Crazy situation in my home game - how do you rule? (3 Viewers)

[Anthony Martino]

Daniel Negranue isn't a fan of the TDA and mentions it here on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/realkidpoker/status/350507946460975105

Furthermore, the WSOP which hosts the largest freaking tournament in the history of the planet doesn't follow those TDA rules because they permit an exception as follows:

source: https://www.wsop.com/2015/2015-WSOP-tournament-Rules.pdf

see page labeled # 13

109. Table Talk / Disclosure: participants are obligated to protect the other participants in the Tournament at all times. Therefore, whether in a hand or not, participants may not:


1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands,

2. Advise or criticize play at any time,

3. Read a hand that hasn't been tabled,

4. Discuss strategy with an outside source while involved in a hand.

 The one-participant-to-a-hand rule will be enforced.

Special Exceptions:


 A participant is allowed to mention the strength or content of his/her hand if no other participant in the hand will have a decision to make.

 In heads-up events or when down to the last two participants in a Tournament, participants may speak freely regarding the contents of their hands.

Not everyone follows the TDA ruleset, if the WSOP is willing to make an exception for revealing the strength of your hand there must be a reason for it. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It doesn't matter if you willfully ignore it.

 

[Ronoh]

It's still a discussion because of people continually telling him he is doing it wrong.

HYOH

 

[Anthony Martino]

It's still a discussion because of people continually telling him he is doing it wrong.

HYOH

It's like trying to have an honest discussion about Cthuhlu with Jehovah's

 

[Poker Zombie]

It's like trying to have an honest discussion about Cthuhlu with Jehovah's

That's something I'd like to see.

Not the discussion - just Jehovah's and Cthulhu having a "discussion".

 

[Poker Zombie]

Daniel Negranue isn't a fan of the TDA and mentions it here on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/realkidpoker/status/350507946460975105

Furthermore, the WSOP which hosts the largest freaking tournament in the history of the planet doesn't follow those TDA rules because they permit an exception as follows:

source: https://www.wsop.com/2015/2015-WSOP-tournament-Rules.pdf

see page labeled # 13



Not everyone follows the TDA ruleset, if the WSOP is willing to make an exception for revealing the strength of your hand there must be a reason for it. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It doesn't matter if you willfully ignore it.

That's odd about Negreanu, since he JOINED the TDA last year. Got some rules passed/repealed that he didn't like. It's like you're digging up old twitter posts to find support. Oh, wait - 2013. That is what you did.

As for why the WSOP chose to violate the TDA rule - It makes good TV. But I covered that already too. I'd think you're blocking my posts, but since you're responding to them, that is clearly not the case. You just seem to blank on them.

So I'm going to drop the mike right here. And Congratulations Anthony Martino You've just become only the second person I've ever blocked on PCF or CT.

Zombie's blocked list:

• Grandgnu
• Anthony Martino

 

[Anthony Martino]

As for why the WSOP chose to violate the TDA rule - It makes good TV.

right, and the reason I permit it in my home game is because it makes for good fun (despite this one occurrence because a player was on tilt and didn't pay attention to the action as it transpired).

There comes a point where you can have too many rules that take the fun out of a game, and the jabbering back and forth between players and the psychology of it all to me is what is fun.

So I'm going to drop the mike right here. And Congratulations Anthony Martino You've just become only the second person I've ever blocked on PCF or CT.

Zombie's blocked list:

• Grandgnu
• Anthony Martino

Well, grow a thicker skin bro, cause that's extremely weaksauce of you. If you don't agree with my viewpoint I will block you, that'll show you! lol

 

[BGinGA]

Anthony, even the WSOP exception doesn't allow players to expose their hand -- only discuss it. I think the differences between hand discussion and hand exposure have been made quite clear in this thread already, and apparently WSOP agrees, else they would have allowed it too.

 

[Marius L]

For the 3rd time...

http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/


That's my objection. The rule states a player must not disclose the contents of a live hand. If they took the time to write the rule, there must be a reason. It really doesn't matter if you don't like the rule, or don't understand the rule - it's the rule. If you'd like, you can make a rule for your home game that makes flushes the highest possible hand, but that's not how most of us would rule it in our games.

How is this still a discussion, and how the F*ck did it suddenly become about a cash game?

There's the rule. You willfully ignore it at your game. I know those that wilfully ignore the rule prohibiting rabbit-hunting. Whatever - it's their game, we're all different. Just accept that if you ignore a commonly accepted rule, that you may have a "crazy" situation arise. This whole thread is moot if you followed the rule.

Just to be clear, every rule ever made is not nessesarily a good rule. There have been a lot of controversy over rulings made in the wsop and other poker tournaments, and rules are being discussed and revised accordingly.

