It's probably time to rethink this one, given the ways that playing standards of opponents keep evolving. Here's my current jumble of contradictory thoughts about what to do when collecting an uncontested pot. Jump in at any point and straighten me out.

Against early-stage opponents in live MTTs -- where skill levels vary enormously -- my inclination is to keep it all as mysterious as possible. Show nothing, volunteer nothing, etc. The core assumption is that keeping opponents guessing is usually good. Even if a revealed bluff or monster might tweak one opponent's view of my playing style in a potentially useful way, there's a whole table to worry about. Everyone's at a different level. Information that confuses one opponent might help another play smarter.

In the later stages of an MTT, I'm occasionally tempted to show something extreme if I think it will adjust my image in a useful way. Typically that means showing a big hand if I've stolen the blinds a couple times and want to keep doing so. Much more rarely, I'll show a bluff if it might undermine someone else's discipline in a way that could make money for me down the road. (Now I'm making the brash assumption that the whole table will adjust in the same direction.)

But maybe I've got it backwards. Perhaps there are hand-showing opportunities that I'm missing early on. Even more likely, maybe it's a mistake to show anything to discerning opponents later on.

Thoughts? Advice? We're talking about $100 buy-in live MTTs, in which two-thirds of the players are recreational, while the rest could hold their own just fine in 2P2 forums.

Show me one strong hand after a few blind steals and I'll probably conclude that you're trying to set yourself up to steal more blinds, and I'll defend my blinds that much more. That's not the effect you intended.

Generally, I don't want to give away any useful information, and attempts to manipulate thinking players are just as likely to backfire as to succeed. So overall, showing is a bad idea.

Since showing cards is a bad idea, we want to encourage others to do it a lot. So if you are going to show, show early and often but only when what you show is meaningless. For instance, if you get a walk in the BB, show your hand. Doing so gives away nothing. When you win the pot in a early round with an uncontested flop bet after you connected well, with a hand that was in the middle of typical ranges for your pre-flop action, show your hand. You made an ABC play. You aren't telling anybody anything useful, and you are not trying to manipulate play. All you are doing is setting a climate where hands are shown, so maybe somebody else will show you something useful.

Against players who know that showing hands is a bad idea, you may lead them to conclude you are less savvy than you are. The downside is that a thinking player might figure out what you are up to, and re-rate you accordingly.

Very nice point. I especially like this vis-a-vis the bluffier LAGs. They bring a lot of personality to the table, and being able to pair particular tics to particular hands is quite helpful.

I like this.

I've shown the two royal flushes I've had, just because I kinda think you have to, and I'll usually show quads or better, and if people ask to show or say "will you show if I fold" I always say "I only show quads or better". This might be a leak, but I doubt it's a significant one given how rarely this happens.

This, I get very suspicious of players showing perhaps one strong hand in four, or flashing the card that makes top pair, when they're flashing anything else.

In the right spots it can definately be good to show some hands because people will make wrong a assumpotions etc
but that only works if youre competent and know how it will change your image and how to use that to your advantage