70 replies
I’ve been playing poker for 49 years and always thought the last aggressor had to show first at showdown. Last night, on the turn, I checked, and V on the button bet. I called. I checked the river and v checked back. I was waiting for V as the last aggressor to show. Dealer said I have to show first because V’s check back on the river is like calling my bet of nothing.
Depends on the room. Most rooms now, if it checks around on the river, the closest to SB shows first. This is so the dealer doesn't have to remember action across streets. Some rooms do remember it across streets, but I would say they are in the minority. TDA rules are the the same as the majority rule above:
A: In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no final round bet, the player who would act first in a final betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.).
It varies by room. Hell, one room I worked at switched back and forth at least twice. I agree it seems the majority of rooms go by position if the river is checked down.
Changing the rule from last aggressor to closest to the sb may make it easier for the dealer but it certainly dumbs down the game imo.
I don’t really see why if a guy raises preflop and on the button, bb calls, and then they check it down, that the bb is entitled to know what the button’s hand is before showing. Making the closest to the sb show first if there’s no action on the river simplifies things.
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656288#post58656288)
Changing the rule from last aggressor to closest to the sb may make it easier for the dealer but it certainly dumbs down the game imo.
But by position if river checked through has been the standard for over 20 yrs. It may seem strange in NL/PL, but while checking through on river is rare, tracking last to act in limit with its 3 and 4 bets is more challenging. Plus why does house care? Saves dealers tracking and then the ensuing table arguments.
All the rooms I play in now are doing the closest to the SB shows first if the river checks through. The Borgota is the last room I played cash games in that was making the last person to bet on whatever street show first on the river. However that went away some years before Covid. It speeds things up in general because there would be arguments about who bet last at least sometimes especially if the Dealer got it wrong. The funny thing is that in most cash games I play in the Dealer almost never points to the guy who is closest to the SB and says "Please show your hand". The Dealers almost always say something like "Who has the winning hand?" or "Show me a winner"
It doesn't dumb down the game, come on. You've been doing it or thinking it was done differently for 49 years. Sleep on it at least.
by Mr Rick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656521#post58656521)
"Who has the winning hand?" or "Show me a winner"
And after 1.37 seconds I say "You're first" while pointing at the appropriate player. I don't want to tell a player to turn their hand up, he might want to fold and not contest the pot.
Op may have got through by that it's really no difference, as everybody shows. Came to think of nobody said anything a couple of days ago when I declared all in, but the other guy showed first. Must sharpen up 😀
by plaaynde m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656674#post58656674)
as everybody shows
Why do you say that?
by steamraise m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656687#post58656687)
Why do you say that?
At my casino everybody at showdown shows. At times dealer reminds. Just analyzed what showdown really is. River card out, at least two players matching each other's bet (or lack thereof)
by plaaynde m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656702#post58656702)
At my casino everybody at showdown shows.
Okay. Your casino is an outlier.
by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656789#post58656789)
Okay. Your casino is an outlier.
OK, at least the dealer or anybody else doesn't have to bother with the order. I read tda, problem with retrieving half mucked cards do we not have either. But forced face up only at all in looks to be the norm at least in the US.
It is the norm for all ins at tournaments. This was not an all in and was a cash game (presumably).
The rule changed to make the dealing more reliable. But fights about who showed first was just part of the game. Anyone who paid attention knew who was the last aggressor. It gave people who paid attention an edge by inducing the villain to show first.
Who shows first questions are so tiresome. Just turn over your damn hand. Information gained by winning this dance is not worth the squeeze.
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656192#post58656192)
I’ve been playing poker for 49 years.
