Need clarification on showing hands in live poker.

There is always dispute among my friends in our live home games regarding when someone must show their hand. So I want to clarify a few rules and the ethical way.

1. If the river goes check check then the first to show the hand starts from the SB regardless of the pre river action right?

2. If I got called on the river and the caller instantly shows me his hand then I can simply muck my cards or is it considered unethical to not show in this situation?

3. I call a river all in with the nuts and instantly announce what I have but I don't open my cards and tell the aggressor that I want to see his hand before I will show mine. I know I can do this but is it considered an ethical thing to do?

A second example is where I call a bluff and the player announces that he has nothing. Now in this instance does it get unethical to force someone to show their bluff?

4. In a big pot with multiple players one goes all in on the turn. In a side pot I bet the river and get called. Now do I show the hand before the all in player? Does the player who called me show before the all in player?

5. If 2 players go all in before the river can they mutually decide not to have an open showdown?

6. Can someone win a hand by only showing one card to the table? Like on a 4 to a flush board someone shows just the ace and takes the pot. Can I object to this and demand to see the second card?

1. Correct

2. You can muck here, I personally do not see it as unethical.

3. Well, it is kind of bogus to make them show you their hand when you hold the nuts but rules are rules and they do have to show first.

4. Not 100% sure but I think the side pot is given first so the two players with money left show first and of those two the aggressor shows first. Then the main pot is awarded.

5. If the player who shoved was caught bluffing and does not want to show his hand and muck it instead, then the player who called can win without showing. If the aggressor wants to see your hand then he must show his first(unless you want to be nice)

6. Most poker rooms I have experienced makes you show 2 to win but in a home game idk, house rules I guess.

Honestly all of these come down to house rules but if you want to play with Casino rules then use the above.

Here's a link to the rules that you might find useful: http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#THE_SHOWDOWN

1. Yep, first to act shows first if there was no betting action on the river.

2. You can muck. Anyone else who was in the hand is entitled to ask to see your cards though.

3. Dunno that it's unethical, but it's definitely not classy. I think it's the not turning your hand over bit that bugs me the most - especially if you have the nuts then just show your cards. It won't have any impact whatsoever on your right to see your opponent's hand: if you're OK with being "that guy" then you can still insist in seeing his cards regardless.

4. Showdown order is you (last aggressor), then the other player in the side pot, then the all in player.

5. Not sure I understand what you're asking here... but I suspect the answer depends very much on what type of game it is and where you're playing it.

If it's a tournament then the answer should pretty much always be "no" - in a tournament, the cards are supposed to be flipped up before you even finish running out the board.

In a cash game it's possible something like that might be allowed, depending on house rules etc. There was a hand between David Benyamine and Guy Laliberte years ago on High Stakes Poker that probably fit this description, where they got all in, then decided on a chop arrangement without going to showdown, or even finishing running out the board. I can't remember whether they showed their cards or not in that situation.

If the hand does go to showdown though (as in, all the betting is finished and the full board has been dealt) then the rule is that anyone who wants to claim any part of the pot has to show both of their cards (see rule 1 of the link above).

6. No, they can't (again, see rule 1 in the link) and yes, you're absolutely within your rights to insist on seeing both. Especially if you're in a casino though, you shouldn't have to. The dealer should do the insisting for you, and not give the player any part of the pot until all of their cards are shown.

Thinker_145 said:

There is always dispute among my friends in our live home games regarding when someone must show their hand. So I want to clarify a few rules and the ethical way.

3. I call a river all in with the nuts and instantly announce what I have but I don't open my cards and tell the aggressor that I want to see his hand before I will show mine. I know I can do this but is it considered an ethical thing to do?

6. Can someone win a hand by only showing one card to the table? Like on a 4 to a flush board someone shows just the ace and takes the pot. Can I object to this and demand to see the second card?

Click to expand...

3. I don't think it's unethical, but it is definitely immature and obnoxious. If you have the nuts and you want to see what the other person has, wait for him to show first. Since the other person was the aggressor, he is supposed to show first. Calling an all-in and then announcing, "I've got the nuts" is just a tad disrespectful to your opponent. Hell, why stop there? Why don't you just stand up and start doing the Icky Shuffle and then slam your cards down on the table and scream, 'Suck on my nuts, beeyotch!' Just flip your cards over after he shows his and you will still win the pot and you'll come across as a classy player.

6. If I am understanding you correctly, you don't need to show both cards to win a pot. If there are 4 hearts on a board, and you have the ace of hearts and your opponent turns over a set, there is no real reason for you to show your other card.

teepack said:

3. I don't think it's unethical, but it is definitely immature and obnoxious. If you have the nuts and you want to see what the other person has, wait for him to show first. Since the other person was the aggressor, he is supposed to show first. Calling an all-in and then announcing, "I've got the nuts" is just a tad disrespectful to your opponent. Hell, why stop there? Why don't you just stand up and start doing the Icky Shuffle and then slam your cards down on the table and scream, 'Suck on my nuts, beeyotch!' Just flip your cards over after he shows his and you will still win the pot and you'll come across as a classy player.

6. If I am understanding you correctly, you don't need to show both cards to win a pot. If there are 4 hearts on a board, and you have the ace of hearts and your opponent turns over a set, there is no real reason for you to show your other card.

Click to expand...

But that would be slow rolling which is generally considered pretty unethical. If the opponent also has a monster and you stay quiet after calling with the nuts he would have believed he has won the hand.

And the link posted above said that both cards must be shown to claim any part of the pot. Its useful for information purposes as to what hand the winning player was playing.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

If you have the nuts or what you know to be the best hand, turn it over straight away. Waiting until it's 'your turn' is just slow rolling.

Also asking to see a losing players when they try to muck is not against the rules but is considered bad etiquette unless you believe there is some kind of collusion.

Your first question about showdown does depend on house rules.
I have seen a few casinos enforce a last aggressive action showdown rule. I don't agree with that but it's common.

teepack said:

6. If I am understanding you correctly, you don't need to show both cards to win a pot. If there are 4 hearts on a board, and you have the ace of hearts and your opponent turns over a set, there is no real reason for you to show your other card.

Click to expand...

There is a real reason; and that is because it's the rules of the game. You always need two cards to win at showdown.