Daniel Negreanu is WRONG!

[bec1972]

Alright, but what about the show one, show both to all rule? THAT SEEMS SO CLEAR CUT that people want to be able to show one and only one after a muck-muck situation, if they wish, and yet it seems to have staying power as well. Is there a way to make our views known to the powers that be? (other than posting here, OF COURSE)

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, but what about the show one, show both to all rule? THAT SEEMS SO CLEAR CUT that people want to be able to show one and only one after a muck-muck situation, if they wish, and yet it seems to have staying power as well. Is there a way to make our views known to the powers that be? (other than posting here, OF COURSE)

[/ QUOTE ]

I no longer use the "show one, show both" in any of my events or tournaments and that is not even a TDA rule.

Matt Savage

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, but what about the show one, show both to all rule? THAT SEEMS SO CLEAR CUT that people want to be able to show one and only one after a muck-muck situation, if they wish, and yet it seems to have staying power as well. Is there a way to make our views known to the powers that be? (other than posting here, OF COURSE)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always send tournament questions to AsktheBoard@PokerTDA.com and it will go directly to David Lamb, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher or I. We currently answer 5-10 tournament rulings or questions a day.

Matt Savage

[Al Mirpuri]

I don't think players should be allowed to expose themselves during a hand [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In a multi table tournament it would be impossible to regulate all of the potential problems that could arise from showing cards during the play of the hand and everyone is affected.


[/ QUOTE ]

Matt-

What are these other problems that arise from Daniel's point #2. Are you worried showing cards to an opponent in a heads up pot at a full table would coax other players to say something about the hand/violate other rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's heads up and I turn over my hand, get a read and fold. I would have busted otherwise. Is it fair to all of the people I bust after this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Seemed like a reasonable question to me unless you're laughing at the presumption that he'll take anyone out. Even so the results of the hand, as with the results of every hand, impacts everyone in the tournament. If, as DN says, this is a true part of the game of poker, then it doesn't matter. If you don't see this as a part of the game then it does. I don't, but where you draw the line between legitimate gamesmanship and angle shooting isn't clear cut. I don't see this as angle shooting, but some grey area in between the two. Reasonable minds could have a different opinion.

Now the "show one, show both" rule makes absolutely no sense. (As long as the one you show is shown to everyone.)

[/ QUOTE ]


It would cause a lot of problems, Daniel assumes that when he exposed the hand everyone at the tables would just sit back and watch. IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN! People would be commenting, maybe he makes a comment, maybe the player he is up against says something, when did that become poker. I personally think it would make the game "more fun" but do not think it would make it more fair or easier to regulate against colluders or people that do not even realize basic poker etiquette.

Daniel is the best talker in the game today and changing this rule would benefit him more than anyone else. Should we change rules to benefit certain players?

I repeat the only two people I heard this from during my three years as tenure of the WSOP TD was "Amarillo" Slim Preston and "Oklahoma" Johnny Hale and that should say it all!

Right now the current rule is losing in the player poll 40% to 60% but most of the comments favor NOT showing cards so I am not sure what that means. Should the better, quicker, and more aggressive talkers have an advantage over people that do not have the gift of gab? Many top players DO NOT agree with Daniel despite what he says and if anyone thinks this would make better for new players is wrong.

I should get a few votes just for getting Daniel posting on 2 + 2 again :-)

Matt Savage

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt, while your arguments before made somewhat sense to me, this one does not. Your argument of "Daniel is really good at talking and getting information out of his opponents, it would be unfair for him to get more information out of them by showing his cards" is ludicrous. So you're telling me that by doing things that are within the rules he gets to make the correct decisions and go on to do better in the tournament because of it. So... you're telling me... he's a good poker player. And you think that's unfair to the people who aren't good poker players. Well, I guess you've got me there.

[Exitonly]

I was on Matt's side when it he made the post.. but I think i agree that using the inability to determine wether collusion was the intent of showing cards is a weak argument, as DN said - colluders won't do it.

It does/can affect everyone elses equity at the table, but so what? it doesn't do it in an unfair way..

[godofgambling]

in a tournament, it is important to make sure the game is fair to every player participating. there shouldn't be any ifs or buts. the best way to protect all players' interest and to maintain integrity of the tournament is by having this rule.