This is all you need to see here .. lol .. well done that you still play/enjoy the game. Things change/evolve over time and if there's one thing about Poker it's that change is usually 'fought' against and is slow to travel throughout all the lands! Shoot, check-raising used to be against the rules in our Charity Rooms here in Michigan! While one would think that it's not that hard to remember the last aggressor I think it's wise to keep the flow of each street/part of a poker hand uniform. So in the case of a checked River we just keep going around the table from the SB and ask each holding to be tabled. However, in cases where you're pretty sure you have the best hand .. or approach the nuts .. it's probably better to just show and move onto the next hand. Obv in a checked-down spot the value of holdings increases since no one felt inclined to bet, so 'the nuts' will be much weaker than the actual nuts for the Board shown. GL
I’m glad we kept last aggressor in the home game. Too bad the casino killed the home game.
For me the advantage came more in limit in a loose game, where you could induce a dime raise by an unknown into a 150 pot to learn about what they play.
by steamraise m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656665#post58656665)
And after 1.37 seconds I say "You're first" while pointing at the appropriate player. I don't want to tell a player to turn their hand up, he might want to fold and not contest the pot.
And in my life in casinos you would be the first (dealer to point at the player who has to show their cards first). I have always been amazed that the dealers at casinos I play in don't do what you do. But I think they don't do it because they want to make sure everybody will tip them when they win hands. Most players in the 20/40 LHE game at Foxwoods I played in regularly for over 6 years were older men who grew up playing in games where the last bettor had to show first regardless of the street. So a lot of them wouldn't have taken kindly to being forced to show first. Now players in the hand could force them to show first but rather than do that the players who were supposed to show first would say like "I missed" or "A high" and the player with the winning hand would show it and win and we would move on. Because in cash games at Foxwoods the winning hand had to be shown anyway it meant that when it was obvious (which was most of the time) winning hands would be shown before the other player(s) showed their hands. Early on when I started playing at casinos, if I was the last player to have bet I would show my hand first anyway even if I was in position on a checked river because I thought it was the right thing to do.
by plaaynde m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656702#post58656702)
At my casino everybody at showdown shows. At times dealer reminds. Just analyzed what showdown really is. River card out, at least two players matching each other's bet (or lack thereof)
But that is not standard. Most places you don’t even need to show if other players all discard. Most places once hand that beats you is shown, other players muck.
by plaaynde m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656807#post58656807)
OK, at least the dealer or anybody else doesn't have to bother with the order. I read tda, problem with retrieving half mucked cards do we not have either. But forced face up only at all in looks to be the norm at least in the US.
Not in cash games. Cash, even all in, you can usually discard wo showing if you wish.
it's room dependent. However if the guy who bet the turn now doesn't wanna show otr after it goes c/c, you most likely won so I would just roll over my hand instead of making him show, but that's just me; it's just my style. Even if he was waiting to see my hand for "information" and then rolled over a winner, most of these players wouldn't even know how to use the information anyway.
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656877#post58656877)
For me the advantage came more in limit in a loose game, where you could induce a dime raise by an unknown into a 150 pot to learn about what they play.
Not sure how you used a checked down river to induce a dime raise. Not even sure I understand how showdown order on the river, induces extra bet on the turn. Have to know it is the rule AND expect that after I bet, the river is going to check through. If I raise or net the turn, in limit, except for really bad riversi e pect to bet or maybe raise the river (or fold). Been long time since I played any serious limit, but as I recall the keys to limit are winning that extra bb and being able to avoid that bb loss.
by plaaynde m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656807#post58656807)
OK, at least the dealer or anybody else doesn't have to bother with the order. I read tda, problem with retrieving half mucked cards do we not have either. But forced face up only at all in looks to be the norm at least in the US.
You could simply defer to those of us who are in the US.
Good grief just turn over your hand or muck it at showdown. Nothing more annoying and unnecessary than these “showdown standoffs”. Wasting everyone’s time. The info your opponents gain is so trivial. Are you embarrassed you were bluffing or missed your draw? Fire it into the muck. 49 years playing and you’re still a rules nit. SMH
All Maryland rooms it's closest to SB in order Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by Mr Rick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656889#post58656889)
I have always been amazed that the dealers at casinos I play in don't do what you do. But I think they don't do it because they want to make sure everybody will tip them when they win hands.
