I call, villain delays showdown. Advice?
Once you become a parent of teenagers. you won't find this concept so unusual. In fact the rule book does precisely what you say I want it to do.
What I actually want is for the rules about showdown to go back to what they were about 70 years ago: everybody still in the hand has to show - no mucking allowed. However, that's never going to happen.
Thank-you for making my point for me.
What I actually want is for the rules about showdown to go back to what they were about 70 years ago: everybody still in the hand has to show - no mucking allowed. However, that's never going to happen.
Thank-you for making my point for me.
If only there was a term for such a thing...
I paid to see his cards so I have the right to see them
, conversation over.
It's not my problem villain is embarrassed to show his pathetic attempt of a bluff to the table, everybody knows hes full of it anyway when that happens.
I don't play anywhere near high stakes that much I can tell you
But honestly, I don't get that "unwritten rule" and it doesn't make much sense to me. If he doesn't want to show he can just muck his hand.
He will show it when he has the best hand, so what's the difference?
I think this "I don't want people to get an idea of how I play certain hands"-attitude is just annoying and serves little purpose, especially at the lower stakes. High stakes may be different.
But honestly, I don't get that "unwritten rule" and it doesn't make much sense to me. If he doesn't want to show he can just muck his hand.
He will show it when he has the best hand, so what's the difference?
I think this "I don't want people to get an idea of how I play certain hands"-attitude is just annoying and serves little purpose, especially at the lower stakes. High stakes may be different.
Well, if you're interested in understanding it, there's been a lot written about it. I can say from my own experience dealing poker, that higher stakes players tend to understand and respect this etiquette guideline. At least, in my experience, which is only my own. Someone else may have observed different behavior.
Why do you keep ignoring this fact, as well as the fact that the rules explicitly state that the person who is called is supposed to show first (or muck)?
Definitely possible for two people to be dbags at the same time.
Less likely to be possible is doing X, saying "yes, but X is not technically forbidden by the rules" and not be a dbag
Less likely to be possible is doing X, saying "yes, but X is not technically forbidden by the rules" and not be a dbag
Why all the concern about protecting embarrassed fish from showing first (as being bad for the game by scaring them away)?
Isn't it possible for the caller to be embarrassed by a loose call as well? Or for the hesitating "embarrassed" bettor to be slow rolling? If I call down with middle pair **** kicker because I thought villain was bluffing and turned out to be wrong, don't I want to protect myself from giving away information to the entire table about my hand strength given the board texture and action by mucking without showing once the bettor's (and winner) hand is revealed?
I honestly don't get the the label of douche or nit or whatever being thrown against a caller who wants the "bettor shows first" rule to be enforced. As long as the caller isn't slow rolling with the nuts, I think the VAST majority of irritation at the hand being stalled should be directed at the bettor.
I mean there are always exceptions, and I stress again that this is relatively rare (if I'm positive I have the best hand I just flip it over once the betting is done regardless of position), but it really seems like everyone is assuming that the caller is always in the wrong for wanting the actual hand showdown protocol enforced, and that hasn't been my experience at all.
Isn't it possible for the caller to be embarrassed by a loose call as well? Or for the hesitating "embarrassed" bettor to be slow rolling? If I call down with middle pair **** kicker because I thought villain was bluffing and turned out to be wrong, don't I want to protect myself from giving away information to the entire table about my hand strength given the board texture and action by mucking without showing once the bettor's (and winner) hand is revealed?
I honestly don't get the the label of douche or nit or whatever being thrown against a caller who wants the "bettor shows first" rule to be enforced. As long as the caller isn't slow rolling with the nuts, I think the VAST majority of irritation at the hand being stalled should be directed at the bettor.
I mean there are always exceptions, and I stress again that this is relatively rare (if I'm positive I have the best hand I just flip it over once the betting is done regardless of position), but it really seems like everyone is assuming that the caller is always in the wrong for wanting the actual hand showdown protocol enforced, and that hasn't been my experience at all.
Why is this so hard? If they say something like "I missed" or "You're good" I just table my hand, and accept the pot when it's pushed to me.
Bingo! Be silent and let the dealer do his job.
