Show one, show all drama in the Borg $2-5 NL - Page 5

dinopoker · #41 08-01-2006, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While what you did is technically within your rights, I think it's dickish and your tantrum at the end over pretty much nothing sounds like it would be embarassing to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with this guy, and I think you were acting nitty as well. I always find it strange that the games in which this rule is the most strictly enforced are at the lower limits. I hate it when I'll occasionally flash a guy who folded a card only for some nit who wasn't in the hand to pipe up and say he wants to see my cards, when I was showing it to the loser out of courtesy. Or worse, when I run a bluff and get called down, some other nit wants to see my (losing) hand. I consider both of these breaches of etiquitte and super ultra nitty, even if they happen to be within the rules.

I would also like to know what possible value there was for you in seeing a hand a guy folded when you were holding AA.

AKQJ10 · #42 08-01-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to know what possible value there was for you in seeing a hand a guy folded when you were holding AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is value to that information -- is something like TT or 99 in his folding range here (indicating he understands stack size)? What about AQ (indicating he understands domination theory)?

It's probably not valuable enough information to put the entirely table on edge. Thinking back, I think I read a Bob Ciaffone article about SOSA in my first six months of playing. That was the reason I even knew I could ask to see a hand after completion of the action in the first place. (Curse you, Bob!) I like Ciaffone's writing about the rules but I wish he had tempered it with warnings about the -EV of invoking them -- or maybe he did, and I was too naive then to understand them.

Plainly invoking SOSA like this is a habit that I will need to unlearn, not unlike cold-calling a raise with KJ. Both of those actions cost me expectation in the long run, but fortunately both habits can be broken.

I do find it interesting that enforcing the rules calls forth such an emotional reaction from people. Some responses along the lines of "It's your right, but it's -EV," are coldly analytical and I can understand them and take them into consideration. It's the more emotional reactions that just strike me as bizarre.

Suppose that some other rule (say, a flush beating a straight) were infused with such societal ill-will. So if you show down a flush and your opponent shows down a straight, the dealer will push the pot to you -- but only if you ask! And if you ask for the pot, then the rest of the table is going to brand you a nit for knowing and enforcing the rules to your advantage, and the game is going to become less profitable because no one likes a nit who tries to enforce the "flush beats a straight" rule.

But no one gets emotional about a flush beating a straight, and everyone (including me, I admit it) gets emotional about SOSA. So be it. I'm a bit bemused by the idea of putting rules on the books that are considered "dickish" or "super ultra nitty" to enforce, that's apparently through years of poker tradition that's the way it is. I'll get over it.

jh21hook · #43 08-01-2006, 04:42 PM

AK, I totally agree with you in principle but I still think it is bad poker and bad form to insist on your obvious and unquestionable right in that situation. I think it is an emotionally charged subject b/c many feel (as do I) that it is enforcing a rule that was created to prevent collusion in a way that it was not intended to be enforced in order to gain advantage. Not exactly angle shooting, but in a similar vein. One man's opinion, I've been known to be wrong before.

AKQJ10 · #44 08-01-2006, 04:53 PM

It's news to me that SOSA is intended to prevent collusion (as opposed to IWTSTH of course). I always understood, probably from that same Ciaffone article, that the only reason for SOSA was to put the table on equal footing. But you're the second person to mention collusion in some fashion, so perhaps that is the real reason for SOSA.

IgorSmiles · #45 08-01-2006, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's news to me that SOSA is intended to prevent collusion (as opposed to IWTSTH of course). I always understood, probably from that same Ciaffone article, that the only reason for SOSA was to put the table on equal footing. But you're the second person to mention collusion in some fashion, so perhaps that is the real reason for SOSA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's time for one of our resident experts to clarify, but my understanding is that the SOSA and IWTSTH rules are based on very similar principals. The intent is to make sure the game is fair and on the level.

So, if you believe the game is fair and on the level, you really shouldnt invoke the rule. The line is finer with SOSA but the intent is the same.

pokerdude82 · #46 08-01-2006, 06:18 PM

Sir I am a poker vet, I am been playing since 2003. I practicly wrote the book "Theory" Anyway, I have never seen you play before, I was just being a nit hehehehe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

kosgrove · #47 08-01-2006, 09:14 PM

People would probably say I've got a little bit of nit in me, but I think I have what amounts to a fair and simple rule for SOSA and other breaches of protocl (even string betting). I let it slide THIS hand and AFTER the hand politely mention the breach of rules and add that I'm sure they didn't breach etiquite on purpose. If they happen to get up for a cigarette, I would say something away from the table.

If you're nice to others, they'll usually be nice to you.

steamraise · #48 08-02-2006, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I showed him my cards after he folded and flipped them towards the dealer. The dealer tabled my hand. I asked him who wanted to see my hand. The dealer just replied 'show one show all.'

[/ QUOTE ]

That's completely out of line.

I would be talking to his supervisor.

steamraise · #49 08-02-2006, 01:16 AM

Should have called the floor when he wanted to
see your hand. Have them explain things instead
of taking matters into your own hands.

I've never called the SOSA before the river.
But I sure get curious, and I'll
ask nearly every time on the river.

dinopoker · #50 08-02-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There is value to that information -- is something like TT or 99 in his folding range here (indicating he understands stack size)? What about AQ (indicating he understands domination theory)?

[/ QUOTE ]

And when he turns over 63o it shows that he understands 'don't play a bad hand' theory. Bah! I won't beat the dead horse because it sounds like you learned your lesson here; that being a nit is the most -EV thing you can ever do in a poker game. You need to go to Doyle's Room and read every one of Mike Caro's articles (twice).