No one has ever got upset with me for that. If they question it I calmly say, "They called you." or explain "We go by position here".
by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58657092#post58657092)
You could simply defer to those of us who are in the US.
True. The best reference. Last time a reg had to show a really shitty hand, did it without hesitation. But those are the rules in place at the casino of Finland. Pros and cons.
by Mr Rick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656889#post58656889)
But I think they don't do it because they want to make sure everybody will tip them when they win hands.
If I lost all of my fingers in a fireworks accident I could still use my hands to count all the times somebody got upset with me for prompting them to show their cards at showdown.
I say they should let them have a gunfight for a mexican standoff.
by answer20 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656869#post58656869)
Shoot, check-raising used to be against the rules in our Charity Rooms here in Michigan!
Check raising used to be against the rules in a lot of places and was seen as a scummy thing to do. "Dont try to trick me, just bet your hand" Horseshoe casino in Tunica, MS still has "Check raises are allowed" on the Poker Rules posted on the wall. So clearly there was a time when it wasnt allowed.
I've never played in a room where last aggressor on a previous street mattered but have met a few random regs who think that is the rule. Always seems weird to me people have such different experiences.
by pwnsall m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58665931#post58665931)
I've never played in a room where last aggressor on a previous street mattered but have met a few random regs who think that is the rule. Always seems weird to me people have such different experiences.
GNLC. All the dealers use that procedure. They all will swear it is like that everywhere. Ofc most have never dealt in another city, so how would they know. They claim the house rules state this though when I asked to see the rules, I was refused. Being the prick I can choose to be sometimes, when I have time I am going to ask gaming (state police here) how I can see the rules and do so. I really doubt it is in their rules as such. These same dealers swear that in a dead button game, the button must move forward. When ask them then what is a forward moving button rule, they either never heard of such or claim that is the rule they are following.
by ledn m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58664604#post58664604)
Check raising used to be against the rules in a lot of places and was seen as a scummy thing to do. "Dont try to trick me, just bet your hand" Horseshoe casino in Tunica, MS still has "Check raises are allowed" on the Poker Rules posted on the wall. So clearly there was a time when it wasnt allowed.
Any room where I have ever noticed rules being posted have had that rule included, even ones which were pretty new. I think it's just a common thing to post and doesn't mean there was previously a rule against it in that particular room.
As I've seen it happen, the following scenarios are common. (1) and (2.1) are what probably most people agree on. Where the discussions tend to take place is in a scenario like 2.2 where people usually want MP to show his hand as he went all in but MP, referring to the tda-rules, wants to go clockwise from the blinds. (1) If there was an aggressive action on the last street, the one who took it shows first and then the reamaining players show their hands clockwise from him. (2.1) There was no aggressive action on the last street, and there could not have been one anyways (MP goes all-in, BTN who is covered calls his all-in, SB who covers both calls as well), then the first to move all in shows and then clockwise from him (MP then BTN then SB). (2.2) There was no aggressive action on the last street, but there could have been one (MP goes all-in OTF, BTN and SB call him and check it down). Do you guys know how 2.2 would be handled correctly (in cash games)? According to the tda-rules, it should probably go clockwise from the blinds. But intuitively it seems legitimate for the two players calling the all-in and checking it down to see MPs hand.
I don't know where you got "there could / could not have been an aggressive action on the last street". That's a new element to this thread and is not typically a consideration when resolving showdown order, regardless of which rule a card room follows. TDA would have the outermost sidepot resolve first, with anyone competing for that pot following the normal showdown order. Then we fold inward toward the main pot, resolving each pot along the way with the same showdown rules.
by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58909649#post58909649)
I don't know where you got "there could / could not have been an aggressive action on the last street". That's a new element to this thread and is not typically a consideration when resolving showdown order, regardless of which rule a card room follows.TDA would have the outermost sidepot resolve first, with anyone competing for that pot following the normal showdown order. The... See full post
So is it basically only (1) The one who took the last aggressive action OTR shows first and then clockwise from him. (2) In case there was no aggressive action OTR, hands get shown clockwise starting from the blinds. I. e. in a scenario like: MP goes all-in for 10k and gets called by BTN and SB (both have him covered) who then proceed to check it down to the river
It's simply the SB who shows first? People usually bring up an argument like "we paid your all-in to see your cards", which I feel is somewhat intuitive. But that's simply wrong?