The onus is on the last agressor.
So what you are saying is that while you understand the spirit of the rules, and what you are encouraged to do, you are going to continue to do something because you are not explicitly prohibited from doing it in the rule book?
If only there was a term for such a thing...
If only there was a term for such a thing...
No, I am not "going to continue" doing it. I am reserving the possibility that I might do it on rare occaision. I haven't delibertately waited my turn to show yet this year. I don't remember doing it last year. I may have done it half a dozen times in my life.
I think I understand the spirit of the rules better than anybody who makes the arguiment that, because the rules encourage something, one must always do it. When a ruleset does not require something, but does encourage it, you are allowed to not do it, but you should have a good reason, and your shouldn't do it very often.
If the rules meant to require showing first, they would. They don't. Why is that?
I entered this thread to debate a misstatement of the meaning of the rules. My point was the rules encourage showing quckly when you have a good hand, but that they don't require it. Since everybody now seems to agree with that position, it is merely left to discuss how often is acceptable, and what reasons are acceptable. I don't think those matters have definitive answers.
And if they want to muck before I show, I will let them. I've won a few pots that way when the other player decides to much out of turn instead of showing when I missed, too.
Plus, I've been slow-rolled often enough when I don't do this that I decided that's not going to happen again.
You are knocking down a strawman. I never said that the rulebook prohibited douchebags from holding up the game by insisting on the order of showdown when they have a probable winner. The right to be a jerk in that situation is absolutely protected.
What I said is that the rulebook also says that what you SHOULD do is not be a suppository and instead show your hand. You aren't required to. You can be a doofus if you wish and not do it. That's always your choice. But the RIGHT choice is to show.
What I said is that the rulebook also says that what you SHOULD do is not be a suppository and instead show your hand. You aren't required to. You can be a doofus if you wish and not do it. That's always your choice. But the RIGHT choice is to show.
What you said was
The way I read the rules is that if I think my hand is likely to be good, I'm supposed to show it. That's what the rules actually say.
Because the rules allow you to wait your turn, it is reasonable to assume that the rules contemplate that sometimes waiting your turn is OK. What the rules actually say is
8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. 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. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay.
Where does it say that in the rules? It doesn't. It is a logicial concluson you arrived at by following the operation of the rules. Well, it is also a logcal concusion that players who call a bet get (along with all the other players dealt in) the opportunity to see the other players' hand. Whether they made the call in order to see the hand or in order to have a chance to win the pot (or both) is not determined by the rules at all. It is determined by the motivatin of the player making the call.
While even then there may have been an argument that strictly speaking you were paying to have a chance to win the pot, it was an avoidable fact that if you called, you got to see the other hand.
No set of rules I have ever read says you are paying for anything. Neither do they say what you are not paying for. If a person calls (under the old rules) they will see the hands of any other player who is still in at showdown. Hence there is a cause and effect relationship between calling, and seeing the other players' hands. Therefore a person who calls for the purpose of invoking that relationship has paid to see the hand, even if the rules don't put it that way.
In the phrase "pay to see" the prepositon "to" means "for the purpose of". The rules do not address purpose, they address effect. If you call, they will show. They show because that's what the rules said they must do if you called. They showed because you paid.
A simple example will show this. Everyone else at the table ALSO gets to see all hands at showdown under that rule. (Indeed, under current rules, anyone at the table can STILL request to see all hands, although the right can be taken away if abused.) In other words, people who under your theory DID NOT "pay" for the information still get it. That makes no sense.
Alos, the IWTSTH rule is not relevent to the example I gave about "paying to see" under the old showdown rules.
The IWTSTH rule did not exist at the same time as the old rule that requried all hands at showdown to show, and neither did the encouragement to show probable winners first. Both are innovations introduced together post-WWII to speed up the game. The IWTSTH rule was introduced along with players being allowed to muck at showdown. It was introduced to retain the rights a player has always had to see a hand that went to showdown, but to make it the exception, so usually showdowns would go faster.
My point was the rules encourage showing quckly when you have a good hand, but that they don't require it. Since everybody now seems to agree with that position, it is merely left to discuss how often is acceptable, and what reasons are acceptable. I don't think those matters have definitive answers.