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In a multi table tournament it would be impossible to regulate all of the potential problems that could arise from showing cards during the play of the hand and everyone is affected.


[/ QUOTE ]

Matt-

What are these other problems that arise from Daniel's point #2. Are you worried showing cards to an opponent in a heads up pot at a full table would coax other players to say something about the hand/violate other rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's heads up and I turn over my hand, get a read and fold. I would have busted otherwise. Is it fair to all of the people I bust after this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Seemed like a reasonable question to me unless you're laughing at the presumption that he'll take anyone out. Even so the results of the hand, as with the results of every hand, impacts everyone in the tournament. If, as DN says, this is a true part of the game of poker, then it doesn't matter. If you don't see this as a part of the game then it does. I don't, but where you draw the line between legitimate gamesmanship and angle shooting isn't clear cut. I don't see this as angle shooting, but some grey area in between the two. Reasonable minds could have a different opinion.

Now the "show one, show both" rule makes absolutely no sense. (As long as the one you show is shown to everyone.)

[/ QUOTE ]


It would cause a lot of problems, Daniel assumes that when he exposed the hand everyone at the tables would just sit back and watch. IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN! People would be commenting, maybe he makes a comment, maybe the player he is up against says something, when did that become poker. I personally think it would make the game "more fun" but do not think it would make it more fair or easier to regulate against colluders or people that do not even realize basic poker etiquette.

Daniel is the best talker in the game today and changing this rule would benefit him more than anyone else. Should we change rules to benefit certain players?

I repeat the only two people I heard this from during my three years as tenure of the WSOP TD was "Amarillo" Slim Preston and "Oklahoma" Johnny Hale and that should say it all!

Right now the current rule is losing in the player poll 40% to 60% but most of the comments favor NOT showing cards so I am not sure what that means. Should the better, quicker, and more aggressive talkers have an advantage over people that do not have the gift of gab? Many top players DO NOT agree with Daniel despite what he says and if anyone thinks this would make better for new players is wrong.

I should get a few votes just for getting Daniel posting on 2 + 2 again :-)

Matt Savage

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt, while your arguments before made somewhat sense to me, this one does not. Your argument of "Daniel is really good at talking and getting information out of his opponents, it would be unfair for him to get more information out of them by showing his cards" is ludicrous. So you're telling me that by doing things that are within the rules he gets to make the correct decisions and go on to do better in the tournament because of it. So... you're telling me... he's a good poker player. And you think that's unfair to the people who aren't good poker players. Well, I guess you've got me there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimmy, changing this rule would help Daniel (and you). I don't think you should ever change a rule that would benefit certain players and hinder others. Showing cards during play of the hand has not been in tournaments for some time and I do not know why Daniel is making it out to appear that this is a new rule, changing it now would not make sense.

Matt

I would not be opposed to running a "special event" where you could show your cards, discuss what you had in your hand, or your opponents hand.

Matt

[Jack Bando]

Mr Savage,

I do agree with you regarding this rule, but on the flipside, "I don't think you should ever change a rule that would benefit certain players and hinder others." Keeping this rule harms those who are good at talking like Dan.

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimmy, changing this rule would help Daniel (and you). I don't think you should ever change a rule that would benefit certain players and hinder others. Showing cards during play of the hand has not been in tournaments for some time and I do not know why Daniel is making it out to appear that this is a new rule, changing it now would not make sense.

Matt

I would not be opposed to running a "special event" where you could show your cards, discuss what you had in your hand, or your opponents hand.

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

But you run WPT's where the final table drastically tilts the advantage away from the good players to making it a complete crapshoot. I know that's not really your doing, but I don't think the reasoning for keeping it a rule as "it helps good players win more" is very good. Aren't you supposed to want to be a good player? What makes a good player good? It's not up to you to decide that. You should make it so the rules:

1) Keep poker to its roots.
2) Make it so no one gets special treatment or anyone gains an UNFAIR advantage (which is NOT the same thing you are saying now. I'm not advocating changing the rule because it makes it easier for good players, I'm just playing devil's advocate here).

I think the rule is fine as is now because it makes things easier, but saying that it should stay as is because it makes things easier on people who aren't as good as other players is just wrong.