I mostly play 1/2 NL, and I've noticed that few players respect the rules with regard to who needs to show their hands first. Well of course they eventually respect the rules if I insist the dealer abide by them, but I'm wondering if that is -EV... Lately I seem to have upset a few people who either were bluffing or just didn't have much of a hand, as they would vaguely announce what they had ("I missed" or "A high") and expect me to show my cards. When I said I need to see your cards first, they got irritated and I got the sense that other people at the table thought I was being a jerk. Sometimes they just fold in which I don't show my hand either and take the pot, and other times they have shown and then I show.

Does that make me seem like a shark? What do you guys do?

Poker is a obviously a game of imperfect information, so I like the idea of finding out as much information as I can while giving as little as I can, but I wonder if I'm saving pennies but potentially losing dollars.

Thoughts?

I see nothing wrong with this.

People feel strongly about this issue. I think that you're right that the info you get as a result of making them show is not worth it in the long run. If someone says they missed, and I have a pretty sure winner, I just show. I don't have a lot of desire to force them to show a bluff or embarrass someone. I do make exceptions with regs I play with a lot who wouldn't show me the same courtesy, or anyone who says they miss but then turns over a winner.

You are well within your rights to insist the other player show or muck first. Those are the rules.

Having said that, many people here will agree with your notion that you are doing yourself a disservice in the long run by doing so. To wit:

* The information isn't worth all that much. He has A hi, how much value is there to knowing whether it was A4 or A8?

* If you piss off these players, they may pay more attention when playing against you in the future. They may play better. They may be less willing to call off their stack against you because you're a good guy and if they're going to lose their stack, it might as well be to you.

* If you force them to show, they may bluff less against you (this may or may not be a good thing for you).

* If you force them to show, they may turn over a misread hand that is a winner, which if you had just shown they would have mucked to.

* If you force them to show, they could table change somewhere else where they feel less embarassed.

Can you give an example of how you gained information by pissing off a player that you later used to profit from that player?

if you're rolling over monsters after insisting on seeing their ace high hands, I would probably be irritated as well.

When someone says ace high or I missed, just table your hand. You should be able to put one and one together to realize they either had AK/AQ/AJ or Axs, or any of the striaght draw combos they limp/called pre with.

Few players can really seriously exploit bits of information like that very well at the 1-2 level. You might as well just show down your hand and win or lose the pot. This sometimes causes needless delay that is annoying to folks waiting for the next hand. The better you get , and the higher the stakes , the more this kind of thing becomes important.

I think forcing people to show their bluffs makes them less likely to try them against you in the future.

It depends but I generally get people to show by simply waiting for them to do so. The hand is usually a decent size by the river and I don't play many pots so yeah, open up. If it's on me to show, I show straight away.

The main exception to this is in those multiway limped pots which gets checked to the river and obviously no-one has anything and everything kind of sits there shuffling nervously because they don't want to show their garbage hands. So now I fastroll and announce 'Queen high!' excitedly (or whatever crap I have) to get the ball rolling.

Sure...

Loose guy was calling a lot of my PFRs and we weren't getting to showdown much (he was winning the majority of hands)... Then this hand happened.

Hero raises UTG w/ KK to $12. 3 callers, including V OTB. Flop ($45) JJ9 rainbow, checks to V, V bets $15, I call, rest fold. Turn ($75) JJ99, I check, He bets $35, I call. River ($145) JJ99A, I check, He bets $115 (in a very strong means weak way). I insta-call. He says "I missed." I insist on seeing his cards for 2 reasons.

(1) I want to know just how wide he is calling my PFRs
(2) I want to know if he was semi-bluffing with a missed draw, or was just barrelling away

He gets upset, but eventually tables 46o. That taught me he was likely calling me super wide and had no problem naked bluffing without draws.

About 2 hours later, I was heads up OOP against him, and felt comfortable getting to showdown with 66 on a 3778T run out. If instead he had previously shown QTs (instead of 46o) for a better hand pre-flop and some equity post-flop I probably would have released 66 on the turn, if not on the river.

Wow I gotta be honest, I expected the mix of reactions to be more 50/50, with some arguing I'm just following the rules and am entitled to the info with others making the arguments you all have... maybe I do need to re-think this

Playing with rule nits sucks balls.

If you make me show 100% of time. I reciprocate and make you show 100%.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

He showed you 46 in one hand and that made you comfortable calling him down on a 3778T board? But if he had previously shown QT you would have folded on the turn? That's quite the read.

Well wouldn't be an issue for me. I (currently) show when I'm supposed to show and ask to see when the rules say they need to. I don't mind showing my bluffs as I think it is +EV with getting calls on bigger hands.