I can't even remember the last time I saw a slowroll. I've seen plenty of people get irritated at perceived slowrolls, but legitimate deliberate needling slowrolls are incredibly rare.
I agree with this. There are always exceptions, but they are that. The line is different for everybody, but I think if we all respect this custom, we set a good standard, and can respect when someone finds need to wait. I only challenge people to keep pushing back their line for exceptions, to keep them improving their overall observational and hand-reading skills.
I can't even remember the last time I saw a slowroll. I've seen plenty of people get irritated at perceived slowrolls, but legitimate deliberate needling slowrolls are incredibly rare.
I can't even remember the last time I saw a slowroll. I've seen plenty of people get irritated at perceived slowrolls, but legitimate deliberate needling slowrolls are incredibly rare.
Although your last bit made me lol, I saw a guy slow roll with quads the last time I played. Apparently I need to get off the kiddie tables.
Or for the hesitating "embarrassed" bettor to be slow rolling? If I call down with middle pair **** kicker because I thought villain was bluffing and turned out to be wrong, don't I want to protect myself from giving away information to the entire table about my hand strength given the board texture and action by mucking without showing once the bettor's (and winner) hand is revealed?
I honestly don't get the the label of douche or nit or whatever being thrown against a caller who wants the "bettor shows first" rule to be enforced. As long as the caller isn't slow rolling with the nuts, I think the VAST majority of irritation at the hand being stalled should be directed at the bettor.
I mean there are always exceptions, and I stress again that this is relatively rare (if I'm positive I have the best hand I just flip it over once the betting is done regardless of position), but it really seems like everyone is assuming that the caller is always in the wrong for wanting the actual hand showdown protocol enforced, and that hasn't been my experience at all.
Its my opinion that it is almost never worth it, and so I just always table my hand instantly, or as soon as I think to do so (like sometimes I will say call, and then if he is turning his hand over right away I will be too busy looking at his and seeing what he has to INSTANTLY turn mine over).
I haven't delibertately waited my turn to show yet this year. I don't remember doing it last year. I may have done it half a dozen times in my life.
I think I understand the spirit of the rules better than anybody who makes the arguiment that, because the rules encourage something, one must always do it. When a ruleset does not require something, but does encourage it, you are allowed to not do it, but you should have a good reason, and your shouldn't do it very often.
I think I understand the spirit of the rules better than anybody who makes the arguiment that, because the rules encourage something, one must always do it. When a ruleset does not require something, but does encourage it, you are allowed to not do it, but you should have a good reason, and your shouldn't do it very often.
If the rules meant to require showing first, they would. They don't. Why is that?
I entered this thread to debate a misstatement of the meaning of the rules. My point was the rules encourage showing quckly when you have a good hand, but that they don't require it. Since everybody now seems to agree with that position, it is merely left to discuss how often is acceptable, and what reasons are acceptable. I don't think those matters have definitive answers.
If they do say "I missed" I will show. But if they say "you're good," I don't know what they're saying that with. They could have a hand better than me. It's up to them to show first. That's the rule.
And if they want to muck before I show, I will let them. I've won a few pots that way when the other player decides to much out of turn instead of showing when I missed, too.
Plus, I've been slow-rolled often enough when I don't do this that I decided that's not going to happen again.
And if they want to muck before I show, I will let them. I've won a few pots that way when the other player decides to much out of turn instead of showing when I missed, too.
Plus, I've been slow-rolled often enough when I don't do this that I decided that's not going to happen again.
It just stuns me a little bit to think that it could actually bother you to be slowrolled, if you take poker seriously at all. I've been slowrolled so many times, and it ranges from neutral to absolutely hilarious every time. I have never been slowrolled by a player who was better than me, so its universally a good sign for the game.
I look young and talk a lot, and play with a lot of grumpy old dudes. I get slowrolled like on a weekly basis, haha.
I'm closer to a fish than I am a shark, I'll say that.
Is it possible the guy with quads was just making sure the pot was right and there were no more players in the hand? We have another active thread where someone had a big problem from exposing cards too quickly due to thinking the hand was over when it wasn't. Most "slowrolls" are people double checking to make sure the hand is truly over.
