So what you are saying is that while you understand the spirit of the rules, and what you are encouraged to do, you are going to continue to do something because you are not explicitly prohibited from doing it in the rule book?

If only there was a term for such a thing...

Yes, it does make sense. It makes a lot of sense. Have you met many losing players? Better question: why do you play poker? If its for the thrill of vanquishing your overmatched opponent, then I can understand why you arent getting this. If its to make money, then I dunno.
yes, you have this "right." You have a lot of rights at the poker table. Exercising all of them is rarely in your best interest.
Apparently not.
Yes...it is your problem. Very much so.

I think the problem is more that you fundamentally dont understand what the point of poker is, for some people. Do you get frustrated by bad beats? Berate players for bad play?

Well, if you're interested in understanding it, there's been a lot written about it. I can say from my own experience dealing poker, that higher stakes players tend to understand and respect this etiquette guideline. At least, in my experience, which is only my own. Someone else may have observed different behavior.

Because this has already been covered. "Encouraged" does not mean "you must show".

Why do you keep ignoring this fact, as well as the fact that the rules explicitly state that the person who is called is supposed to show first (or muck)?

Definitely possible for two people to be dbags at the same time.

Less likely to be possible is doing X, saying "yes, but X is not technically forbidden by the rules" and not be a dbag

Why all the concern about protecting embarrassed fish from showing first (as being bad for the game by scaring them away)?

Isn't it possible for the caller to be embarrassed by a loose call as well? Or for the hesitating "embarrassed" bettor to be slow rolling? If I call down with middle pair **** kicker because I thought villain was bluffing and turned out to be wrong, don't I want to protect myself from giving away information to the entire table about my hand strength given the board texture and action by mucking without showing once the bettor's (and winner) hand is revealed?

I honestly don't get the the label of douche or nit or whatever being thrown against a caller who wants the "bettor shows first" rule to be enforced. As long as the caller isn't slow rolling with the nuts, I think the VAST majority of irritation at the hand being stalled should be directed at the bettor.

I mean there are always exceptions, and I stress again that this is relatively rare (if I'm positive I have the best hand I just flip it over once the betting is done regardless of position), but it really seems like everyone is assuming that the caller is always in the wrong for wanting the actual hand showdown protocol enforced, and that hasn't been my experience at all.

Why is this so hard? If they say something like "I missed" or "You're good" I just table my hand, and accept the pot when it's pushed to me.

Bingo! Be silent and let the dealer do his job.

Then just muck the hand. Why are you holding on to them?
The onus is on the last agressor.

If only there was a term for people who puts words in one's mouth.

No, I am not "going to continue" doing it. I am reserving the possibility that I might do it on rare occaision. I haven't delibertately waited my turn to show yet this year. I don't remember doing it last year. I may have done it half a dozen times in my life.

I think I understand the spirit of the rules better than anybody who makes the arguiment that, because the rules encourage something, one must always do it. When a ruleset does not require something, but does encourage it, you are allowed to not do it, but you should have a good reason, and your shouldn't do it very often.

If the rules meant to require showing first, they would. They don't. Why is that?

I entered this thread to debate a misstatement of the meaning of the rules. My point was the rules encourage showing quckly when you have a good hand, but that they don't require it. Since everybody now seems to agree with that position, it is merely left to discuss how often is acceptable, and what reasons are acceptable. I don't think those matters have definitive answers.

If they do say "I missed" I will show. But if they say "you're good," I don't know what they're saying that with. They could have a hand better than me. It's up to them to show first. That's the rule.

And if they want to muck before I show, I will let them. I've won a few pots that way when the other player decides to much out of turn instead of showing when I missed, too.

Plus, I've been slow-rolled often enough when I don't do this that I decided that's not going to happen again.

You are the one putting forward the straw men.

