Again, you seem to be implying that OP is doing these things, playing both sides of the field. If I missed where he did that I apologize.

If he is, then he should stop. If he isn't then he won't be offended. If he was and didn't realize it, then maybe he is now aware of it.

Multiple people getting upset in short amount of time, is highly unlikely if their isn't an underlying issue.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It ought to be the dealer that is the bad guy here. You shouldn't have to ask the other player to show, just refuse to show yourself, and the dealer ought to make the other player show or muck.

Or what if you just showed one card? Then the other player can muck knowing you don't have jack hi without embarrassing himself more than necessary but you reveal much less info yourself.

FWIW I just show in these cases figuring that it keep things moving and the everyone (especially the dealer) appreciates anything you do to speed things up.

Can you give an example that we would be correct for us to challenge?

It makes the game go easier if you accept a player's declaration at face value. Once you catch them lying so they can slowroll you, however, then it is fair game to make them show first and to encourage the rest of the table to do the same.

If someone gives you no indication at all of their hand strength, it is fine to wait for them to say or show something. If someone just says "good call" and you only have A high, it is fine to wait for them to show.

But if someone declares a hand you can clearly beat (e.g. they say "Ace high" or "I missed" when you have top pair or better), the polite thing to do is just roll over your hand. Continuing to stare down an opponent who has essentially conceding the pot, however much information is might gain you, is both slowing down the game and basically taunting a losing player. Be magnanimous in victory.

"I missed" is not a declaration. What if both players have a draw and both missed, does villain really expect you to turn over your worse hand? Or worse, if he had a pair and flush draw and assumes you have better.

If villain says something like "queen high" then I just say "I have better" or "I have a pair". If he expects me to take his word then he should also believe me and we can both muck. If he wants to know what pair I have he is going to have to turn over his hand.

Also I proudly show my bluffs because time has proven me to have some equity due to misreads and even though I am not provoking people to make mistakes, they do happen.

I just show to keep the game moving, but if I notice someone who keeps doing this (even with good hands) I will request that the person show first.

Let's just bring up the people who wrongly think I am slow-rolling because I am waiting for the resolution of the side pot when I have the nuts for the main pot. I don't think I am doing anything wrong by encouraging people in a similar situation to let the dealer handle the side pot first, even if means that I am preventing your opponent from accidentally mucking their hand and gifting you the side pot.

1) You are well within your rights to ask to see the hand ... with or without verbal declarations.

2) Expect to make yourself a target at most tables by 'zealously' pursuing this 'right'.

3) People get offended when you challenge their verbal declarations. For some the emotion creeps outside the game to personal.

4) I heard (can't remember where) that there's a room in Vegas that has a house rule that any statement like "You're good/You win" or "I missed" is considered a muck and the hand is over. They had an epidemic of regs who would attempt to get 'in position' players to show their hand even though they 'knew' they held the winner just to see the 'information'.

Personally ... If I think I have the winner I will show fairly quick, but if someone is being a stickler or I really do want to gather some data on them for 'that' spot then I will wait for them to show or muck. I have told the story a few times on this site about a player who sat and complained for a good 20 seconds about 'missing' and finally mucked his cards when I was holding a 'worse' miss.

There are different kinds of folks out there ... Some are just rules nits and some really are trying to get under your skin and/or gather all the data they can. GL

I was at a table the other day where a fairly young Dealer didn't know the difference between "You're good" and "1 Pair". If you make an 'exact' declaration about your hand you need to prove it in order to rake a pot, even if the opponent mucks. General statements don't carry the same weight/burden of proof.

Was at casino where a kid on his 21st birthday came in and declared "Two Pair" at the end of a hand in an effort to get a guy to muck. The guy held his cards and forced a show of 'Jack high'. The kid said "We do that all the time in our home game." as an excuse for the baiting. We kindly told him that if he would like to make back through the parking garage still walking that he should never do that again. GL

No, you do not. You should though. And opponent shouldn't muck without seeing it.

That is a good way to handle it from someone who doesn't know any better.

