Short-Stack, All-In Question

Between aging issues and the pandemic, I no longer go to gaming establishments.Previously, an occasional poker player, but not a serious player, OK? I have a question about something my laptop computer poker game software did.

Here's the situation: A short-stacked player goes "all in," with other players yet to play. When the other players resolve the winning hand, the short-stacked player immediately knows his hand loses to the winning player. In a surprise to me, my computer game allowed the all-in player to muck without showing to the winner.

Question: Should my game software have shown the all-in cards to the winner, or not?

My (novice) expectation is that the all-in player could have mucked instead of going all in, and did not do so, thereby losing that option at a time well before the end of the hand. However, his cards could not be exposed until the rest of the play completed, at which time THE DEALER would reveal (or direct the all-in player to reveal) the all-in cards to determine the winner of the all-in showdown. Am I mistaken?

What happens at real-world poker tables?

My opinion is that going all-in commits a player to a showdown.

My opinion isn't worth a hill of beans, beyond agreeing with you that the software did something odd.

In a tournament, all in hands should all be exposed. In a cash game, the last aggressive actor shows first and other players, whether all in or not, have the option to show or muck.

Quote: unJon

In a tournament, all in hands should all be exposed. In a cash game, the last aggressive actor shows first and other players, whether all in or not, have the option to show or muck.
link to original post

I agree, but will add, in a cash game, when it’s heads up at the show down, and one player mucks, the other player wins the pot without having to show his hand.

So to the original question, if it was a cash game, the all in player can muck once he realizes that his hand is beat.

Thanx to all for noting the "differences" that sometimes occur. I never would have guessed.
By "Last Aggressive Actor," I assume we refer to the player who made the most recent bet, right?

Quote: LuckyPhow

Thanx to all for noting the "differences" that sometimes occur. I never would have guessed.
By "Last Aggressive Actor," I assume we refer to the player who made the most recent bet, right?
link to original post

Yes, bet or raise.

Yes, but note that in most casinos, it’s only the river action that counts. If there’s no action on the river, then it’s goes clockwise from the small blind. Some rare casinos will consider the last aggressive action on any street.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yes, but note that in most casinos, it’s only the river action that counts. If there’s no action on the river, then it’s goes clockwise from the small blind. Some rare casinos will consider the last aggressive action on any street.
link to original post

Agree. With the further exception of an all in and side pot. The side pot will resolve before the main pot, so the short stack all in would not show first even if he was closest to small blond and the river was checked around.