A player asked me last night why we had the showdown rules in place that we have and he claimed that we have a unique rule. In our market the rule is inconsistent between rooms.

The two obvious options are:

A: The player in the worst position has to show first if there is no aggressive action on the river.

B: The player that had the last aggressive action regardless of what street that action was on.

In my room we have a rule I like a lot. It's last aggressor unless there was no aggressive action on the river and then it's worse position. If there was no action possible on the river (i.e. Someone was all in before the river and only got one caller), it's last aggressor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A seems to be the more classic and technically correct IMO but B seems to becoming much more common

Uh...Literally 100%the same as option A. Although he didn't mention the all in stipulation, but that is a part of it.

A is standard in every room I have ever worked.

I've seen places do A without the all in stipulation which is why I mentioned it. Just trying to answer the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the casinos in my area, nobody really knows if there is a rule. That's because all the dealers say "show me a winner" or something similarly wimpy. I think it's designed not to annoy any of the many players who don't like to show first.

Of the three area casinos I play in, two are last aggressor and one is worst position.


--klez

My room is A and an all-in before the river is considering no action on the river and therefore worst position shows first.

it seems pretty mixed these days with the west coast casinos leaning towards the terrible rule of worst position.

The rule having action cross the streets is worse. Does my betting action on the flop change the order of action on the turn? If not why should betting action on the flop alter the order of showdown after the river?

Cash games: Last aggressor from any point in the hand.

Tournaments: Last aggressor unless the river was checked around, in which case it goes by position.

wrong to have to go back in streets. once a street is over in poker the action is not carried forward to the next street.

so on the end the last aggressive action shows first. if no action the first person is to show first , as his check or being all in, now makes each other person a caller of his check.

it's absurd someone in position can bet the flop and turn, check behind the river and the other guy has to show first.

last aggressor is a much fairer rule. why should when you bet last matter?
if you bet on the river in ANY casino you have show first . same with all ins.

Harrah's NOLA it's last aggressor even if it was on earlier streets (although i think pre-flop doesn't count).

this is the only place i've seen it like this. Vegas/Biloxi/Pittsburgh in my experience have all been river aggression only, otherwise position.

that is what i like best but i can see the reasoning of the other side.

Because in reality the process starts based on position not not on prior action. If showdown is the continuation of the last betting round, then th last caller or checker on the river means whoever is to the rleft off that player starts the showdown. This one rule always works. You don't need a rule if there is never bet vs. a bet on the flop vs etc.

the rule doesn't work at all. it was designed by someone who doesn't understand and possibly never played poker trying to keep things "orderly" or some such nonsense. there's nothing wrong with last bettor showing and then going left from there like you would on any river bet.

it's a new street not a new poker hand. the entire hand is a string of continuations of prior betting rounds.

i've yet to play anywhere that makes worst position show first if someone bets the river or when someone is all in on a prior street. why the inconsistency? you call someone's bet they show their hand. simple.

maybe i should keep my mouth shut on that one or in a few years some clowns running a poker room will just make out of position show first even when calling river bets.

Devil's advocate only, not trying to push an agenda: What about...

1.) Dealer shouldn't remind players about action from the previous streets?

or

2.) Although I agree they should, dealer may not remember action correctly from previous streets?

I will regret jumping into this 10 millionth time this conversation has happened, but for those of you who prefer last aggressive action showing first, why don't you think it should be that way on betting streets too? I.e. On the flop whoever took last aggressive action preflop goes first? Why should showdown be different?

we're talking about showing cards not who acts first.
you want someone to show their cards on the flop to the last preflop aggressor?

you call a bet you see a hand -simple.

why don't you want oop to show first on the river even when there are river bets?

no of course not, but you know that.

This, on the other hand, is a good question. I suppose one might argue that showdown could be considered an extension of the river betting rather than its own betting round, so it should proceed around from the left of whoever made the last action.

But really, I'm just pointing out that, as long as betting rounds all start left of button, but showdown (with river action) starts with last aggressive action, there will always be an inconsistency here. So you can't really use that inconcsistency to argue for showdown without river action to be one way or another based solely on that inconsistency.

Lots of responses ... Most rooms are moving away from the 'previous street' references if the River is checked down to a showdown, thus it's the last aggressor (bettor or raiser) that has to show first if action is on River. Trying to put it on the dealer to remember who bet out or raised last can create a slow down and tiffs among the table too often.

The general rule unless checked down ... "I paid (called) to see your cards, you show first." On a River with no action, no one 'paid' to see anything, so start with SB and go from there to B. GL

I don't agree with your conclusion. If the button goes all-in on the turn, and I call his bet from any other position, I most certainly have paid to see his cards. I don't see any cause for a distinction between calling an all-in on the turn (or the flop for that matter) as opposed to calling an all-in on the river. I've paid the same amount of money in either case, so why should the "showdown rule" be any different? It makes absolutely no sense to me that apparently in some rooms the person who calls the all-in is required to show first.

to unconfuse things. it is best to never go back a street. once it is over you dont go back and change bets or use any of what happened on later streets. makes the game smoother and simpler.

so on the river the first to act checks and everyone else checks he shows first as they are calling his bet. his bet (action) was a check. so he shows first. not the person who bet on the flop. that doesn't make sense.

if there was a bet on the river then who made it or made the last bet which would then have been a raise is first to show his hand .

this all goes very smoothly until someone stalls and doesnt want to show and someone else now shows out of turn. then the looking at hands gets moved all over.
poker is a game of playing in turn.