What you said was That is not what the rules actually say. I quoted the actual rule to you. Neither is it what the rules actually mean. Websters defines" supposed to" as "expected to or obligated to". "Obligated to" means you must do it - you are required to do it. Before, you wrote words that are equivalent to "the rule requires you to show". Now you agree that it is not a requirement. You try to distract from this by raising the implication that not doing what the rules encourage you to do is always and necessarily wrong. The rules don't say that and the rules don't imply that. It can be, and it might not be. It depends on the circumstances.

Because the rules allow you to wait your turn, it is reasonable to assume that the rules contemplate that sometimes waiting your turn is OK. What the rules actually say is There are times when speeding up the game is not the highest good.

This is you next fabrication. I never said "any set of rules ever said that players who call bets at showdown are paying for information".

Where does it say that in the rules? It doesn't. It is a logicial concluson you arrived at by following the operation of the rules. Well, it is also a logcal concusion that players who call a bet get (along with all the other players dealt in) the opportunity to see the other players' hand. Whether they made the call in order to see the hand or in order to have a chance to win the pot (or both) is not determined by the rules at all. It is determined by the motivatin of the player making the call.

Actually the second clause is false, because it contans a typo. It should have said "unavoidable".

No set of rules I have ever read says you are paying for anything. Neither do they say what you are not paying for. If a person calls (under the old rules) they will see the hands of any other player who is still in at showdown. Hence there is a cause and effect relationship between calling, and seeing the other players' hands. Therefore a person who calls for the purpose of invoking that relationship has paid to see the hand, even if the rules don't put it that way.

In the phrase "pay to see" the prepositon "to" means "for the purpose of". The rules do not address purpose, they address effect. If you call, they will show. They show because that's what the rules said they must do if you called. They showed because you paid.

Of course it makes sense. The rules require that when one shows a hand, one shows it to all players. Only the callers paid but all get to see. Ever go to a diner that has an old-fashioned juke box? Only one person at a time pays for a song, but everybody gets to hear it.

No, those people only got to see a hand if the rule is triggered by the action of a caller. It requires both the rule and the act of calling. The act of calling triggers the effect specified by the rule. The rule itelf is not an actor.

No, you didn't.

Alos, the IWTSTH rule is not relevent to the example I gave about "paying to see" under the old showdown rules.

The IWTSTH rule did not exist at the same time as the old rule that requried all hands at showdown to show, and neither did the encouragement to show probable winners first. Both are innovations introduced together post-WWII to speed up the game. The IWTSTH rule was introduced along with players being allowed to muck at showdown. It was introduced to retain the rights a player has always had to see a hand that went to showdown, but to make it the exception, so usually showdowns would go faster.

I agree with this. There are always exceptions, but they are that. The line is different for everybody, but I think if we all respect this custom, we set a good standard, and can respect when someone finds need to wait. I only challenge people to keep pushing back their line for exceptions, to keep them improving their overall observational and hand-reading skills.

You're calling too much.

I can't even remember the last time I saw a slowroll. I've seen plenty of people get irritated at perceived slowrolls, but legitimate deliberate needling slowrolls are incredibly rare.

Fair enough. I knew underneath you were a pretty reasonable guy. ;0

Although your last bit made me lol, I saw a guy slow roll with quads the last time I played. Apparently I need to get off the kiddie tables.

Well sure. If you are embarrassed about your call, then you are probably a fish too, and I'd have to revise my advice, as I'd like to protect your feelings too, in my game.
Maybe we play in different games, but I think this is just such a trivial concern, its not like you are incorrect or anything, I just dont know that its really worth worrying about.
True, of course, but that guy sucks, and is good for the game, so who cares what he does? You cant control others, only yourself. There are only certain ways you can impact the quality of your game, and making bad players comfortable and happy is one of them.
Like I said, no reason at all there cant be two players "in the wrong" at the same time. Its not zero sum. Of course the guy should show his hand, but he doesnt want to. You should think about why you want him to, what the consequences of that will be, and if they are worth it.

