[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
If the loser had shown first and then the winner had tabled his hand, could the dealer have given the first to show (loser) the pot? Was the dealer totally wrong in saying this?

[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't wrong in saying this since he is trying to get two knuckleheads to move the game along. However, he would not be able to abide by that if both players ended up turning their cards over.

[ QUOTE ]
I was upset with the dealer for not just telling player 1 to show. That's the rule, right? Last to act (bet/raise) shows first?

[/ QUOTE ]
When there is no betting on the river, you show in order of position. At least that's the usual rule when I go to a casino.

There is mention in Robert's Rules that a player with a probable winning hand should show right away to keep the game moving. It's not an enforceable rule but rather a sportsmanship recomendation. Other players and dealers appreciate it.

This sorta reminds me now of something else that comes up a lot. On the river, heads up, Player 1 bluffs and Player 2 calls the bluff. Player 1, who must show first, sometimes says you caught me in a bluff, you probably got it. But sometimes he doesn't muck, he just holds his cards and waits for Player 2 to flip over his winning hand.

If I'm player 2, I'm a little conflicted over what to do here. Most of the time I will just flip and let player 1 muck in shame. However, if for whatever reason player 1 has called me on something earlier, irritated me or whatever, I'll ask him to show before I show or muck and then I'll collect and muck behind.

So in the end, there is sometimes more to it when two guys are butting heads.