|
|
#21
03-16-2006, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: order of showing hands
I like the Borg rule. It's a simple extension of getting called by someone. If you are called on the river, you are supposed to show first. That sentiment is preserved by carrying it over from the turn.
Not saying, it SHOULD be that way, but the reason for it has a sensible logic to it that is comparable to anything else. FWIW, one of the most annoying things at the table is when people almost refuse to show esp when it's their turn. Next time that happens, I'm going to state that anyone who goes heads up with me is going to have their hand shown by the dealer for an hour - a bit petty, but I'm actually curious how that will work out. 
|
|
#22
03-16-2006, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: order of showing hands
Last aggressor shows first here in Edmonton; does Robert's Rules have anything to say about this?
|
|
#23
03-17-2006, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: order of showing hands
[ QUOTE ]
Next time that happens, I'm going to state that anyone who goes heads up with me is going to have their hand shown by the dealer for an hour - a bit petty, but I'm actually curious how that will work out. [/ QUOTE ] It's probably -EV to do that because the table will view you as a nit. I hate guys who won't show, but I generally just hem and haw until they do if I really care that much.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