Its my opinion that it is almost never worth it, and so I just always table my hand instantly, or as soon as I think to do so (like sometimes I will say call, and then if he is turning his hand over right away I will be too busy looking at his and seeing what he has to INSTANTLY turn mine over).

LOL, oh well in that case its DEFINITELY not an angle, not if you are only going to reserve the possibility of doing it on a rare occasion.
Literally the definition of angling...
The rules describe how things should routinely progress, and the guy who is called should show first. However, when you think you have the best hand (which is almost by definition true since you called) then you should just open in a timely fashion, timely meaning 2-3 seconds.
Give me examples of some of these reasons you think it would be acceptable to just wait and demand the other guy shows first, even knowing you probably have the winner, I'm excited to hear them.

I guess I'm starting to understand you guys a little bit better now. If being slow-rolled actually bothers you, then I guess I could see taking steps to protect your ego or emotional state or whatever, especially if those steps are within the rules, as has been pointed out.

It just stuns me a little bit to think that it could actually bother you to be slowrolled, if you take poker seriously at all. I've been slowrolled so many times, and it ranges from neutral to absolutely hilarious every time. I have never been slowrolled by a player who was better than me, so its universally a good sign for the game.

I look young and talk a lot, and play with a lot of grumpy old dudes. I get slowrolled like on a weekly basis, haha.

I'm closer to a fish than I am a shark, I'll say that.

I primarily deal kiddie tables. I see more people upset at a perceived slowroll than I see actual intentional slowrolls.

Is it possible the guy with quads was just making sure the pot was right and there were no more players in the hand? We have another active thread where someone had a big problem from exposing cards too quickly due to thinking the hand was over when it wasn't. Most "slowrolls" are people double checking to make sure the hand is truly over.

I understand why it stings. It's from expectation clashing with reality. That's the cause of most anger anywhere, I feel.

This is why when I'm in a pot, I don't expect to win until I'm the last player with a live hand. Even if we're all-in and exposed and I have top set vs a backdoor gutshot, I fully expect that unlikely hand to beat me. I suspect you have a similar perspective.

That way, if I lose, it matches expectation. I don't get tilted or angry. When I win, it exceeds expectation, so I'm happy.

So many people choose perspectives that tend to lead to unhappiness and frustration. Poker players often seem to like setting themselves up for anger. I like to be happy, so I do what I can to set myself up for happiness.

I understand fundamentally why its a dick move, why douchebags do it, and why casual poker players get offended or upset about it. Of course its upsetting, in a vacuum. But after you've been playing poker for a little while, and once you start to think about the big picture, it quickly loses all its sting. It doesnt ACTUALLY change whether you win or lose, you still win exactly the same % of the time, the same dollar amounts, its just theatrics. The only downside to being slowrolled is that it is just a few less hands per hour, which is unfortunate, but if that guy can justify donking off 4 racks because he got what he came for, his "In your face!" moment, that more than makes up for it.

As the hand progresses, my confidence in my chances of winning wax and wane, but they really dont change that much between the time that action is over and the time that the cards are tabled/pot is pushed, no matter how long that time is.

I think your last paragraph is perfect.

It would appear you don't know the definition pf angling.

Do you know the GTO strategy for repeated Prisoner's Dilemma?

Yes...? Please dont tell me you think that the scenarios are analogous? LOL if you are trying to win the game of "who shows down first" and adopting a tit-for-tat strategy, just I mean I dont even...

Maybe I really do play poker is a parallel world, but....are most of the players you play against good? Think about the big picture, and what your ultimate aim is. Winning these tete-a-tete battles, heck even winning HANDS and POTS, are not the point of poker, at least not to me. Its about winning money. And these kinds of things hurt your winrate.

Well, given that he pretended to muck before flipping over the quads, I'm pretty sure it was a slow roll.

Incidentally, I think you're pretty much spot on about why so many people tilt so very, very hard.