In the home games I play, I am used to being allowed to show cards in a heads up pot regardless of what kind of game we are playing. I understand the point of view of those that never allow players to show their live cards, but I am not sold on the reasoning behind making a difference between cash game and tournament play. I dont see how it will impact the other players remaining in the tournament.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Anthony, even the WSOP exception doesn't allow players to expose their hand -- only discuss it. I think the differences between hand discussion and hand exposure have been made quite clear in this thread already, and apparently WSOP agrees, else they would have allowed it too.

I can't argue with you there, they expressly state "mention" which doesn't include flipping your cards over. However, a home game is a far cry from the WSOP.

In addition, I've been arguing so vehemently because there are a ton of people in this thread who are complaining about the possibility of the all-in player or another player at the table giving off some reaction or tell when the cards are flipped up. But you could get a similar reaction by stating "I have Kings" or "I have two pair" or "I have a flush, do you really have the boat?" from the players, so that argument holds zero strength.

 

[Mr Tree]

 

[Mr Tree]

 

[k9dr]

My tournament rules:

1) Do not expose your hand

2) See rule # 1

3) .........

 

[Anthony Martino]

My tournament rules:

1) Do not expose your hand

2) See rule # 1

3) .........

3 should be "profit"

 

[BGinGA]

I've been arguing so vehemently because there are a ton of people in this thread who are complaining about the possibility of the all-in player or another player at the table giving off some reaction or tell when the cards are flipped up. But you could get a similar reaction by stating "I have Kings" or "I have two pair" or "I have a flush, do you really have the boat?" from the players, so that argument holds zero strength.

I'm not making that particular case, but I don't think they are the same. To me, there is a huge difference in what somebody tells me (which I know may or may not be true) vs actually seeing that I'm crushed (or winning). My reaction to each is likely different, and probably not one I'd have much control over.

Bottom line for me is that exposing cards creates more unnecessary problems, and the benefits of allowing the practice just don't measure up to the downfalls. I like rules that minimize problems and misunderstandings, which is what most rules are designed to do. YMMV, but you are the one who experienced the problem, not me.

To answer your original question: once both hands were tabled, action is still on V1 -- it's up to him to declare whether he is calling or folding. It in no way makes him the bad guy, and there is no way I'm chopping the pot in a tournament setting (unfair to other remaining players).

 

[Anthony Martino]

I'm not making that particular case, but I don't think they are the same. To me, there is a huge difference in what somebody tells me (which I know may or may not be true) vs actually seeing that I'm crushed (or winning). My reaction to each is likely different, and probably not one I'd have much control over.

So now you're arguing the reliability or level of a tell one is able to garner from an opponent? Maybe we should also divide players by skill level to avoid any unfair advantages, only pros can play pros and only novices against novices?

The strength or reliability of a tell shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion because tells aren't illegal.

Bottom line for me is that exposing cards creates more unnecessary problems, and the benefits of allowing the practice just don't measure up to the downfalls. I like rules that minimize problems and misunderstandings, which is what most rules are designed to do. YMMV, but you are the one who experienced the problem, not me.

Ok, now this is intelligent discussion. Yes, I am the one who experienced the problem. I've been hosting poker games for around 15 years and this is the first time I've seen this happen. I don't see this one occurrence happening as outweighing the psychology and fun had by allowing some looser rules than you would find in the casino.

To answer your original question: once both hands were tabled, action is still on V2 -- it's up to him to declare whether he is calling or folding. It in no way makes him the bad guy, and there is no way I'm chopping the pot in a tournament setting (unfair to other remaining players).

I still think, in hindsight, he shouldn't be given the option of folding here, it should be an auto-call because for him to openly fold the winning hand isn't fair to him and it isn't fair to other players in the tourney. He openly asked if he could show his hand, I openly gave permission to do so. Player #2 didn't pay attention because he was tilting, he made a mistake and it cost him his tournament life.

 

[BGinGA]

So now you're arguing the reliability or level of a tell one is able to garner from an opponent? Maybe we should also divide players by skill level to avoid any unfair advantages, only pros can play pros and only novices against novices?

The strength or reliability of a tell shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion because tells aren't illegal.

I'm not arguing at all. I simply believe (as do many others) that hearing discussion of a hand's contents (which may or may not be truthful) is different than seeing physical proof, and can/will create different reactions. They are not the same. You obviously think otherwise. Live long and prosper, because we're never gonna agree on this point.

I still think, in hindsight, he shouldn't be given the option of folding here, it should be an auto-call because for him to openly fold the winning hand isn't fair to him and it isn't fair to other players in the tourney.

To deprive V1 of his right to make his action (call or fold) is unfair to V2, since it also deprives V1 from the opportunity to make his own error on the hand (maybe he misreads V2's hand). In essence, V2's exposed cards should be turned back over (since it is illegal in your game for him to expose the cards with action pending), and V1 still has action to complete. The TD should not deprive him of that right just because another player made an error.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I'm not arguing at all. I simply believe (as do many others) that hearing discussion of a hand's contents (which may or may not be truthful) is different than seeing physical proof, and can/will create different reactions. They are not the same. You obviously think otherwise. Live long and prosper, because we're never gonna agree on this point.

I don't disagree that they could create different reactions. I'm just saying that's not a compelling case to me. If you were trying to argue that I can or cannot attempt to get a read/tell/reaction off an opponent vs the reliability or strength of that tell, maybe I could see you having something to discuss in that regard.

But trying to prevent someone from getting a tell based on the reliability/strength of that tell just seems silly. Should I not be permitted to play with opponents who exhibit the strong = weak tell because I have that knowledge and it's unfair that they are giving off a reaction that is of such a high reliability?

To deprive V1 of his right to make his action (call or fold) is unfair to V2, since it also deprives V1 from the opportunity to make his own error on the hand (maybe he misreads V2's hand). In essence, V2's exposed cards should be turned back over (since it is illegal in your game for him to expose the cards with action pending), and V1 still has action to complete. The TD should not deprive him of that right just because another player made an error.

Now that is an interesting way to discuss this issue, and one I hadn't considered. I guess the question I have is it was clear Player #1 realized he had the winning hand because he was asking if he could chop the pot. I dunno, just felt not right to put that decision on him at that point, to give him the option of folding the winning hand just seems wrong, especially since the error made was on Player 2's part

 

[BGinGA]

I don't disagree that they could create different reactions. I'm just saying that's not a compelling case to me. If you were trying to argue that I can or cannot attempt to get a read/tell/reaction off an opponent vs the reliability or strength of that tell, maybe I could see you having something to discuss in that regard.

But trying to prevent someone from getting a tell based on the reliability/strength of that tell just seems silly. Should I not be permitted to play with opponents who exhibit the strong = weak tell because I have that knowledge and it's unfair that they are giving off a reaction that is of such a high reliability?

I don't think anybody is arguing any of those points. General consensus is that exposing a hand is different than simply talking about the contents of one's hand. Your position has been that they are the same. Most don't agree. Live long and prosper.

I guess the question I have is it was clear Player #1 realized he had the winning hand because he was asking if he could chop the pot.

Well, he can't chop the pot because that is never allowed in tournament play (unless both players have the same winning hand). But it is his right to fold (although not in his best interest). Folding could be viewed as soft-playing the opponent (collusion) if he knew his hand was the winning hand.

Noteworthy that it's all avoidable if exposing his hand was not allowed, since it's unlikely that V2 would have tabled his bluff without seeing what he thought was an open-hand fold by V1. Another example of exposed cards being viewed differently than merely discussion of a hand.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Noteworthy that it's all avoidable if exposing his hand was not allowed, since it's unlikely that V2 would have tabled his bluff without seeing what he thought was an open-hand fold by V1. Another example of exposed cards being viewed differently than merely discussion of a hand.

I just think it's possible that a tilting opponent that isn't paying attention properly could easily hear Player #1 say:

"I've got Kings"
"I think I have to CALL"
"I don't know if I can FOLD"

Most of those comments are permitted by both WSOP or TDA, and most of those in this thread seem to be in agreement that saying such things in the situation of my OP would be acceptable behavior.

But saying those things could still cause Player #2, who is titled and not paying attention, to make the mistake of flipping his hand face-up, believing his opponent had either called or folded.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

The difference is, if a player not paying attention thought he heard something, he would most likely say "what" or ask for clarification of the action instead of assuming a call and turning his hand over. But another player turning his hand over is more likely to mean the other player already called (based on the rules of every other tournament the player has likely played in).

Anthony, I'm not trying to come down on you personally, and I don't think you're being bashed by "mean girls" in this thread, although it appears that may be the attention you are seeking. You picked an unpopular opinion, and are entrenching yourself in it, despite nearly every other person giving reasons (some very good, others maybe not as good) why this is a bad idea. You wanted our opinion, and got it, and because its not what you wanted to hear you are being obstinate. This thread is very tilting to me. I honestly don't even know why I'm even still following it. I thought maybe we could help you see why this rule is a bad idea, but your stubbornness and narcissism makes this impossible.

 

[Anthony Martino]

You wanted our opinion, and got it, and because its not what you wanted to hear you are being obstinate. .

