strange situation requiring ruling....

[CurryLover]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the rule:

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 15 - Tournaments
21. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player may not show any cards during a deal (unless the event has only two remaining players). If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst I think Robert's rules are generally very good, you must realise that they are not THE rules. Each card room has it's own rules to handle situations like this. You cannot say 'this is the correct rule' just because Robert Ciaffone has suggested that it might be a good rule to have in place.

There are many little areas like this in poker, where the procedure differs between cardrooms. No rule is 'correct', although there is nothing wrong with debating the merits of different individual rules. At some point perhaps we will have an agreed on set of rules that all card rooms and casinos throughout the world live by. Until that point you need to be aware of the specific rules in the individual countries/card rooms that you play in.

One other example of differences in poker rules is the rule regarding speech play. US card rooms allow a great deal of speech play. In the UK it is not really allowed at all. Although the rules have been relaxed a little recently, it is still considered ungentlemanly. But it would be pointless to say that either the US or the UK attitude/rules regarding speech play are wrong. They are different and are the product of different poker cultures, that's all. Neither is right or wrong, although you may have your own preferences.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is results-oriented thinking. Even if the guy has AK, I want to make him pay to see that draw.

If an A or a K comes on the turn or river (especially the A, as I might still bet if a K came), he can back off and get to showdown for free. If no A or K comes, then the opponent will probably not call any bet, and the OP completely loses value for the top pair he flopped. I think the OP played it perfectly for value, provided he was ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't results oriented thinking good?

After the flop, unless Ace-flasher holds AA or AQ, you're a 78% to 88% favorite to win the hand. Obviously raising against AA or AQ is a mistake, so lets only consider the other possible holdings. There's 10,000 in the pot and you have 8,000 in front of you.

12% of the time an Ace and no Queen will show up on the turn and you lose. 36% of the time there is no Queen, and a K shows up or a board card pairs (5% of the time, two of those things happen).

If you wait for the river to bet, 52% of the time you'll be sure you've won, 12% of the time you'll be sure you've lost, and 36% of the time you'll have to make a judgement. Ace-flasher will have no way of knowing that you have him beat in any of these cases. In the 36% in-between cases, you should win about 24% and lose 12% (depending on your read of Ace-flasher).

So if you wait for the river to act, 88% of the time you go all-in, and 12% of the time you check and lose (or fold if you prefer). If Ace-flasher calls, you make 18,000 76% of the time and lose 8,000 12% of the time for an expected profit of 12,720. If Ace-flasher folds, you make 10,000 88% of the time for an expected value of 8,800.

Now do the analysis after a 3,000 post-flop bet (I'll ignore the turn bet). If he calls that bet and the river bet, you make 18,000 76% of the time, lose 8,000 12% of the time and lose 3,000 12% of the time for an expectation of 12,360. In this case, your river bet costs you 360. If he calls the flop bet but folds on the river, you make 10,000 88% of the time and lose 3,000 12% of the time, for an expectation of 8,440. Again, the river bet cost you 360. If he folds to the river bet, then you make 10,000, which I regard as a bad outcome on this hand, especially with a loose aggressive player, who is probably steamed. I figure to get 12,000 or more of expected value, I don't want 10,000 now.

[PantsOnFire]

Point taken.

I believe Robert's rules are the most widely used. However, this may be a situation where different casinos could have a different response, or local house rule. Perhaps if you expose a hole card before you have to show it down, it's an automatic muck. Actually this may be rule in cash games.

Nonetheless, the ruling that did happen about not being allowed to be "aggressive" is absolutely ludicrous. I hope we can agree on that.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
In some poker games in England, they have a rule that you're not allowed to talk about your hand during play. That's sick. Poker is a game based on the concept of talking your opponents into and out of pots. As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with a wagering game involving pairs, straights, flushes, and full houses that is played in silence. Just don't call it "poker." That name is already taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Caro

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not seen this rule myself in the UK, but it makes no sense to me. When only two players are left in the hand, players should be able to show and speak as they please.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I had it explained to me once, "At a tournament final table, every hand is multiway." Meaning every player has some interest in the outcome of every hand, and it is in fact possible for player A to hurt player C (who's already folded) by convincing player B to correctly fold his hand.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
As I had it explained to me once, "At a tournament final table, every hand is multiway." Meaning every player has some interest in the outcome of every hand, and it is in fact possible for player A to hurt player C (who's already folded) by convincing player B to correctly fold his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see that in theory, but have two objections. First, you're letting the tournament get in the way of the poker. Poker is only poker when it's played for the money. If I can't do what's best for me because I have to worry about keeping things fair for players who aren't even in the hand, it distorts the game. The next step is worrying about what's good for the spectators, or the sponsors.

This doesn't matter so much for games like football or chess. The game is the game, they're played the same way whether for money for some other motivation. But poker is about the money and when you interfere with that in order to make the tournament more fair, you damage the game.

Second, it's very difficult to construct a plausible scenario in which this makes much difference. The best I can do is a three way game with two large stacks and a small stack. Small stack is dealer and folds. The first big stack has a good but not great hand, say A6o. He doesn't want to fold it, but if he bets, he might get into a big pot with the other small stack, with both having roughly equal chances of winning. Both of them are better off avoiding confrontations until the small stack is eliminated.

But how much advantage is that? First of all, it has to be less than the value of the small blind, because the small blind can either fold, or call then fold if raised. By showing his hand, the small stack gives up any chance of playing the hand, if he's raised, he virtually has to fold since the other player now knows his hand. Given that, the big blind should always call, then wait for the river and go all-in.

I think this is a rule made by people who don't understand poker.

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the river bet cost you 360. If he folds to the river bet, then you make 10,000, which I regard as a bad outcome on this hand, especially with a loose aggressive player, who is probably steamed. I figure to get 12,000 or more of expected value, I don't want 10,000 now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with all of this math is the fact that the range of hands he will call with on the river that I can beat are very, very small. That's why I push on the flop. The range of hands he may call me with at that point in the hand is much higher, and the ONLY hands I'm afraid of are AA and AQ.

Your math all makes sense, I just think the opponent is MUCH more likely to get his chips in the pot on the flop with a losing hand than on the river.

BTW.. results-oriented thinking means making poker decisions based more on short term results than long term results.

[MadzD]

I'm surprised people are so shocked by a ruling limiting the flasher's options during the hand, but would readily accept declaring the hand dead. Keep in mind that the limited options are actually a LESSER punishment. No-one is forcing the player to call the bets, he could have folded on the flop, and would usually be better off doing so.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I see that in theory, but have two objections. First, you're letting the tournament get in the way of the poker. Poker is only poker when it's played for the money. If I can't do what's best for me because I have to worry about keeping things fair for players who aren't even in the hand, it distorts the game. The next step is worrying about what's good for the spectators, or the sponsors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the spectators and the sponsors didn't pay to play in the tournament. You don't seem to understand, or seem to be deliberately ignoring, the difference between $EV and cEV.

Tournament poker is still poker but in certain situations, particularly very late in the tournament, it behaves completely differently from cash poker. One of these differences is that the effects/benefits of collusion go way up, and can have effects even on people not in the hand, and there is a lot more incentive for people to "accidentally" show cards with the intent of teaming up on the other players.

[Jive Dadson]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not seen this rule myself in the UK, but it makes no sense to me. When only two players are left in the hand, players should be able to show and speak as they please.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a tournament, there are never "only two players left in the hand" until there are only two players left in the tournament.