Yep

If you have the nuts, why aren't you raising?

Try reading the OP, it was an all-in bet.

I’d be interested in the percentage of people here who make the opponent show when he says ‘you’re good’

Though I think most here are overreacting, I would never do that. A few times I have been burned by someone who actually had me beat after doing that though. Either they were dicks, or they thought I couldn't have called with a worse hand.

It’s happened to me a few times from people who misread their hand or I hero called with A high and their pair of 2’s was good. I’d still never make someone show who said “you’re good” or would never make someone show when they shoved into me when I had the nuts

I always fastroll, sometimes even burning myself by incorrectly flipping first upon seeing what I interpret as a look of disgust. I do see it like a courtesy thing: I won't make you show your bluff if you don't make me show mine. But the thing is I fastroll my bluffs, too. I want them to be seen. So I'm not getting the info while also not saving myself from giving up that same info. Say what you will about what that's worth, but I think it's pretty valuable to know whether dude was bluffing with a logical hand or some random airball. I just take the loss as it stands now, but I'm not going to pretend the "show or muck" route isn't tempting.

Here's the thing I don't understand, why is it seen disrespectful to make someone show the bluff? This thread comes up once every few months and when someone says "I want the information of what hand they bluff with," people respond with "that info isn't that useful, certainly not more valuable than keeping the game friendly." But if what they're bluffing with doesn't matter, and we already know they bluffed because they refused to show, so why should they feel negative emotions if people see what they bluffed with?

I understand recreational players who understand the game in an emotional way they learned from other 1/2 players who also see the game as a contest of will and pride, and I agree that it is better for the game to let these players muck. They are barely thinking about blockers and other bluff candidate factors if at all so we don't learn much and potentially chase away recs. Even the recs who you know basically show up to be angry because that's the kind of people they are, I don't agree with riling up just because I find their anger annoying. In 1/2-2/5 I would say it is very rarely worth it to make someone show.

But against the better 2/5 grinders and most 5/10 players, what hands opponents choose to bluff with is super valuable. Do they turn bottom pair into a bluff, what hands are they bluffing with on boards they really shouldn't be betting/raising much at all, do they understand blockers to our ranger correctly, do they bluff even the most marginal candidates leaving their checking/calling range more difficult to protect it goes on an don.

It seems to me the rules are designed to facilitate fast smooth game play and the rule is generally last aggressor shows first. How has the discussion become "the caller is slowing down the game by not just showing the winning hand and is disrespecting the bettor by making him show," when it should be "the last aggressor is refusing to follow the rules, is withholding information the table is entitled to, and is defending this move with emotions that have no relevance to the game or it's rules."

No one at 5/10 or above in a casino is getting angry about needing to show or muck first, unless they are also a rec whale, who should be treated the same way as the newbies at 1/2 and 2/5.

Well, that's not quite true. People get angry for dumb reasons all the time. But no one else at the table is worried about it enough to come make a post here. These are all players who've played tens of thousands of hands. They know that sometimes your bluff gets called.

Threads like these are always talking/arguing about whether you should fastroll in a beginner game with recs. Keep the game friendly.

I was in a 20/40 LHE game at the Borgota many years ago when a guy mucked his hand on the river after bluffing and being called. He threw his hand forward.

The dealer refused to put it in the muck and the player who called didn't turn his hand over.

So the player who had mucked his hand eventually picked it up and turned it over (so that he wouldn't have to wait for the Floor to come over - a Floor I had called for because the dealer wasn't doing her job for the 2nd time that shift). Turned out he had a straight that he didn't realize because he had missed his flush draw. He won the hand.

Had the player who didn't have to turn over his hand, just turned it over he might have won the hand (we will never know if the hand winner was lying about the straight and was just trying to get the other guy to turn his hand over).

On the other hand I was in a 20/40 LHE game at Foxwoods also many years ago when I bluffed on the river. A guy called me and I immediately turned over my 9 high bluff. I had missed a straight and a flush. my opponent mucked his hand and then after the dealer had put it in the muck pile and was starting to push me the pot he realized I did not have anything. The confidence with which I had turned over my hand had led him to believe that I actually had something. I had seen a player do that at the Borgota once with a J high bluff and the other other player similarly was fooled by the confidence.

So aside from the obvious about wanting to see your opponent's hand, not seeing that hand can have its benefits too, unless you have the nuts...

In threads on this topic, it is often mentioned that the rules dictate who shows first, so by following the rules and insisting on the opponent showing first you are not being rude. Interestingly, in RROP there is actually another line in the showdown section that is never mentioned.