And this is what is tilting to me. I never asked anyone to change my rules about flipping cards up. I asked what you would do when player #2 flips up his bluff by mistake. I didnt ask how to prevent it in the future. You all took to bashing me over it. You are the stubborn narccicists who tried to twist my thread to fit your own viewpoint and then got upset when i and some others had a different view

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

And this is what is tilting to me. I never asked anyone to change my rules about flipping cards up. I asked what you would do when player #2 flips up his bluff by mistake. I didnt ask how to prevent it in the future. You all took to bashing me over it. You are the stubborn narccicists who tried to twist my thread to fit your own viewpoint and then got upset when i and some others had a different view

This is the thing, we aren't bashing you. Telling you that your rule can have bad ramifications and suggesting you scrap it in the future isn't bashing you. But you don't want to hear it. And that last line is lol YOU GUYS are the narcissists. I have to applaud you, whether intentional or not, that's some funny shit.

 

[manamongkids]

 

[jbutler]

I just wonder if anyone ever had any doubt that this is exactly the way this thread would go.

"Hey guys, I was driving through broken glass and now all four of my tires are flat. What should I do now?
"Um, why were you driving through broken glass? That sounds like a terrible idea."
"That's not what I asked about! Tell me how to fix my tires!"

 

[bergs]

So I'm going to drop the mike right here. And Congratulations Anthony Martino You've just become only the second person I've ever blocked on PCF or CT.

Zombie's blocked list:

• Grandgnu
• Anthony Martino

Technically, you blocked the same person twice.

 

[manamongkids]

I just wonder if anyone ever had any doubt that this is exactly the way this thread would go.

"Hey guys, I was driving through broken glass and now all four of my tires are flat. What should I do now?
"Um, why were you driving through broken glass? That sounds like a terrible idea."
"That's not what I asked about! Tell me how to fix my tires!"

I was running around lighting bags of dog poo on peoples front doorsteps when I got a 3rd degree burn, do you have any balm for my burn

 

[Anthony Martino]

This is the thing, we aren't bashing you. Telling you that your rule can have bad ramifications and suggesting you scrap it in the future isn't bashing you. But you don't want to hear it. And that last line is lol YOU GUYS are the narcissists. I have to applaud you, whether intentional or not, that's some funny shit.

Lol. You called me names and zombie blocked me and make a big deal of it but no bashing going on here

Not one fucking time did i solicit advice on how to prevent this in the future. You all, like religious zealots, took it upon yourselves to offer unsolicited advice. When i disagreed with said advice you went on a crusade to save me.

What is laughable is how fucking blind you all are to it. I dont care about changing that rule in my game, i only asked about how to rule in that spot

Lets take away player #1 exposing his hand. Lets say that player 2 is all in and while player 1 is cutting the chips out for the call to see what he will have left (all behind the betting line) player #2 misconstues this for a call and flips his bluff up

Or player 1 says "i dont think i can fold" and player 2 exposes his bluff because he heard "fold"

How do you rule? That is the essence of MY fucking post. Not this hindsight rules tangent the mob here has concocted

 

[jbutler]

 

[bergs]

I can't argue with you there, they expressly state "mention" which doesn't include flipping your cards over. However, a home game is a far cry from the WSOP.

In addition, I've been arguing so vehemently because there are a ton of people in this thread who are complaining about the possibility of the all-in player or another player at the table giving off some reaction or tell when the cards are flipped up. But you could get a similar reaction by stating "I have Kings" or "I have two pair" or "I have a flush, do you really have the boat?" from the players, so that argument holds zero strength.

There is a difference. If someone isn't paying attention (yes, this really happens at a poker table on occasion) they will react differently to noticing a hand being tabled then they will to someone just talking.

Also, there is a difference in reaction. Consider a hand against me where I limp and check-call all the way down. I may tell you that I have kings, but you know that I'm absolutely full of everloving shit because I play like a lagtard with his head on fire. If I tabled kings, it's pretty obvious I have kings, because you'll see 2 cards on the felt, one with K and the other with a K, maybe the same color, maybe not. So may not react to the "I have kings" statement but you will be forced to at least acknowledge the fact that I have kings if I flipped them up.

But that doesn't matter because you started the thread with the hopes that everyone would agree with you and say "nice job Anthony, grandgnu never would've did that".

So, in closing, threadsaver.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Yes, gnu, we're all against you. We are all jerk faces, and every single one of us has nothing better to do than bash a random person on the internet for no reason so we can feel better about our own miserable lives.

Look Gnu, when I said you were narcissistic and stubborn, it wasn't me trying to be mean. I'm not going to post the whole link on this thread, because pointing out line by line personality flaws wouldn't be productive and would certainly be spiteful, but if you want to check out this link you'll see what I'm talking about. Again, never met you, so if I'm wrong I apologize, but this is the impression I have from you based solely on your posting history. The good news, if you do have narcissistic personality disorder, you can get help.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...onality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568