Daniel Negreanu is WRONG!

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Situations can arise in heads up pots in NL hold'em tournaments where if Player A could show Player B his cards, Player B would correctly fold and both players would benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Fundamental Theorum of Poker would disagree with this.

[Daniel Negreanu]

You made some decent points, fortunately I could easily defend my position on each and every one of them.

What I found odd about Matt's response is the fact that he neglects to reference the main objection that I have: the morphing of the "show one show all rule" that is designed to not allow players to share information with just one player, into showing one card meaning that you must show both.

You will have an impossible time convincing me that there is anything unethical about a hand being over, a player winning a pot, and then flipping over a 5c so that all could see it.

Under the current rule, that player, who just shared FREE information about a part of his hand, is told that other players would now have the right to see the other card as well. Are you kidding me? Why? Explain that one to me? Nevermind, it's simply not possible to explain how this makes any sense and I don't know that you will find a professional poker player to agree with that stance.

As for being able to show a card during the middle of the hand, I could see where making a change back to a more pure form of poker at this point could be problematic since the industry has weeded out this poker SKILL from the game. However, why in the world should I be penalized for turning my hand up on the river when a player has made a bet and it's up to me to call in a heads up pot? Why in the world should I not be allowed to show my opponent my hand?

In my blog I took my position to the extreme, but frankly, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm hoping that the show one show all rule is clarified so that a player, after the hand is over can show one card without being forced to show the other card if asked, or as McLelland would have it, having the dealer turn it up!

The other main objection I have is that when it's a heads up pot and a player has made a bet at me on the river, I should have every right to show him my hand. Look him in the face, and gauge his level of fear. That is an integral part of the game that was part of the WSOP in the late 90's when I started and it was NOT problematic. There was never an uproar from the players to change this rule. It was only changed later by tournarment directors, not poker players necessarily, with little to no provication.

As much as I'd like to go back the old ways, I'd be more than happy with the following compromise:

1. Allow players to show one card at the end of the hand without being forced to show both cards.

2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
You made some decent points, fortunately I could easily defend my position on each and every one of them.

What I found odd about Matt's response is the fact that he neglects to reference the main objection that I have: the morphing of the "show one show all rule" that is designed to not allow players to share information with just one player, into showing one card meaning that you must show both.

You will have an impossible time convincing me that there is anything unethical about a hand being over, a player winning a pot, and then flipping over a 5c so that all could see it.

Under the current rule, that player, who just shared FREE information about a part of his hand, is told that other players would now have the right to see the other card as well. Are you kidding me? Why? Explain that one to me? Nevermind, it's simply not possible to explain how this makes any sense and I don't know that you will find a professional poker player to agree with that stance.

As for being able to show a card during the middle of the hand, I could see where making a change back to a more pure form of poker at this point could be problematic since the industry has weeded out this poker SKILL from the game. However, why in the world should I be penalized for turning my hand up on the river when a player has made a bet and it's up to me to call in a heads up pot? Why in the world should I not be allowed to show my opponent my hand?

In my blog I took my position to the extreme, but frankly, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm hoping that the show one show all rule is clarified so that a player, after the hand is over can show one card without being forced to show the other card if asked, or as McLelland would have it, having the dealer turn it up!

The other main objection I have is that when it's a heads up pot and a player has made a bet at me on the river, I should have every right to show him my hand. Look him in the face, and gauge his level of fear. That is an integral part of the game that was part of the WSOP in the late 90's when I started and it was NOT problematic. There was never an uproar from the players to change this rule. It was only changed later by tournarment directors, not poker players necessarily, with little to no provication.

As much as I'd like to go back the old ways, I'd be more than happy with the following compromise:

1. Allow players to show one card at the end of the hand without being forced to show both cards.

2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record the show one show both rule has never been a TDA rule and never will be. I also told Daniel that I reconsidered that one point but he was busy in a tournament and does not remember. I do not use the show one show both rule after the hand is over anymore. It was the spirit of the game complaint that got me to change my mind in the first place. We had always called it the "no needle" rule but needling has its place in poker to as long as it is not abused. Good arguments came from many sources including Daniel, Howard Lederer, Steve Zolotow, and Mike OMalley.

On to Daniel's point #2 I will not agree that you should be allowed to show your cards when heads up unless the following

1. There are two players left in the tournament
2. It is a heads up tournament
3. It is a cash game

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.

Matt Savage

[Bonified]

Daniel,

The main issue is that I'm not happy with players showing each other cards during the hand. You haven't addressed this in your reply. The most important thing is that players should not be able to show each other cards during a hand in order to inhibit action. After the hand, or when your opponent has no more actions to take, fine.

On a personal note though, I think it would be nice if certain "name" players stopped slowing the game down though over-dramatic Hollywooding and chatter. I'm not suggesting a rule for that, it would be appreciated is all.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Situations can arise in heads up pots in NL hold'em tournaments where if Player A could show Player B his cards, Player B would correctly fold and both players would benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Fundamental Theorum of Poker would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Fundamental Theorem doesn't always apply when CHIPEV != $EV. Sklansky would definitely agree with me on this.

[mastr]

[ QUOTE ]
Situations can arise in heads up pots in NL hold'em tournaments where if Player A could show Player B his cards, Player B would correctly fold and both players would benefit. This obviously can't occur in a cash game. Preventing this sort of collusion is important. The current rules are definitely right and Negreanu is definitely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for complete truth. There are times in a tournament where an allin situation can occur in the 2 people allin suffering -$Ev and everyone not in the hand gaining. By being able to show your hand you alert them to that situation thus hurting everyone else in the touornament.

[Cornell Fiji]

Of the people who object to showing cards while your hand is still live only Daniel has addressed:

[ QUOTE ]
2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the disadvantage of permitting someone to show their cards when in a heads up pot and the opponent is all in?

There is not a fear of collusion and there is no disadvantage to the other players when this happens.

The only possible sticky scenario is that the guy who pushed sees the hand and says 'you should fold' but that happens often anyway and if people were going to collude they would already know that they should fold to keep their friend in the tournament.

Please address why you believe that that specific (but common) scenario should be outlawed

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Situations can arise in heads up pots in NL hold'em tournaments where if Player A could show Player B his cards, Player B would correctly fold and both players would benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Fundamental Theorum of Poker would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Fundamental Theorem doesn't always apply when CHIPEV != $EV. Sklansky would definitely agree with me on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Paging Dr. Sklansky... Dr. Sklansky to the Tournament Circuit forum please...."

[jaroot]

Live play is so damn slow as it is. Keep the rule as it is.

If it is ever changed so that it's allowed, it should definitely be a LIMITED privilege. Maybe give everyone a "Expose Cards" button, which you're allowed to use ONCE per blind level.

Probably a stupid idea, but if this rule is ever put in place there are going to be people who do it EVERY SINGLE TIME they are heads up just because the can. There has to be something in place to prevent that.