Crazy situation in my home game - how do you rule? (4 Viewers)

[Ronoh]

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

Now you're just seeing things. With the exception of one or two peeps who seem to enjoy pissing people off this thread, while highly debated, has been fairly civil... and the people you are now pissed off at are not the ones who trolled the thread.

 

[jbutler]

So, in closing, threadsaver.

Never forget (semi-NSFW; just profanity in the headline)

 

[RainmanTrail]

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.

I guess you've made my point @Poker Zombie , which is that I've yet to encounter someone with a good argument for following this rule. I've only ever been told that I should follow it strictly because it's a rule.

For some, simply saying that "authority figure X said Y, therefore Y" is good enough. I'm not one of those people. I don't follow rules because they are rules. I follow rules because they are worth following. If I approach an intersection with no cars around for miles and miles out in the middle of nowhere, I'm not waiting for that light to change because to me, the rules don't apply. Stop lights are designed to control traffic. When there's no traffic, they aren't necessary. You may be the type who sits there for 5 minutes waiting for the light to change, or the type that backs up 15 feet then pulls back forward trying to get the light's sensor to acknowledge that you're there, all the while cursing the damn light which won't turn green. Nothing wrong with being that person, but it's just not me.

My point is this: rules aren't worth following just because they are rules. Rules are worth following because of their intentions. There are good and bad rules in all areas of life. I believe the rule of "never show your cards" is flawed. I think the reason the rule was ever even written is likely because there are a few clear situations where a player should never show his/her cards. In fact, during the majority of play, you shouldn't be allowed to show your cards. The following situations warrant this rule:

1) Any time you are in a multi-way pot, showing your cards provides an unfair advantage to other players in the hand
2) Showing your cards to another player in a tournament setting when it is their turn to act, usually for 'giving air', puts the other players at the table at a disadvantage since you may have otherwise knocked that player out of the tournament, or at least crippled his/her stack

Since these situations cover 90-some-odd percent of all situations at a poker table, I believe they just made a blanket rule to say, "never show your cards" because it was easier to just make a blanket rule than to expressly state when it is and is not ok to show your cards.

However, I believe you guys are undermining the value of a player being able to show his cards in the right situations. I gain A TON of value by showing my hands in the right spots. Here's a prime example of when I will show my hand, note its' a very specific situation:

If I'm in a hand, and we are heads up on the river, and my opponent has already acted and I have a tough decision to make. It's a spot where I'm either calling or folding. No other players will act behind me. Whether I show my cards or not in this spot does not affect the other players at the table. However, I can gain a lot by showing them. I can craft my table image by selecting which hands I want to show. If I've been getting a run of shitty hands, and my table image makes me look super nitty, I can gain a lot by showing my J4s cutoff raise preflop from this hand. I can also gain a lot in the situation I mentioned earlier where I showed my KK on the K554J board and folded for one more bet on the river after 3betting my opponent. I showed those Kings face up, and said, "I fold". That laydown became the talk of the week at that circuit event. I probably heard players talk about that hand at least 6 or 7 different times throughout the weekend. Some players said, "bullshit, no one ever lays that down, EVER." Then they'd argue and say, "it's true man, the dealer confirmed it to me." Then of course I'd tell them that I'm the player who laid it down and I explained my reasoning on the hand, etc, etc. The action that that hand brought me was incredible. Every player at the table thought I was a complete pushover and tried to push me off my hands for the remainder of the tournament. When I got to the FT, players were still talking about the hand, unaware that I was the one who laid it down. I ended up amassing a shit-ton of chips, and went on to win the Circuit Event. Table image is HUGELY important. I can't emphasize this enough. Being able to show your cards once you're heads up on the river and last to act is an EXTREMELY valuable tool that should never be taken away, in my opinion. I can show other players that I'm capable of bluffing, that I raise with shit cards (when in reality I don't), that I make monster laydowns, or that I'm capable of a semi-bluff raise from earlier in the hand. If I can change the way a table thinks of how I play, I can exploit that image later.

These gains FAR outweigh the "villains sometimes aren't paying attention and may act irrationally" argument I keep reading. A player not paying attention should have no bearing whatsoever on the rules. Whether this is a cash game setting, early in a tournament, or at the FT of a WSOP event, this doesn't adversely affect the other players in any way. Remember, I'm closing the action in a heads up pot.

That's my two cents. You're all welcome to disagree with me, but until I'm given a good explanation as to why I shouldn't be allowed to do that, I will continue to do it. I just gain far too much to give up that edge. And for me, "because it's in the rulebook" just isn't a good enough argument.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Oh, and thank you @bergs for the Olivia Munn photo... definitely a thread saver!

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I guess you've made my point @Poker Zombie , which is that I've yet to encounter someone with a good argument for following this rule. I've only ever been told that I should follow it strictly because it's a rule.

For some, simply saying that "authority figure X said Y, therefore Y" is good enough. I'm not one of those people. I don't follow rules because they are rules. I follow rules because they are worth following. If I approach an intersection with no cars around for miles and miles out in the middle of nowhere, I'm not waiting for that light to change because to me, the rules don't apply. Stop lights are designed to control traffic. When there's no traffic, they aren't necessary. You may be the type who sits there for 5 minutes waiting for the light to change, or the type that backs up 15 feet then pulls back forward trying to get the light's sensor to acknowledge that you're there, all the while cursing the damn light which won't turn green. Nothing wrong with being that person, but it's just not me.

My point is this: rules aren't worth following just because they are rules. Rules are worth following because of their intentions. There are good and bad rules in all areas of life. I believe the rule of "never show your cards" is flawed. I think the reason the rule was ever even written is likely because there are a few clear situations where a player should never show his/her cards. In fact, during the majority of play, you shouldn't be allowed to show your cards. The following situations warrant this rule:

1) Any time you are in a multi-way pot, showing your cards provides an unfair advantage to other players in the hand
2) Showing your cards to another player in a tournament setting when it is their turn to act, usually for 'giving air', puts the other players at the table at a disadvantage since you may have otherwise knocked that player out of the tournament, or at least crippled his/her stack

Since these situations cover 90-some-odd percent of all situations at a poker table, I believe they just made a blanket rule to say, "never show your cards" because it was easier to just make a blanket rule than to expressly state when it is and is not ok to show your cards.

However, I believe you guys are undermining the value of a player being able to show his cards in the right situations. I gain A TON of value by showing my hands in the right spots. Here's a prime example of when I will show my hand, note its' a very specific situation:

If I'm in a hand, and we are heads up on the river, and my opponent has already acted and I have a tough decision to make. It's a spot where I'm either calling or folding. No other players will act behind me. Whether I show my cards or not in this spot does not affect the other players at the table. However, I can gain a lot by showing them. I can craft my table image by selecting which hands I want to show. If I've been getting a run of shitty hands, and my table image makes me look super nitty, I can gain a lot by showing my J4s cutoff raise preflop from this hand. I can also gain a lot in the situation I mentioned earlier where I showed my KK on the K554J board and folded for one more bet on the river after 3betting my opponent. I showed those Kings face up, and said, "I fold". That laydown became the talk of the week at that circuit event. I probably heard players talk about that hand at least 6 or 7 different times throughout the weekend. Some players said, "bullshit, no one ever lays that down, EVER." Then they'd argue and say, "it's true man, the dealer confirmed it to me." Then of course I'd tell them that I'm the player who laid it down and I explained my reasoning on the hand, etc, etc. The action that that hand brought me was incredible. Every player at the table thought I was a complete pushover and tried to push me off my hands for the remainder of the tournament. When I got to the FT, players were still talking about the hand, unaware that I was the one who laid it down. I ended up amassing a shit-ton of chips, and went on to win the Circuit Event. Table image is HUGELY important. I can't emphasize this enough. Being able to show your cards once you're heads up on the river and last to act is an EXTREMELY valuable tool that should never be taken away, in my opinion. I can show other players that I'm capable of bluffing, that I raise with shit cards (when in reality I don't), that I make monster laydowns, or that I'm capable of a semi-bluff raise from earlier in the hand. If I can change the way a table thinks of how I play, I can exploit that image later.

