This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

I don't want to get too much into the details of the hand, just want to know if the ruling at the end is correct. I have 62s and raise preflop in a 1-2 NL game and get 3 callers.

Flop comes A-4-2, with one of my suit. BB checks, I check, player directly to my left bets, BB calls, I call.

Turn gives me a flush draw. BB checks, I check, player bets, BB folds, I call.

River misses me-- we both check.

I have no desire to show this piece of crap pair of deuces that I'm holding, but there is a small chance that the villain was on a flush draw also and I'm good. My interpretation of the rule is that since villain initiated the last bet (on the turn) and was called, that he is obligated to show his hand first. The floor told me that "a check is action" and since I checked on the river, I initiated the last action and I had to show first. This makes no sense to me as basically, unless there is a raise on the river, the player who is out of position would have to show first everytime. amirite?

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

[ QUOTE ]
unless there is a raise on the river, the player who is out of position would have to show first everytime. amirite?


[/ QUOTE ]

Or if the player in position bets and gets caleld by the out of position player. There are some notable exceptions, but this is the standard rule.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

This is the rule in our cardroom as well. If Player B bets the turn and is called, and the river is checked through, whomever checks first (and is therefore taking first action on the river), shows first.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

quick search online shows confusion, with a preponderance supporting the floor in my hand.

still, I have been playing for years under the assumption that the last "aggressive action" meant that exactly, so that if someone bet on the flop and was called and no further betting took place on future streets, the flop better should show first regardless of his position.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no desire to show this piece of crap pair of deuces that I'm holding, but there is a small chance that the villain was on a flush draw also and I'm good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to flip it over and win with a pair of ducks.

Who cares what they think of you playing 62s? Just flip your hand over.

b

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'd love to flip it over and win with a pair of ducks.

Who cares what they think of you playing 62s? Just flip your hand over.

b

[/ QUOTE ]


because my image was exactly as manical as i wanted it and not an iota more.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

Basic rule is this: if there is no action on the river, the showing of hands starts from the small blind and procedes clockwise from the button.

There is no way for a hand to have zero action all the way through because of the blinds being there. If there is action on the river, last aggressive action shows first.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

I was under the impression that it could go either way depending on the location.

Where I play if there is no action on the river then showdown begins with SB and goes in order from there.

I have heard that last action shows down first in other cardrooms.

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd love to flip it over and win with a pair of ducks.

Who cares what they think of you playing 62s? Just flip your hand over.

b

[/ QUOTE ]


because my image was exactly as manical as i wanted it and not an iota more.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you really think this hand would've affected your image?

b

Re: This ruling can\'t be right, can it??
 

Hass,
You would be correct in southeast Louisiana for NLHE as far as I've seen.