I've always preferred that the last aggressor show first, even if that action was on previous streets. Again, just my own preference, but it doesn't better too much to me one way or the other.

On a sidenote, I ran into the issue with this rule not being uniform from one room to another, and I inadvertently slowrolled/stalled a couple people and felt like an ass. My home casino goes with last aggressor no matter what, but I ventured to amother casino where worst position shows first if their was no action on the river. This included all-ins, so if I called someone's all-in OTT and I was playing out of the SB then I was supposed to show first OTR. This was new to me and I ended up in a couple spots where I stalled out the V because I didn't know I was supposed to show first. I didn't have the nuts or anything like that, as I'll almost always fastroll those hands no matter what. They were just a couple of TP types of hands, but I did have the winning hand both times. I felt bad about it and apologized once I realized what was going on, and fortunately nobody at the table thought it to be a big deal.

winner.

If a casino doesn't have the "last aggressor" rule, then is the person seated in the small blind who called an all in on the flop or turn required to show their hand first?

By not having the "last aggressor" rule, does it open the door to angle shooting?

Why is the original "all in" player, no matter what street they shoved, required to show their hand first?

Yes in some casinos, no in others, depending on their ruleset. I would say in most casinos with a by position rule, the literal answer is yes, but it rarely comes up because the shover will usually show first on their own.

No.

Because it's the rule, or alternately, because it means no one has to think back several streets to figure out who was the last aggressor (your example is trivial, but some cases involve intervening action between players who folded in the interim). There is never any confusion over who is first in position order. Also, if there are sidepots the shover is not involved in, the original all-in player cannot be the one to show first, they must wait for the side pot(s) to be resolved.

1) Yes, without an 'aggressor' rule in place the showing of the cards would start in the SB at showdown.

2) There can be angle shooting at showdown regardless of which rule is in place.

3) Don't think of this in terms of 'all in' ... Focus more on whose bet is being called. When you bet, which is considered an aggressive action, and are then called you are required to show your cards first.

Typically when there's an all-in there is little dispute as to who should show first. This issue usually comes to light when there is no betting on the River and a player in early position wants 'the other' player to show first because he check-called a bet on the Turn .. thus labeling 'the other' player as the last aggressor. Most rooms today don't carry over the last aggressor into the next street of betting. So if there is no betting on the River then you start at the SB and work your way to the Button when showing down holdings. GL

Thank you, dinesh and answer20 for your quick and thorough responses.

I guess I am partial to the "last aggressor" rule being that the first casino that I had started playing in carries that rule and that once when I was at another casino that didn't carry the rule I had to show my hand when I wasn't the last aggressor and had 3/4 of my money in the pot. I never got to see Villain's hand. He had bet, bet, bet, and checked.

I find that the excuse of not being able to remember as to who was the last aggressor is just that, an excuse. Poker players can remember what hand you played 3 hours ago and how much you bet but all of a sudden up to 10 people can't remember as to who bet what in the last 5 minutes.(?) Hands get reconstructed often. How can that be if people can't remember as to what just happened?.

The key item in poker memory is that someone lost the hand .. and without that key element to tie the package up nicely they all run together for rec regs!! GL

Why do you care? You just nearly doubled up. That seems more important than seeing his hand. If he did not bet river take his money and move to next hand.

For those who think on a check check river that the last aggressor should show first based on hit turn or earlier aggression look at it this way. Who ever closes potential or actual betting, the first person to their left shows first. This way 1) the rule is always the same regardless of the river action 2) this way thepoker 'events' just naturally and always move to the left on river and every street.

The best thing about the now mostly non-existent IWTSTH rule, is that whenever players would start debating about who had to show first, I would just say loudly to the dealer that I want to see all the hands. Thus, it no longer mattered when you showed, you were going to have to show it, so you might as well quit wasting time and just turn it over now.

Information. In my situation I had risked 3/4 of my stack. I wanted the information.

The player didn't indicate that "I was good". It wasn't an "etiquette" situation.

nothing in poker goes back to previous streets betting, so showing cards shouldnt either.

it is the last aggressor shows first. but that is the last aggressor on the river. so if it goes check check the first one is the last aggressor. you dont have to bet to be the aggressor just the last to initiate the action.
as always if a bet and call then the better shows first. simple simon.