It just stuns me a little bit to think that it could actually bother you to be slowrolled, if you take poker seriously at all. I've been slowrolled so many times, and it ranges from neutral to absolutely hilarious every time. I have never been slowrolled by a player who was better than me, so its universally a good sign for the game.
This is why when I'm in a pot, I don't expect to win until I'm the last player with a live hand. Even if we're all-in and exposed and I have top set vs a backdoor gutshot, I fully expect that unlikely hand to beat me. I suspect you have a similar perspective.
That way, if I lose, it matches expectation. I don't get tilted or angry. When I win, it exceeds expectation, so I'm happy.
So many people choose perspectives that tend to lead to unhappiness and frustration. Poker players often seem to like setting themselves up for anger. I like to be happy, so I do what I can to set myself up for happiness.
I understand why it stings. It's from expectation clashing with reality. That's the cause of most anger anywhere, I feel.
This is why when I'm in a pot, I don't expect to win until I'm the last player with a live hand. Even if we're all-in and exposed and I have top set vs a backdoor gutshot, I fully expect that unlikely hand to beat me. I suspect you have a similar perspective.
That way, if I lose, it matches expectation. I don't get tilted or angry. When I win, it exceeds expectation, so I'm happy.
So many people choose perspectives that tend to lead to unhappiness and frustration. Poker players often seem to like setting themselves up for anger. I like to be happy, so I do what I can to set myself up for happiness.
As the hand progresses, my confidence in my chances of winning wax and wane, but they really dont change that much between the time that action is over and the time that the cards are tabled/pot is pushed, no matter how long that time is.
I think your last paragraph is perfect.
Do you know the GTO strategy for repeated Prisoner's Dilemma?
Maybe I really do play poker is a parallel world, but....are most of the players you play against good? Think about the big picture, and what your ultimate aim is. Winning these tete-a-tete battles, heck even winning HANDS and POTS, are not the point of poker, at least not to me. Its about winning money. And these kinds of things hurt your winrate.
I primarily deal kiddie tables. I see more people upset at a perceived slowroll than I see actual intentional slowrolls.
Is it possible the guy with quads was just making sure the pot was right and there were no more players in the hand? We have another active thread where someone had a big problem from exposing cards too quickly due to thinking the hand was over when it wasn't. Most "slowrolls" are people double checking to make sure the hand is truly over.
I understand why it stings. It's from expectation clashing with reality. That's the cause of most anger anywhere, I feel.
This is why when I'm in a pot, I don't expect to win until I'm the last player with a live hand. Even if we're all-in and exposed and I have top set vs a backdoor gutshot, I fully expect that unlikely hand to beat me. I suspect you have a similar perspective.
That way, if I lose, it matches expectation. I don't get tilted or angry. When I win, it exceeds expectation, so I'm happy.
So many people choose perspectives that tend to lead to unhappiness and frustration. Poker players often seem to like setting themselves up for anger. I like to be happy, so I do what I can to set myself up for happiness.
Is it possible the guy with quads was just making sure the pot was right and there were no more players in the hand? We have another active thread where someone had a big problem from exposing cards too quickly due to thinking the hand was over when it wasn't. Most "slowrolls" are people double checking to make sure the hand is truly over.
I understand why it stings. It's from expectation clashing with reality. That's the cause of most anger anywhere, I feel.
This is why when I'm in a pot, I don't expect to win until I'm the last player with a live hand. Even if we're all-in and exposed and I have top set vs a backdoor gutshot, I fully expect that unlikely hand to beat me. I suspect you have a similar perspective.
That way, if I lose, it matches expectation. I don't get tilted or angry. When I win, it exceeds expectation, so I'm happy.
So many people choose perspectives that tend to lead to unhappiness and frustration. Poker players often seem to like setting themselves up for anger. I like to be happy, so I do what I can to set myself up for happiness.
Well, given that he pretended to muck before flipping over the quads, I'm pretty sure it was a slow roll.
Incidentally, I think you're pretty much spot on about why so many people tilt so very, very hard.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE