This seems like a pretty basic question but I've received a lot of different views on this and wanted to get sense of community. In live poker, when you are last to act and make a call on the river and the bettor says, "you got it" or "you're good", do you think it's proper etiquette to show your hand and let them muck as Hellmuth claims in video below? Does it depend on whether you are playing vs fish or reg? If they say ace high, and you beat that, should you still make them show? Obviously, there's a lot of good info to be gleaned such as whether opponent is running a multi-street bluff with equity and is somewhat balanced or just always firing with air in spots they think is good for them.

there're super clear rules for showdown, i hate when people try to angle them. if u wanna see my hand, show yours. if you muck im gonna muck too.

Exactly. Hellmuth clearly in the wrong here imo, and he's freerolling for information. I mean, if he says he's beat i'd let him muck, but why would he think he has the right to see my hand?

All I know is that every live room I have played in up here in the upper midwest, if there is a call on the river, you have to show your hand to win the pot, even if the other guy mucks first.

Personally, I don't think you should have to show your hand if the other guy mucks his, but around here, the rule is you have to show to win.

If you want to keep the game fun, if you want to have ppl gambling, if you want to be liked and have players who don't mind losing to you rather than somebody they don't like, then fast roll when somebody says 'you got it.' Sometimes it turns out that you don't have it and they come out w/ some lame thing like 'I thought you had to have the flush.' I remember who those types are and make them show first as per the rules so that they don't get the satisfaction of having upset me, that being one of the reasons they've come to play.

I don't think it's poor etiquette to hold people to the rules, but I let people muck quite often even though I don't have to because I think they're more likely to make bad calls or bluffs against me in the future the less that I show them up when they do. There are some people that I hold to it though, because they're obv just taking advantage and would do it all the time otherwise.

A lot of poker rooms, including WSOP, need to see a winning hand.

It's absurd that the bettor won't show.

If I see some fish or perceived fish, ill just flip it over and let him muck. I will never do this to a reg, I make them flip over the hand.

This is the thing that tilts me almost as bad as a AI and Call and the opponents stare at each other to see who will turn over first #THEHANDSWONTCHANGE

By the rule in most rooms (should be all), JRB absolutely does not have to show his hand if Phil mucks. Only if he had declared it at some point does he have to show to collect the pot. He never says what he has here, so if Phil tosses his hand, JRB collects unopposed.

IWTSTH could apply here of course if anyone wishes to invoke it. Bad idea from the "winner" since that is supposed to revive a dead hand that could have been misread. If anyone not involved in showdown invokes IWTSTH, hand revival is not possible.

Option 4.b. Player dependant.

Mainly showing against fish and waiting for regs to show or muck but mixing in a little of how I view the opponent and if they have rubbed me the right or wrong way.

Casino rule should always be, last person with cards in their hand, wins the pot.


Mucking when called on a bluff is horrible etiquette IMO. Just flip your damn cards up. Why should you gain extra info because you bluffed?

If it's reg v. reg they should already know each other's style. If it's OP v. an infrequent player or a tourist passing through they aren't going to gain much useful info from a hand or two.

This argument comes up a lot, and the two sides boil down to this:

JRB is technnically correct in terms of who has to show first; (though more and more rooms have the you must show to win provision so he would have to show anyway to win in those rooms); and those in the "information is paramount" crowd think you should always insist on seeing the other hand, because info is that important.

The other side is those who think that the social aspect of the game is paramount, and that it is way more important to keep players happy, and not embarrass them by making them show a poor attempt at a bluff, then it is to see what they are bluffing with. So in that regard, Hellmuth is correct. He plays in big cash games with business owners like the owner of the GS warriors, so he understands how many powerful business people don't like to be embarrassed or shown up, and play for fun, so it's important to keep them having fun.

I have personally been in a game where a rich businessman fish was donating all night; then he tried a lame bluff, and got called. the businessman said "you're good" and the guy insisted the businessman show. The BM said something to the effect of "I said you're good. Are you calling me a liar?" The guy insisted on seeing his cards, and the BM racked up and left to go play BJ.

On a smaller scale, I see this all the time. THe guy may not rack up immediately, but tightens up, and the mood at the table turns sour. I play 2/5nl live fulltime; and in a year's worth of play I would estimate that maybe only once a month tops would someone say "you're good" and then actually have the winning hand as some sort of angleshoot. So almost always, it is accepted etiquette if someone says "you're good" or "I missed" to just show your cards and win the pot. As someone in the video mentioned, if you insist on seeing the cards, and it turns out the other guy missed seeing a flush or straight, then you lose. IMO the small nonzero chance of that happening is worth preventing more than any "valuable" info I'd get from a 2/5 player showing a losing hand.