These gains FAR outweigh the "villains sometimes aren't paying attention and may act irrationally" argument I keep reading. A player not paying attention should have no bearing whatsoever on the rules. Whether this is a cash game setting, early in a tournament, or at the FT of a WSOP event, this doesn't adversely affect the other players in any way. Remember, I'm closing the action in a heads up pot.

That's my two cents. You're all welcome to disagree with me, but until I'm given a good explanation as to why I shouldn't be allowed to do that, I will continue to do it. I just gain far too much to give up that edge. And for me, "because it's in the rulebook" just isn't a good enough argument.

I don't think anyone would have a problem if you announced fold and then tabled your hand, there's nothing wrong with that, and I could see how that would be useful. As for a good explanation as to why you shouldn't be allowed to show your cards in a tourney (with action still pending), let me refer you to the original post in this thread.

 

[ChaosRock]

As described in the OP (and not getting into the merit of your house rules), pot goes to Player #1 as he can't fold the winning hand... Not sure how it could be ruled any differently... Cat's out of the bag and player #1 has the winning hand... Isn't this particular case one of the reasons you advocate showing cards, to induce reactions and/or mistakes? P1 rakes the pot, next hand is dealt, no biggie per your house rules...

 

[RainmanTrail]

I don't think anyone would have a problem if you announced fold and then tabled your hand, there's nothing wrong with that, and I could see how that would be useful. As for a good explanation as to why you shouldn't be allowed to show your cards in a tourney (with action still pending), let me refer you to the original post in this thread.

I would argue that the OP is a good example of why you should pay attention, not a good example of why you shouldn't be allowed to show your hand.

 

[detroitdad]

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.

I'm only posting cuz I think this needs a quote to move her pic to the next page of this thread.

 

[Anthony Martino]

As for a good explanation as to why you shouldn't be allowed to show your cards in a tourney (with action still pending), let me refer you to the original post in this thread.

This has happened to me once in over 15 years of hosting home games. I don't think the benefits of the rule change outweigh the fun, psychology and strategy that happen because of my allowing a hand to be exposed like this. I'll take the risk it'll happen again 15 years from now.

Also, if, based on the one occurrence in my OP I should change my rules after 15+ years of hosting is a valid approach, then by that thought process we might as well ban cars because someone might get into an accident because they didn't pay attention.

 

[detroitdad]

 

[Blaster]

........., then by that thought process we might as well ban cars .......

 

[Anthony Martino]

If you're going to petition for me to change my rules because of something that has happened once in 15 years of hosting, then why not petition for changing something far more likely to occur and far more damaging?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I guess you've made my point @Poker Zombie , which is that I've yet to encounter someone with a good argument for following this rule. I've only ever been told that I should follow it strictly because it's a rule.

For some, simply saying that "authority figure X said Y, therefore Y" is good enough. I'm not one of those people. I don't follow rules because they are rules. I follow rules because they are worth following. If I approach an intersection with no cars around for miles and miles out in the middle of nowhere, I'm not waiting for that light to change because to me, the rules don't apply. Stop lights are designed to control traffic. When there's no traffic, they aren't necessary. You may be the type who sits there for 5 minutes waiting for the light to change, or the type that backs up 15 feet then pulls back forward trying to get the light's sensor to acknowledge that you're there, all the while cursing the damn light which won't turn green. Nothing wrong with being that person, but it's just not me.

You obviously don't have red-light cameras in your jurisdiction. Then again, I suspect you would try to convince the judge that the rules don't apply to you.