There are a few things going on here. First, (1) and (2) are the logic for the same rule (last aggressor OTR). In the scenario you provided, with that rule in effect, the SB would show first. The other common rule is that the last aggressor on any street shows first. In your scenario, that would be the MP. If there is one or more sidepots, then your resolve those pots from the outermost inward toward the main, following whatever showdown priority rule is in effect for each set of contenders. Finally, I believe that the TDA requires all hands to be tabled during an all-in situation, and so questions of order would be moot. I have never heard of a showdown order rule that considers whether aggressive action could have happened on the final street. MP would be correct in your original post that showdown order should be clockwise from the button if they are following the "last aggressor OTR" rule. There was an opportunity for river action, and all players who could check did check.
I see that I have commented in this thread before.Without looking, I'm sure I gave the correct answer - Just show your damn cards. ETA: Yup. Nailed it.
by ZentralratDerLuden m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58909442#post58909442)
As I've seen it happen, the following scenarios are common. (1) and (2.1) are what probably most people agree on. Where the discussions tend to take place is in a scenario like 2.2 where people usually want MP to show his hand as he went all in but MP, referring to the tda-rules, wants to go clockwise from the blinds.(1) If there was an aggressive action on the last street, the... See full post
If there's a side pot, then the side pot people would show first in a cash game, and this will go by position from the button. If it's a heads up all in, the casinos I've played at will go by whoever went all in or put the other person all in will show first. But this won't apply in a multiway pot unless they have the exact amount of chips which is pretty rare. In tournies, of course as soon as everyone is all in, all hands get turned over so order doesn't matter at all. It's only in cash games where there is an option to muck would anyone even care about this.
In the last specific case, there's only one player all-in and 2 others with chips behind, so nobody's showing until after the river here anyway.
by ralphykid67 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58657145#post58657145)
Good grief just turn over your hand or muck it at showdown. Nothing more annoying and unnecessary than these “showdown standoffs”. Wasting everyone’s time. The info your opponents gain is so trivial. Are you embarrassed you were bluffing or missed your draw? Fire it into the muck. 49 years playing and you’re still a rules nit. SMH
So, you have no interest in ranging the hands your opponents are playing? Also, haven't you ever heard of a bluff-call? That's where you think the other guy won't show, and just muck - yes it happens.
by uberkuber m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58910834#post58910834)
In the last specific case, there's only one player all-in and 2 others with chips behind, so nobody's showing until after the river here anyway.
I know, but that's the scenario where people usually start arguing about who has to go first and refer to the one who went all-in with "yeah, but he was the one who took the last action by going all-in." I guess it's just: (1) There was action OTR: the one who took it shows first and then clockwise from him. (2) No action OTR: clockwise from the blinds. (3) An all-in on an earlier street and no more action possible: all streets are dealt after which the person who went all-in shows first and then clockwise from him. (4) An all-in on an earlier street after which it gets checked down by the remaining active players: clockwise from the blinds. Edit: As @albedoa said, there are apparently places who would go by last action taken, regardless of the street, but that might make things too complicated leading to confusion and discussions.
The rules vary slightly depending on the casino or game format. Here, the dealer refers to a subtle rule: if the last betting round ended with checks (as is the case here, since V checked and you checked in turn), the player who acted last on the river must show his hand first. Since V didn't bet on the river, you, as the player who acted after him, must show your hand first.
That is the exact opposite of the normal rule. I think you are mistaken most likely. Otherwise if someone bets and someone else calls, the caller would have to show first.
by Alexandra Tremblay m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58934758#post58934758)
The rules vary slightly depending on the casino or game format. Here, the dealer refers to a subtle rule: if the last betting round ended with checks (as is the case here, since V checked and you checked in turn), the player who acted last on the river must show his hand first. Since V didn't bet on the river, you, as the player who acted after him, must show your hand first.
