So U R going to LV During WSOP---STFU and watch!

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the "last aggressive action shows first" rule controversial? I'd look at the dealer like he grew a second head if he asked me to show first. I'd just like to know so I can give the floor pre-emtive crap about a horrible rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Standard" in Vegas is "last aggressor shows first if there was action on the river. If the river was checked down, hands are shown starting with left of the button and working around. Which is what fishhead describes, he just phrased it differently.

There are exceptions. Dunno if they still do it, or if they ever really did it, but a dealer once explained in great and explicit detail that the rule at Bally's is last aggressor shows first, regardless of what street the action took place. So if it's bet on the flop, but checked on the turn and river, whomever bet the flop is first to show. But that's unusual and I was never really sure that was an official Bally's rule and not just a single dealer on crack. I was surprised by this and made sure she had said what I thought she said, and she explained she was 100% sure that was the official Bally's rule. But I never asked a floor and oddly enough, in like the year since that happened there hasn't been any controversy about who shows first when I've played at Bally's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proper terminology from some 30 years ago when I was a kid and around this racket was "He who initiates last action shows first."

When there was a check, bet, call on the turn, and a check check on the river, what was the last action and whom initiated it?

Answer correctly and get a cookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last action was the out-of-position player checking the river. It was initiated by said out-of-position player.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] cookies

[/ QUOTE ]

There reason why there is often misunderstanding about this rule when new players come to Vegas is because is some markets the rule is last significant action.

[rgold79]

People that whine and complain about having to show their hand are the most miserable people on Earth. Grow up and turn your cards over. You people make me sick!

(The above is why I could never be a dealer. I feel your pain.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the "last aggressive action shows first" rule controversial? I'd look at the dealer like he grew a second head if he asked me to show first. I'd just like to know so I can give the floor pre-emtive crap about a horrible rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Standard" in Vegas is "last aggressor shows first if there was action on the river. If the river was checked down, hands are shown starting with left of the button and working around. Which is what fishhead describes, he just phrased it differently.

There are exceptions. Dunno if they still do it, or if they ever really did it, but a dealer once explained in great and explicit detail that the rule at Bally's is last aggressor shows first, regardless of what street the action took place. So if it's bet on the flop, but checked on the turn and river, whomever bet the flop is first to show. But that's unusual and I was never really sure that was an official Bally's rule and not just a single dealer on crack. I was surprised by this and made sure she had said what I thought she said, and she explained she was 100% sure that was the official Bally's rule. But I never asked a floor and oddly enough, in like the year since that happened there hasn't been any controversy about who shows first when I've played at Bally's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proper terminology from some 30 years ago when I was a kid and around this racket was "He who initiates last action shows first."

When there was a check, bet, call on the turn, and a check check on the river, what was the last action and whom initiated it?

Answer correctly and get a cookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last action was the out-of-position player checking the river. It was initiated by said out-of-position player.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] cookies

[/ QUOTE ]

There reason why there is often misunderstanding about this rule when new players come to Vegas is because is some markets the rule is last significant action.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a guy bets $10 into a $3500 pot, is that significant action?


<font color="white"> just messing with you </font>

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the "last aggressive action shows first" rule controversial? I'd look at the dealer like he grew a second head if he asked me to show first. I'd just like to know so I can give the floor pre-emtive crap about a horrible rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Standard" in Vegas is "last aggressor shows first if there was action on the river. If the river was checked down, hands are shown starting with left of the button and working around. Which is what fishhead describes, he just phrased it differently.

There are exceptions. Dunno if they still do it, or if they ever really did it, but a dealer once explained in great and explicit detail that the rule at Bally's is last aggressor shows first, regardless of what street the action took place. So if it's bet on the flop, but checked on the turn and river, whomever bet the flop is first to show. But that's unusual and I was never really sure that was an official Bally's rule and not just a single dealer on crack. I was surprised by this and made sure she had said what I thought she said, and she explained she was 100% sure that was the official Bally's rule. But I never asked a floor and oddly enough, in like the year since that happened there hasn't been any controversy about who shows first when I've played at Bally's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proper terminology from some 30 years ago when I was a kid and around this racket was "He who initiates last action shows first."

When there was a check, bet, call on the turn, and a check check on the river, what was the last action and whom initiated it?

Answer correctly and get a cookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last action was the out-of-position player checking the river. It was initiated by said out-of-position player.

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] cookies

[/ QUOTE ]

There reason why there is often misunderstanding about this rule when new players come to Vegas is because is some markets the rule is last significant action.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a guy bets $10 into a $3500 pot, is that significant action?


<font color="white"> just messing with you </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

significant action means the last bet of any kind, not the last call. Another way of saying this would be last aggressor.

[MicroBob]

RR and others have stated that they think this leads to more angle-shooting type stuff.

I too would like to see a rule-book there.

Cocky idiots in from out of town who think they know all the rules and being all smart about it is one thing.

But I really don't understand how new players and tourists are supposed to understand some of the basic stuff just implicitly.

