively.

If you find "callipygian and lawdude's" advice (it's weird that you made it sound like we came up with this idea even though we both started off this thread by +1ing Aaron) so distasteful that you felt compelled to post that you not only disagree but have "always disagreed," but didn't want to respond to me (you seem to have ignored a post or two above) because I'm "argumentative," you can just say it straight up instead of passive-aggressively suggesting that you and Aaron are having a private conversation on a public forum (you're not).

I'll even help.

"We can agree to disagree on this specific issue, but I want to explore a different/broader question with Aaron."

I once bet-called a river against magicmcq for a 20 BB pot in which he said "nice call, I turned it into a bluff" and rolled over Q9 on 973-K-A, and then I mucked my 98.

If seeing hands at showdown is so important to you, why not invoke IWTSTH with some frequency so you can see even more hands?

If your answer is "it's a friendly, loose game and it might ruin the vibe and atmosphere of the game", that's fine-- now apply that reasoning to the arguments you are making in this thread about information.

this is my answer to the OP
i'm disagreeing with your stance that we should always just fast roll our hand across all stakes and vs. all opponents. if we're talking live low stakes $2/$4 up to some 20/40 games, then i agree. where i disagree is vs. strong players or new players in games that are 20/40+. in games were are opponents are tougher, i want to gain information faster and hide information longer.

you may disagree with this and that's fine.

Whose stance is this?

My position is the default rule is to fastroll, not to always do it.

But having said that, I will also say this. For anyone playing at any limit up to at least 8/16 who isn't a VERY experienced player, I would actually recommend fastroll-tabling every hand at every showdown. Because the value of both speeding up the game and avoiding inadvertently mucking a winning hand is going to far exceed the value of any information provided to one's opponents or information gained from them.

Background for those who don't know/remember me, I look like OMC. I'll often play like OMC. So I tend have a nit image.

If I'm at showdown and I have a "made" hand, I fastroll. I'll leave it to the "pros" to slowroll/muck.

If I bluff the river and get the fold, I'll show - once. I'll even use a feeble voice to ask if my hand is any good. Next time I raise the river, the doubt and confusion induces calls. Is he OMC or just a crazy old coot burning cash?

Being a MOFA can have it's advantages.

this is a bad example. if this was an actual hand you want him to see your hand so he thinks your some random terrible player

It's worth noting that many poker rules basically say that this is what you are supposed to do. The order of showdown isn't some sacrosanct thing. If you think you have a probable winner, the rules actually say you should show it. (And yes, I know, some players pretend they don't have a "probable" winner unless they have the nuts, and then make up some reason why they don't have to show the nuts first either. Don't be one of those people. If you think it's reasonably likely your hand is good, you are supposed to show it immediately.)

The order of showdown is written for jerks, basically. It's written for the type of players who would rather waste everyone else's time rather than just show their winning hands and take down pots.

I'd be interested to see these rules of poker. Link?

5/5 dentist and floormen disagree.

Anyone who gets a floorman involved on an order of showdown question is a menace to poker.

This is the standard rule (from Showdown Rule 7 in Robert's Rules, which was written as a sort of consensus of the rules of LA poker rooms):

http://www.pokercoach.us/robspkrrules4.htm

There's a rule. And then there's "encouraged". Pretty far from holding the rule and being a jerk.

I'm fine with the idea that speeding up the game makes it more profitable for a winning player in $/hour. However, I think you're either surrounded by people slowing down the game for lots of reasons, or you're oversensitive. The thing you quoted, included a proper order for showing hands and then a suggestion of not following it to speed up the game
You can also slow down the game by using this suggestion to angle shoot. If you have a medium hand, you can just never show by saying "if you have a good hand, show" and ignore the proper order. I mean who is going to yell at middle pair for betting turn, letting the river check through, and then lobbying other people to show first? That's where having a fast dealer who asks if anyone wants to show and then demanding the person who, by rule, should show do so...

Next time I won't make a sarcastic comment.

Ok wow didn't expect that. I've never had someone prove my point so effectively. This might be an expert level troll-job, if so bravo.

