order of showdown

[mooredog]

In our poker room the showdown order in button games with no betting on the final betting round is as follows: "The last player who took aggressive action regardless of the street is first to show." It was that way when I broke into poker and I know I saw it written in many rules lists, but recently a heated argument broke out in our room when a player did not want to show first and said the first player in front of the button shows first. I researched it a bit and found he was right for most poker rooms, including the wsop, and the latest Robert's Rules. My question is this. Is this the way the rule has always been in the industry or is it somewhat new? We have changed rules in our room as the industry has and like to keep current. Maybe we have been wrong all along but I don't think so.

[WSOPMcGee]

In the US, the rule of who shows first at showdown is governed by two things:
1) If there was a bet, last aggressor shows first.
2) If there was no bet, players show first in turn.

I'd say nearly 90-99% of all rooms in the US use the above.

In Europe the opposite is true. Nearly all rooms over there use the rule that last aggressor shows first no matter what. Also if there is no betting and all streets are checked in FLOP games, I believe the person in best position shows first(?)

Not sure why the difference in US rooms. However, one thing comes to mind - In limit poker, often times betting is capped. If the betting is capped, is it capped because they are the aggressor or because other players in the game are raising continuously and they are tired of wasting time and calling 1 or 2 bets more each betting round and decide to put in the final raise before it gets back to the aggressive players. Maybe the player who wishes to raise more, can't because it's capped?

In NLH, if you have several all-ins, who's the aggressor? Is it the player with the largest bet? Is it the player who went all-in first? Last?

One thing is for sure, the order of action never changes and is easy to follow. It's a constant. Thus showing first in turn makes some sense.

[Stuart Murray]

hi mooredog,

I believe you are correct in what you claim the last aggressor shows first irrelevant of betting street, which was previously used, as I can remember utilising this in said manner previously.  Now we follow TDA standard of last aggressive action on that street, if their was no bet first position and so on, I also add "a player who thinks they have a probable winner is encouraged to show their hand without delay"

Regards
Stu

[Nick C]

Years ago, we used to use the last aggressive act, even from the first betting round (street,)  but I think the reason that many rooms switched to the last round of betting is because there would be confusion as to who made the last bet or raise on the earlier round. Look to the house rule. It should not be a problem, either way.

[W0lfster]

So are you saying Nick that if someone bets on the flop or the turn and isnt the SB and everyone checks on the river, would you get the small blind to show first then the BB round to
the button?

[Nick C]

It's one or the other. If that is the house rule (last act of aggression) then that is the player to show their cards first.