Even just simple, basic procedural stuff such as informing players to turn-up their cards in FRONT of them and not throw it into the middle of the table.
Newish, and not as newish, players throw their cards into the middle of the table all the time.

Some dealers are good at warning players that they shouldn't do this.
Others just let them get away with it possibly on a mindset of, "If they're too stupid not to know otherwise then it's on them if they accidentally foul their hand or throw it off the table or something."


What also bothers me is that players are supposed to correct dealer-mistakes or other situations.
But then we are told that players should just STFU.
And it seems like contradictory advice to me.


This is different than what bigfishhead was dealing with though where cocky, young idiots clearly didn't know as much as they thought they did.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So if a guy bets $10 into a $3500 pot, is that significant action?


<font color="white"> just messing with you </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

significant action means the last bet of any kind, not the last call. Another way of saying this would be last aggressor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my sneaky white text. Anyway, I suppose this isn't the thread to be messing around in....

In any case, OP is mostly preaching to the choir here. I don't mean that everybody who reads this board is a savvy B&amp;M player but people who will come here and read this stuff are generally not the type of people that blow up when their home game rule is not the same as the rule at the WSOP.

The self-important blowhard who thinks he knows everything is not going to read this thread and re-evaluate his behavior. Since he's always right, why would he have to hear the other point of view? Issues like those in the OP are going to happen so long as there is no standardized cardroom rules that apply everywhere.

As a tangential point, I would appreciate it greatly if the Vegas rooms made their rule books accessible to the public. I don't buy the excuse that their availability would encourage angle-shooting. If it does, the rule book itself needs to be revised.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
But I really don't understand how new players and tourists are supposed to understand some of the basic stuff just implicitly.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't need to know everything when they sit down. The problem is with the tourists/new players who confidently and beligerantly believe that they know what is correct. If a new player is unsure of the rule and does not like what he is told be a dealer, he should ask the floor. Once he learns the rule for that room, accept it and play on. If it is unacceptable, go somewhere else.

As with other rules that do not directly effect the outcome of the hand, there is no REAL or RIGHT "show first" rule -- there is the rule of the room you are playing in. Stop wasting our time fighting about how Atlantic City or LA or Bum F*ck, Iowa does it better. You are not playing there, you are playing here (whereever here is).

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If a new player is unsure of the rule and does not like what he is told by a dealer, he should ask the floor. Once he learns the rule for that room, accept it and play on.


[/ QUOTE ]


Of course he should accept it and play on.
But obviously there are enough idiots out there who aren't smart enough to do this.
So perhaps TT's idea of being able to show them some sort of book at that point would help in such situations.


Just sitting here and saying, "Players should do this when they find out they are wrong" doesn't really accomplish anything.
They aren't the ones reading here (for the most part).


The issue is about what should the cardrooms do in dealing with such morons who think they know everything and go on about rules they clearly know nothing about.

I'm not sure that just having the dealer explain it calmly to the player is the best way in every situation.
Not all dealers are good at doing that.

And you have some guys like bigfishhead who I believe probably do a VERY good job but it seems that some players look at them only as 'some dealer who doesn't know what he's talking about' and not as one who might actually know something about the game.

If he had a rule-book or something there that could be shown to him instead then perhaps that would make a difference in some of the idiots' attitudes.

Not positive on that though.
You're dealing with sometimes really drunk or young and cocky or old and "I've been around longer than you sonny" type people who already think they know more than everyone else. So perhaps there is no remedy at all for the morons.


But in Bigfishhead's case he asked the player if he could finish and the player told him 'no'.
Some players just won't listen to an explanation.

I really think that being able to say, "It's right here in the rule-book. Would you like to see?" could potentially alleviate such situations instead of having the dealer trying to force an explanation down their throat that they are likely extremely unwilling to hear.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

But in Bigfishhead's case he asked the player if he could finish and the player told him 'no'.
Some players just won't listen to an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree in BF's explanation that the player was out of line, the player does have the right to call the floor to get a rule clarification and the dealer shouldn't hold a grudge when this occurs since its the correct procedure.

[bav]

*I* want rule books. I've been saying this for eons. But that's from a pretty personal point of view. I'm one of those types who doesn't like to sit down and start playing a new game with people saying "don't worry, we'll tell you the rules as we play". And that sorta is what casinos do, and not just for poker. I defy you to find a useful casino-issued description of the rules of craps, for instance.

But RR is pretty adamant that it's a bad thing. Something about "the only people who've ever asked to see a rule book are doing so to try to find new angles to shoot". I suspect he's mostly right.

You really kinda need to see a printed poker room rule book to understand it's not going to be a panacea. These things are thick. And often when you think you've found the right section to cover a situation, it's just because you haven't read the next section where it says "...except...". Or you've assumed the definition of a phrase is one thing when, in fact, 40 pages earlier they defined that term as something slightly different. Last thing you want is for any player involved in any dispute to be able to demand the floor point to a printed rule in a book to justify his position. Or for the player to demand the game be held up while he hunts through the book looking for a loophole.

But I still wanna see the rules myself.