You're making this up.
Charlie Brown had hoes.
(
)
Since I last entered this discussion, unless I have the nuts, I always turn to my right and say: you show first. I now never show my cards first if I am in position. Except to speed up the game, why would the hero ever want to show his cards in position? Just noticed the trolls. How unpleasant.
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59185632#post59185632)
Except to speed up the game, why would the hero ever want to show his cards in position?
I agree that nit rules lower profits and ruin the fun. I would never advocate always saying "you show first." If I have top pair at show down after calling down multiway small bets, I usually flip over first and never ask others to show first. I just mean as a general strategy, until you get read on a V, you want to consider you-show-first as the default. You cannot turn betting patterns into firm reads without seeing a V's hole cards. It's the only way to confirm a mistake, and it is give the hero a huge advantage exploiting Vs. The reason for the aggressor-shows-first rule was that the caller had to pay. In the movies, poker plays say, "I call. What do you got?"
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59186092#post59186092)
I agree that nit rules lower profits and ruin the fun. I would never advocate always saying "you show first." If I have top pair at show down after calling down multiway small bets, I usually flip over first and never ask others to show first. I just mean as a general strategy, until you get read on a V, you want to consider you-show-first as the default. You cannot turn bettin... See full post
Say that then. It's a lot friendlier than "you show first".
by chillrob m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59186095#post59186095)
Say that then. It's a lot friendlier than "you show first".
I will make every effort to be polite and say "what you got?" I do not want to be the party-pooper. I still insist that position gives you informational advantage at showdown, and you lower your winrate if you do not exploit it.
"I called you pre-flop, show me your hand! I don't care if we checked it down, I want to see that hand!"
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59185632#post59185632)
Since I last entered this discussion, unless I have the nuts, I always turn to my right and say: you show first. I now never show my cards first if I am in position. Except to speed up the game, why would the hero ever want to show his cards in position? Just noticed the trolls. How unpleasant.
You are definitely hurting your win rate in three different ways:
There are very few reasons to make another player show first. They are rare and it should be a conscious decision to make them do so. In general, if you need the opponents to show first in order to get information then your game is probably severely lacking. For one, you should generally be putting your opponents on a general range, not a specific hand so seeing a specific hand is not as valuable as you think. For two, if you are generally better than your opponent, you should already know their range and should know if it includes some weird crazy bluffs. If you are not better than your opponent and need to see the specific hand to get info, it is likely you are not good enough to understand the information gained. You are going to be focused on the results, not the process which leads to bad thinking. In the games I am profitable in, I generally do not need them to show. I called for a reason. That reason is that I think that I am good more often than not (given bet and pot size). I can think of very few instances where I was reluctant to show first. One rare example would be where I was trying to verify a very specific read. I distinctly remember playing with a player who I discovered handled his chips very differently when he was bluffing (or at least unsure of his standing in the hand) than when he had a made hand. I got to the river and called him based on nothing more than his handling of the chips. I wanted to confirm a very specific read. The other instances were where I called someone really, really light. So light that I am almost embarrassed to show if I am behind. Point is, when you get to showdown if there is any delay, show your cards. There is no reason for you not to. Of you think you are gaining major information by waiting then you are only fooling yourself.
One other reason to make someone show first, is if it's one of those guys who bets, gets called, and then always says, "What do you have?" This guy always refuses to show first, whether he was the last aggressor or not. So in this case, responding, "I called you" is a perfectly reasonable tact. Because F that guy.
To get a read on opponent with a small sample size (100 hands), you must see hole cards to confirm the inferred range. You will miss exploits if you are just counting limps, RFIs, and 3bets alone. Example: Hero has watched V for 50 hands. V opens LJ, hero with QTs 3bets button , V calls. Run out is 7Q3J2. Dealer says let’s see a winner. V stalls. Hero says you show first. V shows KK. Why would you ever pass this opportunity to see hole cards? I also think hero puts himself at a disadvantage to the other Vs because they now know hero 3bets light. With known players who know you, it’s obviously whatever.
