Daniel Negreanu is WRONG!

[SGspecial]

How long would you give players to act? Couldn't an opponent chatter at a player to try to distract him from making the right decision in the allotted amount of time?

[1outer]

I believe that you should be able to show your cards whenever you want in any format. If poker is indeed a game of psychological warfare, than you should be able to use all the tools available that would help you gain any edge possible.

Has anyone ever heard of Phil Laak's "shower shuffle". He says it does not happen often maybe only once a year. But there will be a time when you hold the nut flush (not on a 4flush board) and you are sure your opponent holds a weaker flush. You then show your ace high flush card and move the rest of ur chips into hte pot. The thinking is that opponent wll not believe that you are moving in with the actual hand you are holding. Tactics like these just make the game more unpredictable and more fun to play.

[bec1972]

[ 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.

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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

First let me say that if people are going to collude they are going to collude, the average Joe is not gonna see it, and actually there have been obvious collusions and soft play with nothing done, or atleast made public, to deter it. Jamie Gold's "top top" for example, there is nothing anybody can tell me that he wasn't playing his buddy soft there. (If you disagree I challenge you to watch the ESPN coverage and turn up the volume and rewind the conversation after the call over and over.)

But I think that the rule in question where the one player is all in and the other can call or fold, does allow for collusion. What I will elaborate to is NOT that far fetched.

Two cheaters are lucky enough to get seated at the same table. 2 cheaters check it down to the river. Cheater 1 is getting short stacked and goes all in, cheater 2, who is a huge stack, flips over his hand "to get a read" and cheater 1 shuffles his chips, cheater 2 calls and doubles him up. Cheater 2 mucks his cards and no one knows what he called with and he can say "well I took you for weakness, bad read".

or . . . . . .

Two cheaters are lucky enough to get seated at the same table. 2 cheaters check it down to the river. Cheater 1 is getting short stacked and goes all in, cheater 2, who is a huge stack, flips over his hand "to get a read" and cheater 1 sits back and crosses his arms, cheater 2 folds and waits because cheater 1 couldn't beat 2's hand. Cheater 1 mucks his cards and no one knows what he went in with and cheater 2 folds saying, "you must have this beat".


Now I would think that player 2 never flips over his hand with 2 pair or better, otherwise folding to a checked down pot would be foolish to everyone, but if chips were bet between the two whether 2 decides to flip his cards can be elaborate or straightforward, allowing others at the table to overlook the soft play that can happen with betting.

Ironically I have a real snake in the grass in my home game, the irony comes with the fact that he tries to cheat (IMHO) (the IMHO is that he cheats, the degree that he sucks is not an opinion it is stone cold fact, LOL) and he is STILL horrible. Because he is SO BAD I want him to keep coming, but I watch him like a hawk, and always try to think one step ahead of him. (His cheating/mistakes so far are miscalling his hand, making change incorrectly, calling light, miscounting his all in number, etc.)

Now I don't want to get into a cheating post or a kick this guy out of your home game post, I was merely pointing out to the previous poster how the rule good be abused.

[Daniel Negreanu]

First of all, if you did allow people to show just one card during a hand, how many people do you think would actually do it? Seriously? I would bet BIG money that less than 5% of the players would ever do that in the middle of a hand. Having said that, those players should have the right to do it if they think it will increase their chances of winning the tournament, REGARDLESS of the effect that it has on the other players remaining in the tournament.

As for colluders and cheaters they would NEVER DO IT!!! Please think about that for a moment: if two players were colluding in a tournament the LAST thing they would do is bring attention to themselves by showing each other their hole cards. It would be completely foolish, and in fact, if they were dumb enough to do that, it would be easier to catch them.

What two cheaters would do is have simple hand signals. If they want their opponent to fold, they hold their cards in their left hand. If they want their opponent to raise, they hold their cards in their right hand. Using collusion as an argument against showing one hole card during a hand is weak at best.

I want the right to do this, and I should have it:

Playet A bets 2000 on the river and there is 5000 in the pot. The board reads 9s 6s 4c 2s Kh. I go all in for 10,000. Player A now starts thinking, and I show him one card... the As.

That's psychological warfare. Would I show him that card if I really had it? Am I using reverse psychology?

That is the essense of poker and it should absolutely be 100% legal. I'd be doing what I felt was in my best interest and I should have the right to use this tactic if I think it will enhance my chances of winning the tournament.

In closing, this really isn't a rule that I see changing anytime soon as poker tournaments are leaning towards taking more skill out of the events, but the one rule that just HAS to change is the ridiculous, "show one, show both" rule at the end of the hand.

[BlackjackAJ]

[ 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?

[Jack Bando]

[ 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?

[DoGGz]

[ 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

[BigAlK]

[ 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.)

[Matt Savage]

[ 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