Daniel Negreanu is WRONG!

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
Internet qualifier on the bubble in a $10K buy-in event. All fold to qualifier in the SB. He has KK. Doesn't want 30% chance of busting out. Is it okay your him to go all in and show his two kings to the BB?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was getting at before. Before we get sidetracked, you probably wouldn't want to do this with KK, probably a hand more like A2, but thats not the point. Situations can come up, particularly on the bubble or near a big pay jump, where the guy with the better hand shows his cards to the guy with the worse hand, causing him to correctly fold, benefiting both players in the hand at the expense of everyone else in the tournament.

[grdred944]

I'm late to this dance but I have to say I totally agree with Matt's comments in this thread. I am not going to beat up on Daniel but I do think he is claiming to be representing what is good for poker but in actuality is simply shaping an argument that presents what is good for him. That is fine and he is certainly entitled to posture however he wishes in his blog, but what is truly good for the game is to not modify rules designed to maintain the integrity of poker.

Ethical tests are ideal to use for establishing rules and procedures. Several people have mentioned how colluders can collude anyway so why use collusion as an argument supporting a rule that disallows revealing cards before the hand is over. The argument against that point is why would any right-minded tournament official support a rule that provides someone an additional avenue to not only collude but offer others at the table the opportunity to comment. In a tournament it adds a variable that would regularly require TD's to make subjective judgments as to whether or not someone either in the hand or worse, out of it, did something to effect play in an unfair manner. The responses of some that people would never collude in such a manner or would collude in other ways if they were inclined to collude doesn't hold any water when it comes to managing a tournament.

Two minor points:
I agree that there should not be a rule regarding showing both cards vs. one after the hand is over if you are so inclined. This demonstrates the need to get all poker rooms on a standard set of rules so we don't have to deal with nuances every time we play in a new room.

The Jamie Gold situation has been mentioned several times in this thread and has been beaten to death on these boards. It was a travesty that it was allowed to go on as it did. I am not saying he is the poster child for those who want poker tightened up or more restrictive in what can and cannot be done. But, his being able to repeatedly act as he did shows how subjective behavior by tournament officials may affect the outcome of a tournament. It needs to be more concrete and whittling away at existing rules to allow for better TV is not the way to do it.

[APipeDream]

Players in a heads up pot should be able to engage in psychological battle as well. They should be able to show their cards WHENEVER the frick they want to! I think this is actually one of the dumbest discussions, not because it was mentioned, but that it is such a HUGE part of the game, and might actually start seperating the donks from the players again. I think this is such a "gimme" that should absolutely be allowed (online too).

[twonine29]

[ QUOTE ]
Two minor points:
I agree that there should not be a rule regarding showing both cards vs. one after the hand is over if you are so inclined. This demonstrates the need to get all poker rooms on a standard set of rules so we don't have to deal with nuances every time we play in a new room.

The Jamie Gold situation has been mentioned several times in this thread and has been beaten to death on these boards. It was a travesty that it was allowed to go on as it did. I am not saying he is the poster child for those who want poker tightened up or more restrictive in what can and cannot be done. But, his being able to repeatedly act as he did shows how subjective behavior by tournament officials may affect the outcome of a tournament. It needs to be more concrete and whittling away at existing rules to allow for better TV is not the way to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie Gold's biggest strength as a poker player is manipulating weaker-minded players to do exactly what he wants them too.
By eliminating too much of the psychological warfare, it creates a poker environment that is much more suitable for the more "math/book smart" player to reach a higher level of play than the fast-talking slickster who knows how to break you mentally.

The game will become more like blackjack/chess, and less like poker. Poker is a people game and should stay that way.

PS: I hate how Poker Tournaments are gradually(or not so gradually) shifting towards crapshoots. These rule changes are creating an advantage for a specific group of players ...the players who suck are getting a more level playing field. We need tournaments to keep the integrity of the game and keep poker a game of skill, not just another casino gamble.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is actually one of the dumbest discussions, not because it was mentioned, but that it is such a HUGE part of the game, and might actually start seperating the donks from the players again. I think this is such a "gimme" that should absolutely be allowed (online too).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are living in a dreamworld. Do you think if you expose your cards your opponent is going to tell you what he has? Lets be realistic.

The impact will be minimal. At first it will be wasting time 95% of the time. Then players when start becoming immune and develop counter-measures (e.g. simply not look at exposed cards, etc.), and it will delay the game 99% of the time.

[Blair Rodman]

I think you are living in a dreamworld. Do you think if you expose your cards your opponent is going to tell you what he has? Lets be realistic.

The impact will be minimal. At first it will be wasting time 95% of the time. Then players when start becoming immune and develop counter-measures (e.g. simply not look at exposed cards, etc.), and it will delay the game 99% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The game has becomeinterminably slow as it is, with all the posturing and staredowns. Allowing card showing would make in unbearable. Maybe allowing it at the final table is reasonable, but not as a rule.

I played a bunch of tournament online this week to try to get in stroke for the WSOP. I love the time clock online--it makes the game so much faster and better. I wish it could be implemented in live tournaments.

[TxRedMan]

The problem with your arguement is that if two players were colluding, and they decided to show one another their cards to either get a call or a fold, whatever colluding action they wanted to have happen- they could achieve the same result by simply stating "i have xxx".

I don't think poker players should have their right to manipulate taken away because it might eliminate some hollywooding, or make it easier for colluders to collude.

People need to remember that this is poker, and it's not a well to do game that's without a very shady and seedy past.

In sum, this isn't bridge.

[Dunkman]

I can see both sides of this I suppose. I mean Daniel is right, it is part of the game, and players should be able to use all of their arsenal of moves to their advantage.

However, in this poker age of huge fields with amateur qualifiers, you would have people flipping cards all over the place, throughout the hand, trying to be like Daniel or whatever. It would be a total nightmare for the floor, especially in the ME, and I can certainly see why they don't want to deal with it (not to mention them having to send people to the rail constantly for violating the rule...that's not good for the tournament.) I guess I just don't have any faith in today's average tournament player to be intelligent or respectful enough to use this rule as it was intended.

[aramfingal]

Didn't Jamie Gold prove last year that no WSOP tournament rules are ever inforced anyway?
(except for saying naughty words of course)

[Crane]

[ QUOTE ]

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?



[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of one good reason. Suppose I was your partner, and that I was on the rail standing behind your opponent. If I could see his hole cards, once you turn your hand up all I would have to do is give you a thumbs up or thumbs down signal. You would know instantly whether or not your hand was any good.

This is one reason Jack Strauss used to play with an open umbrella over his shoulder.