Anyway back to OP...I feel like you somewhat answered your question with the thread title. It's a friendly loose passive game. Hard to see how just showing at fast-rolling at showdown (or if asked when everyone else folds to you) could ever be a bad thing. If someone was really going to use the info or exploit you it would be at $40/80, not $4/8.

For whatever it's worth:

(1) I will fastroll a hand that I think has a reasonable shot at being a winner if the river gets checked around. I will also sometimes fast roll a hand that I think has a reasonable shot after calling a bet to speed things up (usually this will be with stuff like one-card straights, one card flushes, the bottom boat on a double-paired board, etc.)

(2) If I bluff the river and get called, I try very hard not to say "I missed" or "You got it" or other ambiguous-sounding phrases unless it is literally impossible for me to win the pot.

(3) I sometimes show value hands if everyone folds. I almost never show successful bluffs, in part because I think it makes games unpleasant and in part because I already have a bluffy image and don't need to reinforce it further.

(4) I think it's totally fine to be a showdown rules nit against angle-shooters. I don't think it's good for the game to be a showdown rules nit generally (but, to be clear, I don't think that is what lawdude is doing ITT).

I always fast roll and have the best hand st least 30 percent of the time.

Folks:

If the rule actually were that there's just an order of showdown and you should follow it, it wouldn't say anything about encouraging you to show probable winners.

So you can't take refuge in the rule and say you are following the rule if you pretend the language about encouraging you to show probable winners isn't in there.

Especially if you are good player or think yourself one. The language about probable winners is directed at us. The people who would benefit from playing more hands an hour and from not antagonizing fish. The people who are good enough hand readers to know when our hand is probably good.

It's saying "hey, you CAN insist on the order of showdown, but you SHOULDN'T if you think your hand is good". Indeed, that is the ONLY plausible intention of putting that language in the rule.

And that's what I mean by the order of showdown is written for jerks. A certain type of player basically will never show first unless she has to. For that player, we have an order of showdown.

A different type of player, a better player, a player with more perspective who wants to keep the game moving, is encouraged to just show when they think they won. We can't force you to do this, we can't prevent you from being a nit about showdown and from getting involved in Mexican stand-off showdowns and from wasting everyone's time. But you should, in fact, just show your cards if you think you are good.

That rule is literally directed at us, the people who are supposed to have the judgment and the reads to know when we have a probable winning hand and who would benefit from keeping the game moving. If you ignore it and pretend the language isn't in there and always insist on the formal order of showdown even when you think you won the hand, then yes, I would call you a bit of a jerk.

After 4 pages, man I am glad to play online ....

Lol. I like playing on swcpoker because all showdown hands are shown.

----

Once upon a time in a live 4/8 game:

limpers, I raise JTs, button calls, blinds and limpers call.

JT4 or some such flop that gave me two pair.

I bet, bunch of calls.

9

I bet, bunch of calls.

8

checks to button, he bets, only I call.

We both hesitate for a few seconds. He says "what you have?" I say, "I called you." he reluctantly shows 98s and then I show my winner. Normally I would show immediately but I really didn't like my hand after he bet into a bunch of people on the river. I was expecting to lose and that's why I didn't show. It took some explaining that since he bet the river he should show but I still felt kinda bad about it. Shrug.

----

once upon a different time:

I raise a really bad limper with KQs, late position really bad player calls, blinds fold and the limper calls. The limper is known for betting the river and mucking when called without showing if he was bluffing.

A92 or some such flop that gave me nothing.

checks through.

7o

checks through.

4o

limper bets, I call, late position player calls, limper is visibly frustrated and gets up and leaves the table. I delay until the dealer collects the now dead hand. I show after the hand hits the muck. late position player shows 84s for the scoop.

Limper comes back and wants to know what happened. Table had a good laugh when he found out what took it down and is even more frustrated than when he left the table cus he had the winner.

i think its fine if his a good player.
i only played 3 times live and i often saw good players abuse this trick for not showing IP, vs them i would definately act like you did, vs a fish i would not tho.
vs fish you dont want them to stop making bad bet by forcing them to show and embarrass them in front of the table .

The primary owner of the old NYC Mayfair Club made this a rule. If somebody didn't have to show for w/e reason no one could force it. He knew what he was doing.