Lots of reason for not exposing a live hand have been shown. You don't see it, or you don't agree it should be a rule. The OP asked how would you rule. I rule by the written rules of the TDA. I do not use the rules of the WSOP (except where they overlap). There are some TDA rules I don't abide by, like the rule requiring random seating (I use a random seat assignment, but skill-weighted table assignments). I don't however, ask why this shouldn't be - and BTW, don't need to, because I understand why some would find this "wrong", but my players prefer it this way - and it has never caused an issue.

If I'm in a hand, and we are heads up on the river, and my opponent has already acted and I have a tough decision to make. It's a spot where I'm either calling or folding. No other players will act behind me. Whether I show my cards or not in this spot does not affect the other players at the table. However, I can gain a lot by showing them. I can craft my table image by selecting which hands I want to show. If I've been getting a run of shitty hands, and my table image makes me look super nitty, I can gain a lot by showing my J4s cutoff raise preflop from this hand. I can also gain a lot in the situation I mentioned earlier where I showed my KK on the K554J board and folded for one more bet on the river after 3betting my opponent. I showed those Kings face up, and said, "I fold". That laydown became the talk of the week at that circuit event. I probably heard players talk about that hand at least 6 or 7 different times throughout the weekend. Some players said, "bullshit, no one ever lays that down, EVER." Then they'd argue and say, "it's true man, the dealer confirmed it to me." Then of course I'd tell them that I'm the player who laid it down and I explained my reasoning on the hand, etc, etc. The action that that hand brought me was incredible. Every player at the table thought I was a complete pushover and tried to push me off my hands for the remainder of the tournament. When I got to the FT, players were still talking about the hand, unaware that I was the one who laid it down. I ended up amassing a shit-ton of chips, and went on to win the Circuit Event. Table image is HUGELY important. I can't emphasize this enough. Being able to show your cards once you're heads up on the river and last to act is an EXTREMELY valuable tool that should never be taken away, in my opinion. I can show other players that I'm capable of bluffing, that I raise with shit cards (when in reality I don't), that I make monster laydowns, or that I'm capable of a semi-bluff raise from earlier in the hand. If I can change the way a table thinks of how I play, I can exploit that image later.

Wow - I am in complete awe of your awesome skillz. If I could take the time to read such a long boast about your awesomeness I might be more impressed, but nah, I just roll my eyes at it, give you your desperately desired kudos, and move on. Though I have to ask (because I'm not subjecting myself to a fish-story read) Would your awesomeness show through if you only showed your cards after your hand wasn't live (after you announce fold, or after your last opponent folds)?

 

[RainmanTrail]

You obviously don't have red-light cameras in your jurisdiction. Then again, I suspect you would try to convince the judge that the rules don't apply to you.

You'd be wrong again @Poker Zombie , we have plenty of red light cameras. I've even gotten 2 tickets from them. Both of which went straight into the trash can where they belong. No need to try to convince a judge that the rules don't apply to me because I'm not stupid enough to bring myself before a judge for a fake ticket.

Lots of reason for not exposing a live hand have been shown. You don't see it, or you don't agree it should be a rule.

The only arguments posed so far have been

1) It might make a player who isn't paying attention do something stupid
2) It's sort of in the rulebook God damn it!

If these are convincing arguments for you, then I wish you the best of luck in life. You're gonna need it.

Wow - I am in complete awe of your awesome skillz. If I could take the time to read such a long boast about your awesomeness I might be more impressed, but nah, I just roll my eyes at it, give you your desperately desired kudos, and move on. Though I have to ask (because I'm not subjecting myself to a fish-story read) Would your awesomeness show through if you only showed your cards after your hand wasn't live (after you announce fold, or after your last opponent folds)?

No need to start attacking me. I'm just giving examples of how I benefited from showing my hands.

Keep trolling though. Trust me, everyone loves it.

 

[abby99]

I can't believe this has gone on for so long. When I first jumped in, I was responding to this:

Now I know in a casino setting:
1. you wouldn't be allowed to turn your hand face-up, usually that makes the hand dead (although it was asked and I ruled opposite that for my game)

That's just not accurate. To support my conclusion, I cited TDA and WSOP tournament rules, which to the best of my knowledge are followed in whole or in part by most casinos.