So as you can see, I am clearly in the camp of let the guy muck and win the pot, and keep everyone happy at the table. IME this is way more "+EV" than insisting on seeing a guy's hand.

But having seen this discussion many times before, I predict no one in the "info is paramount" crowd will be swayed over to the "keeping the game happy" crowd, or vice versa.

Whenever I find myself in the unfortunate situation of being the guy who says "you're good" I typically will wait a few seconds and expect the other player to turn their hand over. If they don't and it becomes clear they are waiting for me I will immediate expose my bluff. I don't mind showing it if I have to, since I can use the image to my advantage in the future.

When I am on the other side and someone says to me "you're good" I will typically wait a few seconds again, if Villain does not show I would ask something like "no pair?" and at that point have no problem showing my hand. This keeps the game progressing since live poker doesn't see as many hands per hour in the first place. This keeps everyone from being upset.

Honestly, at a $1/2, $2/5 or $5/10 game; I'm not overly worried about giving off some game crippling information from showing one hand which the table already know I've obviously made a loose/good call or loose/bad bluff.

If you watched the hand and didn't see his cards, could you figure out that Helmuth probably had either a busted flush or busted straight?

I wonder how much of Bellandes actions were to try to put Phil on tilt.

Hellmuth lecturing on etiquette is like Colonel Sanders lecturing on veganism.

I voted for #2, but I misread the question. In practical terms I'd still show against fish or as a courtesy to someone who might be embarrassed to show a bluff, for all the reasons browser outlines above. But on principle, I don't think you should have to show if the bettor mucks and I would have no problem making an experienced player like Hellmuth show his bluff. He shouldn't have made the bet if he didn't want to run the risk of losing the hand and exposing his cards. Or maybe he should have bet bigger to represent trip aces or a pair of queens... either way you look at it, his bet on the river looks pretty weak IMO

From RROP:

If some says you're good, and you don't think they're lying, show.

Sometimes people think they're bluffing when they aren't, I always make them show first.

Also if you want info then I think it's bad etiquette to not have to give it.

No. It would be OK to do that, but it's also OK to have your opponent who was the last to bet or raise either show first or muck his own hand.

I believe the standard rule is "cards speak," which means whoever shows the better hand wins, regardless of verbal declarations.

But the last one who bet (or raised) is the one who is obliged to show first.

In the video, it looked to me like Phil was angling to see his opponent's hand without showing his own hand. Or perhaps Phil was angling to get his opponent to muck first, and then Phil might have claimed victory because his opponent mucked his hand.

But then once Phil shows his own hand, his opponent must show his hand to win the pot. Why? Because "cards speak."

No.

Whoever was the last to bet or raise is the one who is obliged to show first, or muck. The proper procedure when you have called is to wait until the bettor (or raiser) either shows his hand or mucks.

Buzz

It's not even social.

Even at stakes where you may be tempted to assume otherwise, most people don't play their A games. Loose players aren't stupid, they know the good players play tight. They know good players play aggressively. Many even know about 2+2.

They choose - for a variety of reasons - to ignore all that. Some get bored. Some get one day a month to play and they'll be damned if they fold all night. Some just want to watch the game. Some are just lonely and want people to pay attwntion to them.

But one thing makes people put their drinks down, sit up straight, and pay attention - an ******* at the table.

Unless he's given me reason in the past not to show, if someone tells me "You're good", I show 100% of the time, no questions asked.

It is best for the game to just show.

But, if after I show, if the other player were to then show a better hand, I will make him always show first in the future when he/she bets and I call.

Very good for you.

I think you can show after the you're goog. If you want, muck and I will show, and show.

I might declare the strength of my hand first, let them muck and show.

I'm just turning my hand up.

But I have no problem with someone wanting to follow proper showdown order.

That pretty much covers it.

Stupid rule. One person with cards? He wins. is how it ought to be.

Can you call clock at showdown? I guess just calling the floor over and explaining the situation effectively does that. I'd call the floor (whether I was still in the hand or not) if the dealer can't get it done in a reasonable amount of time. That amount of time is the same time I would call clock on a super easy decision where someone tanks.