Most places I play use the rule I'm used to, whereby if the river is checked by all parties in the hand, order of show goes from SB round in order of play.

I have come across some venues, however, including Crown Melbourne, where they use a "Last Aggressor" rule - meaning that if the river is checked around, the last aggressor shows first, even if that aggressive action (bet or raise etc) was on the turn.

I often have some difficulties dealing with this, as it affects some elements of my normal strategy (ie, betting draw in position, checking back the river if I caught a little something to see what they had first). Local players are VERY aware of the rule (however incorrect it is) and will force you to show first. Often results in me showing far more hands than I want to - especially because if I AM in the first position (SB for example) I will frequently automatically show first because that's what I'm used to. Also when I become aware of the rule in my head, I tend to increase my river continuation with missed draws and again, I think local players are somewhat aware of this and more willing to call light.

I guess what I'm wondering is how you would or if there are any ways for countering for this - what changes to your strategy would you make for playing with a Last Aggressor rule? I almost feel like playing out-of-position is almost advantageous in a way, very much promotes a 'trappy' style of play.

Secondary question - which rule do you think- is better and why? /Or correct and why?

I would never change my play at all based on who shows first. I bet to either get value or folds, and if nobody bets on the river, I don't really care that much. If people see my losing hand, I can live with that. If they see my winning hand, that is fine, too. Whenever I think I have a winner at showdown, I show it, rather than taking a lot of time worrying about who goes first.

As for which do I think is better, my preference would be last aggressor. If there is a bet and call on the river, the bettor generally would show first (at least by rule). So I don't see why that should change just because there is no bet on the river.

As for which is correct. That is easy. They are both correct. That is the nature of rules. They aren't correct or incorrect, they simply are rules.

It makes no difference to strategy. Just show your hand

Why are you scared to show a bluff

I agree with this, and certainly, I do tend to show in those spots. I'm talking about more borderline spots, spots where you 'check back with value', so to speak. In most games, you'd then see what they called with, and if it wins, muck, if your value is good enough, show.
(as for the first couple of sentences I haven't quoted, thanks for your thoughts )

Fair enough

That's a very black and white view, which is fine. I tend to think if one way is the rule 99% of the time, then the 1% is therefore incorrect. It IS a house rule and I accept that when I play there.

I mean, a part of strategy involves giving away as little information as possible. Where required to show my hand, I do (promptly) and have no qualms with that. At venues with this rule, positional play results in showing far MORE hands than I usually would. I was simply wondering if anyone would consider playing out of position more, or not bothering betting draws in position, or betting river regardless, etc etc.

Same as answer above to sixfour, and add that I'm definitely not! haha it's also not really a question about bluffing - For an example scenario - say you're button, you have 9dTd on a 2d7d8s, Ks, Th board, you bet flop and turn and get called. On the river, you hit the T, opponent checks - I would typically (in a tournament) check back with the little bit of value, as I've missed my main draws and the T 'might' be good enough against Ax, 56, 89, etc. In most places you play, online included, they'd show first. In Melbourne, I have to show my 9dTd first, and assuming it IS good enough, I never learn what they called me with on earlier streets, meaning I'm missing that information I'd learn in a 'normal' game. If that makes sense.


Poker is a game of incomplete information, we can all agree on that, so gathering as much information as possible and not giving away as much information as possible is good, surely.

I wouldn't change my strategy at all.

Often I show first, no matter my position, or announce what I have when I think I have the winning hand, just to keep the game moving faster and make the other guys not have to feel bad for showing their crap.

Would I do this in high stakes games, nope.
Does it matter in my games? Probably not too much.
Might even end up +EV since I keep people happy and the game running smoothly.

You can say 'I missed' to see if they show (as long as you did miss). Just state your hand and delay turning it over guess .. to 'not' have to show a weak kicker?

Don't worry about showing cards. Take a 'game' like attitude about it and move on. The bigger deal you make of it the more your opponents may make of it. Be sporting about it and try to laugh it off .. obv be aware that you may be called down a bit more/lighter the next couple of orbits.

As far as the rule, most rooms did away with the last aggressor rule to avoid delays/arguments about who actually did show first on a previous street. It usually takes a very long time for something like this to take effect worldwide once the ball gets rolling.

NEVER lie about your hand at Showdown, but if you really want to avoid showing then you can make verbal statements hoping that your opponent takes you at your word and you can 'safely' muck your secrets. GL

Couple of things that seem to have been misunderstood

1) if I KNOW I have a winning hand, I show immediately, for the same reasons Yeodan stated (just to keep the game moving faster etc). The scenarios I'm referring to are for less 'obvious' situations/specifically, checking back with value (which, normally, allows you to see what they've called with). Example given in previous comment near the end.