Yes, you asked how we would rule, but most of us said we wouldn't be in your position because we would have ruled that player #1 (the guy who was not all in) cannot expose his hand. I think most of us agree that giving him the option to fold after showing a winning hand is not the best solution, nor is allowing them to chop a reasonable ruling. You said yourself that if you had to do it over, you would rule it an auto-call.

Your game, your rules. Fini.

Carry on . . .

 

[manamongkids]

Only one way to solve this

 

[manamongkids]

You'd be wrong again @Poker Zombie

Keep trolling though. Trust me, everyone loves it.

almost forgot this one, carry one

 

[Anthony Martino]

Only one way to solve this

View attachment 28284

Just you and me and my.....................GUUUUAAARRRRDDSSS!

 

[bergs]

I use a random seat assignment, but skill-weighted table assignments

What is "skill-weighted table assignments"? I hate to be the first one to tell you this, but I fear that you suffer from a very severe case of overanalyzingizitus. It's not usually fatal, but it is incurable, and can only be managed via Russian shock therapy.

 

[BGinGA]

If I'm in a hand, and we are heads up on the river, and my opponent has already acted and I have a tough decision to make. It's a spot where I'm either calling or folding. No other players will act behind me. Whether I show my cards or not in this spot does not affect the other players at the table. However, I can gain a lot by showing them. I can craft my table image by selecting which hands I want to show. If I've been getting a run of shitty hands, and my table image makes me look super nitty, I can gain a lot by showing my J4s cutoff raise preflop from this hand. I can also gain a lot in the situation I mentioned earlier where I showed my KK on the K554J board and folded for one more bet on the river after 3betting my opponent. I showed those Kings face up, and said, "I fold". That laydown became the talk of the week at that circuit event. I probably heard players talk about that hand at least 6 or 7 different times throughout the weekend. Some players said, "bullshit, no one ever lays that down, EVER." Then they'd argue and say, "it's true man, the dealer confirmed it to me." Then of course I'd tell them that I'm the player who laid it down and I explained my reasoning on the hand, etc, etc. The action that that hand brought me was incredible. Every player at the table thought I was a complete pushover and tried to push me off my hands for the remainder of the tournament. When I got to the FT, players were still talking about the hand, unaware that I was the one who laid it down. I ended up amassing a shit-ton of chips, and went on to win the Circuit Event. Table image is HUGELY important. I can't emphasize this enough. Being able to show your cards once you're heads up on the river and last to act is an EXTREMELY valuable tool that should never be taken away, in my opinion. I can show other players that I'm capable of bluffing, that I raise with shit cards (when in reality I don't), that I make monster laydowns, or that I'm capable of a semi-bluff raise from earlier in the hand. If I can change the way a table thinks of how I play, I can exploit that image later.

As Chippy noted (and you ignored), there is absolutely no difference between ^this^ and showing your hand after you announce 'fold'. If calling, you have to show then anyway to win the pot, and can optionally show if losing. There is no reason cited above that necessitates the exposure of a live hand to gain whatever table image it is you think you gained. Everything you are trying to accomplish can be just as easily accomplished without exposing a live hand. Sorry, sir - example fail.

You also ask for other reasons why a player should not be able to expose a live hand. Here's another: If exposing a hand is 'sometimes' legal, a player may table his hand while pondering his action because he 'thinks' he is last to act...... but really isn't. There may be another player in the hand, or the player he 'thinks' is all-in really isn't. By exposing his hand, he has affected the future play of others (in either case). If exposing live hands isn't allowed period, this type of error never happens because "oh, I thought I was last to act...".

I've seen and heard that exact "oh, I thought I was last to act..." excuse for a player error many times (in both casinos and home games), as I'm sure you also have. There is no good reason to have it come up when somebody exposes their hand, too.

