At Foxwoods you have to show both cards at showdown to claim the pot. I'm cool with the rule and in general have no issues showing my cards.

This isn't me upset about having to show my hand in this spot, I think in this situation, showing a hand shouldn't be enforced. I showed rather quickly but discussed it more as the pot was pushed and next hand was dealt, because I don't care about showing my cards.

Checked around flop in limped pot 5 handed. Hero has bottom pair with 56 on 589. Turn is a 3 putting a potential flush draw out and I lead for 7 from the BB and get raised to $25, I know I'm good and call. I check a river A with the intention of check calling villain and he doesn't check but rather just mucks his hand. I assume he has a FD that missed. Dealer tells me I have to show my cards to receive the pot.

Thoughts?

My contention is that we're not at showdown because two people need to have cards to be at showdown, or at least the player needed to check. He didn't check he just open folded his hand.

The dealer told me there was river aggressive action by me checking so therefore my hand needs to be shown. I'm all for having to show your hand at showdown but I think in my case there is no showdown. If the villain open folded they said I wouldn't have to show my hand.

Fwiw the floor I discussed this with later thought I would have to show there as well. Maybe it's just to prevent collusion so someone can't dump stacks to you then open fold and you never have to show. Although that would be much more of an issue in a tournament

Where I play you don't need to show but it would depend on the house rules. It's not the same rule as show two cards to win.

Most rules don’t require you to show in that spot, but some do. Just one of the things that’s a house rule. Personally, I am OK with it as long as it’s enforced consistently.

You are correct, showdown is over, you shouldn't have to show.

But I hear at FW you will split the pot if you refuse to show.

Yeah they have some goofy rules, I just interpret the hand as there not being a showdown. If he checked his hand then mucked before I opened, then that's fine I'll still show my hand. They told me that if the player on the river open folded before I checked I wouldn't have to show, but that my check was the first aggressive action on the river which means a hand has to be shown.

I just thought it was a tad silly, and as I stated before turned my hand up quickly because I don't care either way. Just wanted to see everyone thoughts.

If the room requires you to show both cards to win , then , I suggest you show both cards. Many other places do not require this , or have variant of it. If you play a lot of different places , you need to be up to the "house rules"! As long as rec/beginners are given adequate warning about this particular rule I think it's all right. I just hate to see a dealer "rape" a new player by pushing a pot to a Reg/Bud without warning using this rule. Rare enough, but I have seen it happen at Hollywood Lawrenceburg a few years ago.

Weird rule.

My room is one that requires you to show a hand at showdown even if you're the only one left. I do not think they would require you to show if your only opponent folded the river, as a matter of rule. But I would probably do what you did if they did ask - give them the stink eye and lightly argue my case first, then just comply to get going with the next hand.

My room does not require you to show in that spot.

A check is not aggression. So the dealer is just wrong with his logic. But if rule is you must show a hand to collect then the logic of the rule does not much matter.

Such a dumb rule, but as long as it's enforced consistently then it just is what it is.

I would have done the same thing if I was in your situation. I would have showed my hand and collected the pot as not to slow the game down, but would have asked for a floor immediately after. If you play in this room often I would discuss this with a different floor person the next time you are there, just to see if you get a different answer.

To me it sounds like a misunderstanding of the intent of the rule, but who knows. It definitely would peak enough curiosity for me that I'd want to talk to a few different room supervisors to see if the rule is interpreted differently from person to person. You're the only person left with a live hand, how can they not give you the pot. If you don't want to show, then who gets the pot? Is the room going to confiscate the pot and take it off the table? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

2+2 told me that Foxwoods will split the pot there.

I can't imagine how the gaming rules allow it though.

I prefer that people are not forced to show to claim the pot if the other players muck. Mainly because some fun players get embarrassed about having to show a fishy hand. I don’t want to discourage fishy play.