There are at least some poker rooms that insist you must show two cards to claim the pot and would ship the pot to the other guy if he had mucked. I'm happy to play in a room that punishes people for intentionally misdeclaring their hands.

Fastrolling also speeds up the game.

If you are a winning player, you want the game sped up, because your winrate is a function of the number of hands you play.

If you are a losing player, by all means, make showdowns last as long as possible. It will cut your losses long term.

I'm in favor of this, by the way. You should literally ONLY say "I missed" if your hand has no showdown value. NEVER say "I missed" with ace high or a pair in a situation where your hand might be good.

I don't want the game to be too fast because it makes everyone be more serious and try to play better.

I would think it's the opposite, no?

Players acting too quickly and not thinking over situations has to be better than people tanking on decisions, giving some time into their thoughts.

People being slow because they are distracted by conversations and the game on TV and Candy Crush is not necessarily a bad thing if it's not too slow. A super-fast anti-social dealer whose demeanor makes it clear that poker is a business can make the game too serious for my tastes, even though his hands per hour may be through the roof.

+1

Honestly, the big reason you want the game to go fast is simply because more hands = more money for a winning player. But also, a fast pace is better for experienced players who take less time to figure out a situation and act.

Interesting. My experience is the exact opposite as well.

Are you talking theory or practice? Regardless, I'm having trouble seeing how it would even be true in theory.

Literally not once have I played in a game where the faster pace made anyone want to play better. I'm baffled.

I think there probably is a rate above which people start to feel uncomfortable, but that it's really high.

A winning player is comfortable in HUHU, which is probably 60 hands/hr x 80% VPIP x 4 decisions/hand = 150 decisions/hr. That's in line with blackjack, where 150-200 decisions/hr starts to take a toll.

Let's halve that for a typical player, and even a fishy VPIP is going to be less than 80%. So I'd estimate they're going to feel rushed at 40-ish hands/hr.

SSLHE is 30-35 hands/hr and LLSNL 25ish. MSLHE probably breaks 40 but players have lower VPIPs and higher tolerances. Not sure about MSNL.

Bad idea for numerous reasons.

Most live players at low stakes are there to have fun. Anything you do to decrease their enjoyment is -EV.

Because they came to have fun, they don't play their "A" Game, they splash around little. Forcing them to show, will cause them to play tighter and that is -EV.

Assuming you are a winning player, all the time lost waiting for them to show is fewer hands per hour and that is -EV.

If you want to maximize your EV at low limit live poker, remember, your opponents are there to have a good time and the more they enjoy playing, the more they will splash around and more likely to play longer.

When the worst players in the room, want to sit at your table, that is as +EV as you can get in live play.

Tagging on to steamboatin's point, it might be helpful to think about why rules allowing players to muck are good for the game and good for winning players.

Bear in mind, players were originally required to show. Poker rulebooks written 100 years ago say that everyone had to show their hands at showdown.

So why did poker move to the rules that allow players to muck their cards at showdown? I think it's pretty obvious what the answer is from the good player's perspective: because if sensitive players know that bluffs and crying calls and poor hands won't necessarily subjected to public embarrassment, they will be more likely to engage in them. Allowing mucks at showdown = more action.

Indeed, most likely, the best situation for good players is exactly the one that Robert's Rules contemplates-- that any probable winner gets shown first, players get to muck even sometimes when the order of showdown would have them show first, and IWTSTH is rarely invoked.

Under those playing conditions, who has the advantage? The good players do. They don't need the information that showing specific hands at showdown will give them, because they are smart and can put their opponents on proper ranges anyway. Further, the bad players are encouraged to bluff against them as well as making bad crying calls, thereby putting more money in the pockets of the good players.

Don't mess with this equilibrium. You may think a game where you get to see lots more hands at showdown will be good for you, but it won't. Because on some level it will provide better information about ranges to your less attentive opponents, and because players will start folding to river bets and checking behind their would-be bluffs because they don't want to show you their cards.

Plus, the game will be slowed down from all those needless showdowns. You will play less hands an hour.

And you will make less money long term.

nothing wrong with enforcing the rules