And technically I don't "make you show"; you can fold and then I can just not show my hand. Even if I stop forcing people to show, it won't be because there is a logic to it. You don't want to show... fine you don't have to. But I'm not sure why they expect to get to see my hand.

you can gather a lot more information at the table than by being a rules nit.

Yeah at the margin it did. Easy to sit in your seat, ask for an example, and then when given an example say that no one hand should influence you that much. To some degree that is true, but it is precisely why I like getting to see hands when I'm entitled to... to build a bigger sample size to make more informed decisions.

Your logic seems to be... no individual hand that you see is going to allow you to play better on future hands, so it's not worth complaining about. My point is that one hand can move the dial on making a slightly -EV call slightly +EV, as you put more combinations of bluffs in your opponents hand.

Seeing 46o told me he could bluff with ATC, which drastically increases the combos of his bluffs, versus seeing QTs as a flopped open-ended straight draw.

I agree that making him show the 46o gave you a lot of insight into how this opponent plays against you. I also agree that it's kind of ridiculous to get asked to back up an opinion with a real-world example, give that example, and then have the example summarily dismissed. What you're basically being told is that no matter what you say, your argument is null and void.

However, even in this case, I still would have showed. It's only after they say, "I missed", I turn over my bluff-catching hand, and they roll over a winner that I insist they show first.

By making him show his bluff, you've discouraged him from making the same play against you in the future. That may or may not work to your advantage.

If your snap show your hand, when it's your turn to show. Then generally noone will have an issue with you.

However, if your waiting hoping a player will show out of turn, but never show early in late position is when people have an issue.

My guess, is if you are upsetting people. You likely are playing that game.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Ya, never showing first in that spot.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I agree that it wouldn't be right to enforce the rules on others and not abide by them yourself when it suits you.

However, I have to lol at thinking 1/2 opponents are that observant to only get mad if you are forcing others to show but are not showing yourself when required. Like they would be totally cool if you uniformally enforced the rules, but only get upset if you cherrypick. Not only are most not that observant to notice who generally is showing first, but most don't actually know the rules themselves. Even if I were cherrypicking when I enforced the rules to my favor (which I don't), I doubt this would be the reasons for their displeasure.

They just don't want to show their hand and they get mad when you make them.

You knew he was bluffing before you made him show. So he had total crap (either to start with or as the hand progressed) or he missed his draw. I don't think knowing the specific cards involved makes much difference and if you pay attention to what he plays against others you can gain back the difference and more.

I always find it strange when people complain about others' bad play or do things to discourage it.

Agree to disagree on your first point. Bluffing with a missed draw limits the combos we should expect him to bluff (just QT or T8 in my first hand): bluffing with anything moves the dial (perhaps ever slightly) towards putting infinite amount of bluffs in his range.

I'm definitely not complaining about his bad play nor am I discouraging it. I think when people get mad / angry at you they often play worse.

I'm not sure how you imply that OP is violating a rule on one end and insisting that it be followed on the other. He wants to learn more information, so if that means he waits for the aggressor to show first than I'm in his corner. All it takes is a simple "I called you." Doesn't have to be mean or snarky. Of course I agree with someone who posted the example of the limped/checked pot where no one really has anything. Big difference between that and a multiple $100 pot.

Got more than few hours at a poker table. Very rarely do guys get upset, if someone doesn't show. Even after declaring "Ace High", or "I missed".

What upsets people, is player A says "I missed" and player B tables their hand out of respect (or any reason).

But when player B says "I missed " player A won't table hand.

Player A is asking player B to show first in both spots. Abusing player B a bit, which rubs people wrong way.

So if your going to force your opponents to show, don't pull the "I missed", or "Ace High" line out. And definitely don't sit there for 5-10 seconds hoping somebody will show OOT.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

By definition, this can't have a huge effect. If it goes from -0.01 to +0.01, it's no different from something changing from +0.75 to +0.77.

And of course an extra 0.02 is 0.02, but here's the rub: there are way fewer close decisions than people think there are.

What more often happens is that someone is sitting on a -0.17 decision that goes to -0.15, but they think the -0.17 decision is closer than it is, and that the effect of a single hand is greater than it is.

For every legitimately close decision that is legitimately helped by seeing the outliers of a villain's range, there is an absurd value lost because heroes commit FTOP mistakes.

As a matter of fact, you can take advantage of how strongly people overweigh outliers by deliberately showing hands on the fringes of your range. I three-bet 22 once in a spot that may even have been justified and this guy was so flabbergasted that he just misplayed me for the next 6 months.