Not sure if you're trolling, but just in case you're not: you got all the information you needed when the pot was pushed your way.

I'm not trolling.

After further review, I see this thread is intended for tournaments. I was discussing cash game. Is there a difference in who should show first between cash and tourney? Or is it the same situation?

I apologize for any confusion.

No 'basic' differences between cash and tournament .. except when there is an all-in and a call. In tournaments all holdings involved at showdown are turned over when someone is all-in to avoid chip dumping (in either direction).

So when someone is all-in in a tournament it doesn't matter who shows first since all the cards are getting flipped over anyway no matter what street action is on ... PF, Flop, Turn or River. GL

@Rapini

Why would I be "trolling" because I want information?

I like to put people on hand ranges. What better way to do that than by seeing their cards? Is there something wrong with that logic? Are you trolling me?

Do you think that I'm "trolling" because I'm in favor of the "last aggressor rule"?
I am not the only person on this site in favor of that rule.

I don't think you're trolling (at least not necessarily).

I don't begrudge you wanting more information.

But... tough. I'm sure you would like to see the hand of people who fold to a river bet, too, but you can't, because that is also not how the game is played.

People often say they paid for information, but the common rejoinder is that you didn't, you paid to lay a claim on the pot. If you call someone's river bet and they muck, you don't get to see their hand (absent IWTSTH), so you didn't pay for information. You do win the pot - that is what you paid for.

We understand why you would want to see it. We just think:
(1) you dramatically overestimate the value of seeing any given hand
(2) because it's evenly applied and affects everyone the same, one rule isn't better than another because it gives you what you want in this case. in another case, you could be the one IP who gets to check behind and see the OOP's hand first
(3) there are procedural reasons for not doing it the way you want, even though you seem not to think they are important

I will also point out that, even though it is also how I learned to play (at Borgata), last aggressor is definitely the rule in a minority of rooms, even if it does include some very large rooms that are well managed. The majority of rooms seem to use the by position rule, as does RRoP and TDA.

Thank you for the response dinesh. With your last response I am understanding the other side of the debate more except for this dig by you:

"(3) there are procedural reasons for not doing it the way you want, even though you seem not to think they are important"

Apparently MGM National Harbor/ Mr. Grooms doesn't see it the way you do either. So with your logic, he doesn't seem to think the procedural reasons are important either.

I kind of like KK405's response. All hands must be shown on a called river. I'd be good with that. What's the debate with a rule like that?

I wasn't taking a dig at you, just clarifying that while I think it is a very good reason to show in position order, you and others have disagreed (I believe you said it sounded more like an excuse than a reason). I don't agree, but that's where we are.

As for why all hands aren't shown on a called river, that is actually how it used to be, back in the day, before we had RRoP or written rules. Everyone at showdown showed.

Over time, the game has evolved. As more novices began to play, the need for rules increased. And for whatever reason, players decided they liked not having to show, and winning players decided they liked not forcing fish to show, because it meant they were more willing to call down lightly. So the rules now include an order for showdown, while also recommending that players with a probable winner show immediately.

The longer this thread goes on, the more I think that it probably doesn't matter much, if at all. If it doesn't matter, then perhaps the rule should be whatever makes the game go faster, which would be to go by position, since you will never have a pause to try to remember what the action was on previous streets. Second best would be to go by last aggressive action if there is a bet on the river, otherwise position. And last would be to go by last aggressive action even if it was before the river.

Has anyone ever suggested going by reverse position, so that the button would show first?

In a limped family pot that has zero post-flop betting, who is the last aggressor?

I assume the dealer, who is silently fuming about a table full of nits.

No one ever forgets who the last aggressor was.

The reason the last aggressor goes first is because the person most likely to have the best hand should show first. That's why, if you have the nuts, instantly show, regardless of rules.

Where no one wants to show, the last aggressor is generally the one with the best hand. We can bet rolls on it if you'd like, survey of 1000+ showdowns in 1/2 games, who more often ends up with the best hand, last aggressor or last caller.

"Last aggressor gets a pass" is a nit-friendly rule; that's enough reason alone to get rid of it.

In a limped pot, no post-flop betting, go by worst position if you want, no one cares, there's no money out there, though poker players are amazingly able to show in reverse order of hand strength in such situations.

BB.