2) When I do have to show my cards, I do so immediately, I don't argue over it. I think Crown has wrong, but I abide with their house rule when I play there.

Not once have I complained about having to show my cards when it's my turn to do so - every comment so far seems to be under the impression that I am. I'm not - I just find myself showing far MORE (and therefore giving away a LOT more information) with this rule, and I was wondering if anyone would play slightly differently with this rule.

you should never be checking back with value just to see your opponents hand
if your hand is worth a bet, just bet
if it's not and you end up not seeing your opponents hand because you have to show first, it really doesn't matter that much

What kind of game are you playing?
Unless you're playing at least 2/4, but probably more like 5/10, it's extremely unlikely anyone knows what to do with any of the information you're giving them.
In most 1/2 games people probably won't even notice because they're not paying attention.

Oh you think I'm talking about cash games. I am referring to multi-table tournaments, I am more of a tournament player.

In a cash game, I'd bet the T in the example given, yes, I completely agree.

The last aggressor rule isn’t that uncommon. Definitely not the majority of rooms but certainly not a 1% thing.

Trying to adjust a strategy for that sounds counterproductive. At the very best it’s a waste of time. If your 9-high missed its draw, you don’t have to show no matter what position you’re in.

I really don't get what people not wanting to show are hoping to gain here. A thinking player is going to have a very good idea what you have if you delay things and your hand isn't good. A non-thinking player is just going to get pissed off by you slowing the game down. Similarly the other way around - if you're not paying enough attention to work out roughly what hand your opponent has when you're beating him, try doing that instead?

Edit - I'd hazard a guess that most people here would have everything they'd gain by not showing their hand/additionally seeing the opposition hand wiped out and more by the amount of times they accidentally muck a winning hand

It really doesn't matter if it's a cash game or tournament.
If your hand is worth a value bet, you bet, if it's not you don't bet.

While there are similar scenarios where you would bet in a cash game for value and check behind in a tournament, I think those would only be ICM scenarios.

Nothing from the hand you've described makes me think it should be played differently in a cash game than in a tournament.

There's also tons and tons of important info missing from your example, especially if it's a tournament.

1. Always be aware of the house rules. If you play in a new room, you should have a few standard questions (what constitutes a binding bet, how is action reopened, what is the order of tabling hands at showdown, etc) that you should ask a floor or dealer, away from the table, before you sit down. (although, honestly, the tabling of hands one is so trivial that I never bother with that one)
2. People think that tabling a hand reveals so much information that now your opponents will be able to read your soul. The information you reveal is much less consequential than you think. And, if you think it is consequential, all you have to do is be aware of what you have tabled so that you can alter your play to exploit your image
3. The last aggressor, regardless of street, rule is common
4. Just table your hand and let's move to the next hand, mmmm'kay.

If you're talking about low stakes then yes, I completely agree.

Against good opponents people actually underestimate how much info you can give away by showing your hand.

If you are a player where tabling an occasional hand in these situations is going to give away exploitable information, then you are likely so static and predictable that you are already playing face up.

The occasional showdown where you have to table your missed semibluff is the least of your problems

It’s not that common, but I have misread either my hand or the board and have wound up winning a pot that I thought I had lost simply because I showed my hand. In one case I has AK on a two pair board with no A or K. Villain showed 55. I figured he had me beat but I tabled anyway. For some reason I didn’t realize that both pairs on the board were higher than 5’s and was pleasantly surprised when the dealer pushed me the pot. I suspect that one win would represent more value than I’d have gotten by not showing.

My local casinos made it so that all hands go face up at showdown in tournaments. Still people would hesitate over going first.

If you want to form good habits that you can take anywhere then look to the dealer and let them run the game. That's their job after all.

As far as giving info away, you have to show two for a winner anyway, and if you're massively over bluffing such that showing your hand gives away too much then it should be against some nit who probably just slow rolled you anyway. When you play online you get to see hands at every showdown and it doesn't mean that solid players suddenly become easy to play against. A lot of the time what I do is just announce my hand as "pair of kings" or "I've got a set", and just say "I've got nothing" if I was bluffing. That's usually enough to get things moving and, honestly, your ev in most live games is probably increased by getting more hands in and having people at the table relax than it is by getting stuck on this "do I show or don't I" routine.

Actual strat wise it shouldn't change a thing about how you play.