So even the rules encourage players to go ahead and show without insisting on proper order when you have a probable winner. In the OP he's got the damn nuts. Show the cards and move on to the next hand.

It's insane to me the rules can be worded that way, like in spirit I get it and agree 100% if you have a set on a no flush no straight board, if you have a full house or better in most situations, etc yeah just show, but for the rules to worded so vague seems like a recipe for problems

There is no way that you’ll benefit in any way from knowing this players cards. Just show, take the pot, toke the dealer, and get onto trying to win the next hand.

This is live 1/2nl full ring where you get like 30 hands an hour. You’ll never be in the same situation vs this player again even if you both played 48hrs per week for a year. Zero chance “tendencies” matter.

To your question. It’s not a breach of etiquette and technically within most rooms rules. I personally try to avoid other players being upset when they have to give me their chips. It can’t be helped in some cases but I still try to avoid it.

This.

In any level game reluctance to show a bluff is a sign of inexperience. Those are the type of players you want to keep friendly/happy.

Anyone with a moderate level of understanding of poker understands that there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing the occasional bluff. In fact, showing the occasional bluff is a good thing.

So if someone is reluctant to show a bluff, they likely don't even have a moderate understanding of the game so you should want them happy and playing at your game. No reason to embarrassed them.

So let's do a quick check on your theory that this is all laid out nice.

V calls your BB in position. Flop, Turn, River is checked down. Who shows first?

V raises preflop on the button, only you call the raise. Again, it is checked down. Who shows first?

V raises UTG, you call from button. V bets flop, you call. Turn is check, bet, call. River is check/check. Who shows first?

V on button raises pre, you only call, check/bet/call flop, check/bet/call turn, check/check river. Who shows first?

I promised you under "standard rules" (both TDA and RRoP) these are all cut and dried, but in reality in most rooms there will be times where players disagree who it is. Even worse, in over 1/2 the rooms I have played in, who is dealing and/or (even much worse) who the players involved are, the 'ruling' will vary.

BTW, the correct ruling under both TDA and RRoP is that ONLY ACTION ON THE RIVER matters. That is last aggressor, but only if the aggression is on the river, is first to show. If no aggression on the river, then in order from SB to Button. But a 'whole bunch' of folks think any aggression on any street can count as the last aggression for this.

This is obviously not true. Even in the OP, he learned that villain turned top pair into a bluff. That's got to be unusual in that player pool, and good to know.

These rules vary by room, but obviously none of these complicated scenarios apply in the OP, which is pretty simple - there was one aggressor on the river, he was supposed to show first, but didn't want to follow the rules, which he almost certainly was familiar with.

1. Mea Culpa, I did not inlude Dilly's post that I was replying to. But it said that the rule was cut and dried for who show's first at the river. I was not referring to the OP but to Dilly_ post that who shows was such a simple and uncontroversial thing, which he then stated incompletely for room which follow TDA or RRoP. That his statement was incomplete making it inaccurate was kinda the whole point.

2. I note in my post that under TDA and RRoP there is only one rule. I agree that it is not universal, but I would be that the rooms written rule/procedure is much more aligned with those to rule sets than the actual rulings you will see take place on the table. But as I noted, under TDA or RRoP, no there is no variance. But that is why I put "standard rules" in quotes AND specified both TDA and RRoP, immediately after.

3. Really, complicated? Checking down flop, turn, river is complicated? betting up to the river and then checking is complicated? Sorry those were actually 4 very tame examples but they certainly are examples that will vary from room to room in the EFFECTIVE ruling even if the actual room rules are consistent. That was the entire point.

Not sure what Dilly was referring to in his post, but this whole thread is mostly about the OP, where under every rule set it is very clear that the other guy should have showed first, and he almost certainly knew that. I just think all the beating up of the OP is uncalled for. Best case, he did nothing wrong, and worst case both him and the other guy were slowing down the game, and the other guy was first to cause a problem.

It's not the last aggressor, it's the person that last initiated action. Checking first on the river is initiating action on that round, hence that's the person that shows first.

Silly rabbit.

You're wrong, but it is probably not worth slowing the game down or becoming a table target. Many successful players on PStars just went by the last 20 hands instead of a hud.

Then someone needs to correct Robert Caiffone…” If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand.”

To speed up the game...
which is stalled because the bettor is slowing the game down.

That is an example of initiating action. But then, so is the first to check on a round.

It's fine.