 

[guinness]

I'll never forget when Olivia Munn used to do the Sweet Ass In Your Face bits on AOTS. She had me then, she has me now.

 

[RainmanTrail]

As Chippy noted (and you ignored), there is absolutely no difference between ^this^ and showing your hand after you announce 'fold'. If calling, you have to show then anyway to win the pot, and can optionally show if losing. There is no reason cited above that necessitates the exposure of a live hand to gain whatever table image it is you think you gained. Everything you are trying to accomplish can be just as easily accomplished without exposing a live hand. Sorry, sir - example fail.

You also ask for other reasons why a player should not be able to expose a live hand. Here's another: If exposing a hand is 'sometimes' legal, a player may table his hand while pondering his action because he 'thinks' he is last to act...... but really isn't. There may be another player in the hand, or the player he 'thinks' is all-in really isn't. By exposing his hand, he has affected the future play of others (in either case). If exposing live hands isn't allowed period, this type of error never happens because "oh, I thought I was last to act...".

I've seen and heard that exact "oh, I thought I was last to act..." excuse for a player error many times (in both casinos and home games), as I'm sure you also have. There is no good reason to have it come up when somebody exposes their hand, too.

This is a valid point @BGinGA and @Chippy McChiperson . The same table image gains can be had by declaring "fold" first, then showing. But that's still not an argument for why showing first then folding should not be allowed. I suppose the only added benefit one could gain from showing before making your decision is if you can get a read off your opponent by showing your hand. Which then begs the question, should this be allowed? I would argue yes, as I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

I'm just gonna say.....this whole fucking thread could have been resolved early on by just answering as to unfuck a very fucked up hand. Regardless of why a host of 15 years would allow a hand to get so out of control.
The second point; by far the most important one is this thread is a black-eye on the forum. It smacks of CT'ism.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Regardless of why a host of 15 years would allow a hand to get so out of control.

So it's my fault the other guy was on tilt and not paying attention to the action that was completely open and verbalized with only four people left in the room and no side discussions outside of the current hand to distract him?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

If he was on tilt maybe he was thinking about the hand that put him on tilt, and not the current hand. He was all-in, so there was nothing left to do in the hand strategy wise that he had to think about. So he's not paying full attention, sure, and sees his opponent flip up his cards, and thinks it's a call. Not entirely his fault in my opinion.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

So it's my fault the other guy was on tilt and not paying attention to the action that was completely open and verbalized with only four people left in the room and no side discussions outside of the current hand to distract him?

Uhhhgggg....i knew I should have said nothing.....but....if this^ is the way you feel you should have just said that to the guy and ruled based upon that. Done and done.

 

[Anthony Martino]

If he was on tilt maybe he was thinking about the hand that put him on tilt, and not the current hand. He was all-in, so there was nothing left to do in the hand strategy wise that he had to think about. So he's not paying full attention, sure, and sees his opponent flip up his cards, and thinks it's a call. Not entirely his fault in my opinion.

lol, how much hand-holding do you guys expect in poker? It's 100% his fault, I'm not responsible for the attention span of another player, their level of tilt control or anything of the sort. This is, as usual, another witch hunt by the extremely vocal minority that demonizes the chip community and pushes other people away from posting and participating.

You all took this thread off tangent and made it about something it's not about, and when I and others disagreed with you, insults were hurled our way and you continued to proselytize ad nauseam trying to berate us into your viewpoint. The problem here is people like you, not people like me.

 

[Anthony Martino]

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

A witch hunt? Dude we disagree on whether or not your rule is a good idea. It's ok to have different opinions sometimes. Sorry if the criticism hurt your feelings.

 

[Anthony Martino]

It's ok to have different opinions sometimes.

This is what I've been saying all along! Not once did I try to make anyone else change the way they run their game or tell them the way they ran their game was "wrong". I just defended the way I run MY game, and all I got was a continual shit-storm of negative comments and bashing because I had a different opinion.