What Are Your Thoughts On This Showdown Rule?

[Jeffage]

At Borgata, the person who put in the last aggressive action on a hand is required to show first if the river is checked down. What do you think of this rule? I personally dislike it because I'm used to the old way where you can raise someone on the turn (or bet the turn) with position and, if you check behind on the end, you get to look at his cards first (ie. worst position shows first on a checked river). Is your cardroom like this? The Taj Mahal in AC does it the standard way as does Bellagio, Mirage, etc AFAIK.

Jeff

I personally dont care who shows first unless I was full out bluffing. I do agree that the turn betting should not have any influence on the river showdown. If its checked all around on the river, the first person to act, or the person in worst position as you put it should show first.

I play mainly at pechanga in so cal, and I dont think I have ever seen the turn betting affect who showed the hand first. Then again I cant say that I have really paid that much attention to it.

[sirpupnyc]

If you think you've got the best hand, show your damn cards. Let's get on to the next.

I've never had much patience for all that "you're called, you have to show first" fussing, and happily haven't run into it in casinos.

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never had much patience for all that "you're called, you have to show first" fussing, and happily haven't run into it in casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably have never run into it b/c nobody believes that's the rule. Everyone understands, "the bettor shows." But if there is no bet on the final round of the hand, I think worst position should show first since it's a standard poker rule. This information can be very valuable.

I'm not hardcore about this, but I prefer the normal showdown procedure in these spots. It's just another benefit of having position.

Jeff

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never had much patience for all that "you're called, you have to show first" fussing, and happily haven't run into it in casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably have never run into it b/c nobody believes that's the rule. Everyone understands, "the bettor shows." But if there is no bet on the final round of the hand, I think worst position should show first since it's a standard poker rule. This information can be very valuable.

I'm not hardcore about this, but I prefer the normal showdown procedure in these spots. It's just another benefit of having position.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Personally, I think the last aggressor, even if it was on the turn with a checked river, should be the one to show down. However, it's usually not that way in the house rules.

al

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think the last aggressor, even if it was on the turn with a checked river, should be the one to show down. However, it's usually not that way in the house rules.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never heard of the rule. But I like it too. People should just cut the crap and show the river. The amount of additional information is minimal.

[Evan]

Weird. Like 95% of the live poker I've played on the east coast has been at the Borg or in NYC (where they have the same rule). I always assumed it was a uniform rule on the east coast.

As long as no one starts a riot, and the players keep coming, I guess the "House" can set the rules as they see fit. Short of a pair beating trips, or some other nonsense.

Personally, I can't remember ever seeing any table where the player left of the button wasn't the first to show after it's been checked down. I've noticed those who can't beat a shown hand frequently muck without showing. I'm in that group.

[flawless_victory]

this rule sucks.