| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Tue, 20 Jul 2004, 5:05pm Post subject: Showdown protocol
|
 |
|
Full House
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1064
WPP: 108
Location: San Francisco
|
|
From Roberts Rules of Poker:
| Quote: | | 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. |
Ok, so the last player to take aggressive action shows his hand first. I assume the next person who has to show is the small blind, and then it proceeds to his left? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 20 Jul 2004, 5:12pm Post subject: Re: Showdown protocol
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 1887
WPP: 103
Location: Kansas City
|
|
| TheNatural wrote: | | Ok, so the last player to take aggressive action shows his hand first. I assume the next person who has to show is the small blind, and then it proceeds to his left? |
Well, if you asked me what the rule is, unless there is a side-pot, it will go just as the betting goes. SB shows first and then on down the table.
If there is a side pot, you show in progression, using the same order, but skipping the people not involved in the immediate pot. The people involved in side pot 2 show, then push the money to the winner. Next add the people involved in side pot 1, and give the money to the winner. Finally add all the rest for the main pot and give the money to the winner.
But I can't see that it really matters, as long as the winner takes the pot, we can show / muck in whatever order we want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 20 Jul 2004, 5:45pm Post subject: Re: Showdown protocol
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1064
WPP: 108
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Humphrind wrote: | | Well, if you asked me what the rule is, unless there is a side-pot, it will go just as the betting goes. SB shows first and then on down the table. |
That sounds like a fair and simple rule I could use at my home games, since it will be very easy for beginners to understand.
| Humphrind wrote: | | But I can't see that it really matters, as long as the winner takes the pot, we can show / muck in whatever order we want. |
Nah.. Without a rule, everyone would just sit and wait for somebody else to show before they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 2:01pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 112
WPP: 62
Location: Binghamton,NY
|
|
Yeah thats weird. Why wouldn't you want to show your cards. Unless your bluffing on course. I dont mind at all showing first. If I'm not in the pot I love to shout out "Whos got something to be proud of."
Cant see the point of holding on to em for ever. Although I do occationally hold out the second card of my pocket pair to get someone on tilt. God thats fun.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 2:57pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1277
WPP: 105
Location: Drowning in prosperity
|
|
| Poker is a game of information. The less information you give out, the better. I never show my cards unless I am supposed to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 3:05pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 1887
WPP: 103
Location: Kansas City
|
|
| koolmoe wrote: | | Poker is a game of information. The less information you give out, the better. I never show my cards unless I am supposed to. |
I don't think TheNatural is talking about the option of mucking. You can muck if you wish, but he's focusing on the order.
However, that brings up an interesting side question. Mucking at the showdown.
I have never done this, but if I bet / call all the way down, and at showdown time I show my cards and the other person mucks. Do I have the right to see their cards? I think I do. I've paid for that information. Is there anyone who says they don't have to show? If so, why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 3:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 112
WPP: 62
Location: Binghamton,NY
|
|
| OK, Point well taken. I guess I know some of the guys I play with so well. Just doesn't seem to matter. Thanks for reminding me not every game is a freindly game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 3:41pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1064
WPP: 108
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Humphrind wrote: |
I don't think TheNatural is talking about the option of mucking. You can muck if you wish, but he's focusing on the order. |
Hey, I am talking about mucking at the showdown.  That is why the order of showing hands becomes important to me.
For a discussion of the "I want to see that hand" rule, see http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/angelo05.htm
Basically, at all my home games so far everyone has just been showing their cards at the showdown, as if they are required to. I'm trying to implement a showing order so people can muck if they want to, but nobody I play with really cares.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 23 Jul 2004, 6:08pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 1720
WPP: 297
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
|
|
Its like this, Natural. The last person to bet or raise has to show his cards, and has to show them first. He can't muck.
After that, no one needs to show their cards, unless they have him beat. I don't think there's a particular order to that. Usually the winner has a good idea they have the hand (and often they're the last better/raiser anyway), so if they have him beat, they should show.
Although the lesser known rule that has been talked about here (at least in a casino and in hand histories of online poker rooms) is that someone can occasionally demand to see mucked cards at the river. I'm not sure that'd work well in home games. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$100 Freeroll at PokerStars - Dec 11 @ 20:00 ET