The only 2 situations I really give a shit about being a stickler on who shows are
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59188878#post59188878)
To get a read on opponent with a small sample size (100 hands), you must see hole cards to confirm the inferred range. You will miss exploits if you are just counting limps, RFIs, and 3bets alone. Example: Hero has watched V for 50 hands. V opens LJ, hero with QTs 3bets button , V calls. Run out is 7Q3J2. Dealer says let’s see a winner. V stalls. Hero says you show first. V sh... See full post
50 hands! lol All you know from 50 hands is your opponent's range is any two cards.
by bolt2112 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59188419#post59188419)
One other reason to make someone show first, is if it's one of those guys who bets, gets called, and then always says, "What do you have?" This guy always refuses to show first, whether he was the last aggressor or not. So in this case, responding, "I called you" is a perfectly reasonable tact. Because F that guy.
You are spot on. I forgot to lost that. Waiting to show in order to irritate another player is valid. Just realize you might be irritating others as well.
by adonson m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58656288#post58656288)
Changing the rule from last aggressor to closest to the sb may make it easier for the dealer but it certainly dumbs down the game imo.
maybe both players should be made to show
Perhaps a better way of doing it is to only make it apply to that street.... so what happened before doesn't matter. If BB checks the river and the button bets, BB calls, then button HAS to show since he was the last aggressor. But if instead the river just goes check check then BB has to show as technically no one was the last aggressor. Good idea?
that is exactly what the position rule is. no one is confused when someone bets the river. the issue is what happens if the river checks through. do you go back to previous streets to figure out who the last aggressor was, or do you just say closest to SB in order shows first.
by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349142#post59349142)
maybe both players should be made to show
This is how poker was a long time ago. At showdown everyone had to show. Things changed as poker modernized and it was decided to let people discard without showing.
by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349205#post59349205)
This is how poker was a long time ago. At showdown everyone had to show. Things changed as poker modernized and it was decided to let people discard without showing.
yea, even worse is then ppl are all in when there are cards to come and they don't flip their cards up.
by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349149#post59349149)
Perhaps a better way of doing it is to only make it apply to that street.... so what happened before doesn't matter. If BB checks the river and the button bets, BB calls, then button HAS to show since he was the last aggressor. But if instead the river just goes check check then BB has to show as technically no one was the last aggressor. Good idea?
This is how most rooms do it. It makes sense to me. You can’t ask the dealer for information from prior streets, so why should this info you can’t ask about be used at showdown. Also if you view showdown as the conclusion final street, which it isn’t really, my aggression on the turn doesn’t give me priority to act first on the river so why should it make me show first. Otoh, when my river bet or raise is called, the action is now back on me so logically I am next to go and go means show. Ime, many dealers who believe that it is last aggressor regardless of the street, are often wrong if you can get access to the official room rules and procedures. They read or are aware of the last agressor part but miss the subsequent no bet on river part. With that said, I know of a room that specifically does say you go back to prior streets for last aggressor. Don’t really like it but it is their rule. Personally, for most opponents, I don’t care and just show but there are a couple of villians who do all they can to not show even when they were the aggressor AND are closest to SB, some are also notorious slow rollers, and for those few I will insist we follow what the rule says. But the others, esp if I think I am winner, I just show.
by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349213#post59349213)
yea, even worse is then ppl are all in when there are cards to come and they don't flip their cards up.
Sure let’s drag that discussion to another thread. We know you want the cards on their backs and will even shout at them while dealing to insist they do it, but I think we already beat that horse dead.
by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59349372#post59349372)
Sure let’s drag that discussion to another thread. We know you want the cards on their backs and will even shout at them while dealing to insist they do it, but I think we already beat that horse dead.
it would be a good idea to continue the discussion
mod: If you want to continue it, do it in that thread, don't pollute this thread with it. Thanks.