blonde poker forum

Would be interested to hear any views on the following scenario. This occurred at the Luton Main Event last weekend.

I raised in early position. The big blind is the only caller. On the flop he checks, I check. On the turn he bets, and I call. The river goes check check. He then declares 'one pair'. I know I've won the hand as I have AK on a K high board. However, I want to see what cards he is playing with, and ask to see his hand which he is reluctant to show.

Now I last played at Luton in the Main Event of the previous festival back in April. At that time the rule was that at a showdown both hands must be shown, regardless of how the betting went, and this was strictly enforced by the dealers. This obviously appears to have been changed in the meantime. But irrespective of this, I would have thought that as my opponent in the above hand made the last betting action, that on the river he should have automoatically shown his hand  ???

I bear no ill feeling to my opponent in this hand, but the reason I ask is that at the time he said nothing, but five days later he has written that 'Asking to see a losing hand is the height of bad etiquette', referring directly to the above hand. Is this fair comment? I always try to conduct myself in a polite and professional manner at the table and wouldn't want to do anything that is seen as bad etiquette. I would like to know what more experienced players think of this scenario so if was out of line I don't make the same mistake in the future.

Regards

Rob

As it went check check on the river and he is first to act he is also first to show.

In any case you have every right to see his cards in a competition.

If it were a cash game, I would consider it bad form to ask to see the loser's cards.

My 2c.

Good luck !

Im of the same opinion. If it got to showdown then they should have been shown anyway. Just one of those things that differs from card room to card room, and in some places event to event.

Until everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet things like this will continue to happen up and down the country. Hymn sheet???????????? well it is Sunday.

~Yogi~

I remember this hand Rob, and as far as i could tell consensus was that you were right. Seemed just more tetchiness on his part, from what was (yourself and big bad pham aside) a table that looked like it thought the bloody sky was falling in (Why do so many players not try and enjoy the game for pete's sake?)

Nonetheless he's first to act before you and you had been calling him, just wait for him to show his hand first.

However, people not turning their hands over at the end of the final round, in a drawn out chinese standoff while the rest of the table sits bored mindless, is my current pet hate.  >:(

9.01 ORDER OF SHOWDOWN.
Upon completion of action on the final betting round, the dealer shall ask the players to show their hands. If more than one player contests a pot through the final betting round, the pot will be awarded to the best hand pursuant to the rules of the game upon a showdown of hands. If there has been a bet but no raise on the final betting round, then the player who made the bet shall show his hand first, followed by other players still contesting the pot, in clockwise rotation. If there has been a bet and raise or multiple raises on the final betting round, then the person who made the final raise shall show his hand first. If there has been no bet on the final round then the showdown begins with the player who had the obligation of first action on the final betting round--the player under the gun in draw and board games or the player with the highest board in stud games.

9.02 PROBABLE WINNER AT SHOWDOWN.
In the interests of efficiency and speeding up the game, a player who is reasonably certain he has the winning hand should turn over his hand immediately, regardless of the order of showdown. If a player does so, then other players at the showdown who can beat that hand should also turn their hands over immediately.

9.08 REQUESTS TO SEE A CALLED HAND.
Players shall not be entitled to see a called hand except in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of collusion, in which case the floorperson shall be called over for examination of the called hand. This is contrary to the traditional rule. However the traditional rule, which was designed to prevent collusion, has not served its original purpose. Asking to see called hands slows down the game, causes resentment and impedes action. In high limit games, the right to see a called hand is limited to situations where a floorperson is present for the request. The purpose of this rule is to protect against collusion, not to satisfy a player's curiosity or get a read on a player's style of play, or worst of all, to intentionally irritate a player. Abuse of this rule is very bad for poker as it kills action and causes resentment. A player who was involved on the turn may request a hand be shown, this is entirely the choice of the player involved but continuous requests to see hands shall be considered a breach of poker etiquette and may be grounds for removal from the game. There is no right to see a called losing hand under any circumstances in head's up play.

These rules are "CARO AND COOKES"

Dont agree with those rules at all and they are the exact opposite of the TDA rules. If I call somebody or am last to act on the river I want to see what he has been betting at me with/ what he was willing to defend his blind with- its not players curiosity it will help my future play against this player. If it means me sitting and waiting to turn my hand over in order then so be it. Poker is a game of information and how a player has bet his hand on the flop/turn/river etc is key information. Maybe he has made a semibluff on the turn with a straight/flush draw, I need to know that for the next time he makes the same move. I don't often ask to see a players cards but if I want to I should be allowed to- the phrase Ive paid for the right to see comes to mind.

I always thought that in tourneys both hands had to be shown to prevent chip passing etc?

I think thats a regional add on mate and also pointless because cheats will then just pass chips on a different round of betting.

the way I explain betting to people when explaining the game is this. think of it as an auction or agreeing a price to continue.

1st round of betting players are agreeing a price to see the flop, then agreeing a price to see the turn, then seeing the river. to me it's logical that the final round the is agreeing the price to turn cards over.  if player 1 bets and player 2 calls they've agreed a price and both turn over. following this logic if both remaining players check player 1 must show his hand first. player 2 has not agreed any price to show cards so can muck.

Ariston referring to 9.08 it is a request to see a "called" hand, if someone has bet and you have called then the caller has paid to see the bettors hand, which is as you rightly say correct.

rob.

in an otherwise excellent festival the issue you raise was one of my bug bears too. Different dealers had different interpretations of what needed to be shown at the conclusion of a hand depending on which Grosvenor they had been imported from for the week. The issue I raised after the festival about whether or not a dealer could call time on a player was also differentially applied

As we keep saying, all this highlights the need for a uniformly applied set of rules

Perhaps a start would be for all the Grosvenors to do so?

Finally, in your position I would have wanted him to show, as he declared "one pair" he has to show you one if he thinks he has a chance of winning.

Next time say "one pair" too and move to scoop the pot. Bet he shows you then!

Dealers calling time on a player, now there is a sore point for me. In the 1k main event at blackpool I played a hand where I raised preflop and was called by a nutter. On the flop I had a str8 flush draw and bet, called again. On the turn I bet big and was reluctantly called (I assumed he had top pair dodgy kicker) and when I missed the river I was deciding if I could get him to fold his hand. I thought for maybe a minute (I was first to act) counting my chips into different sizes to guage a reaction and the dealer said "russ you have 30 seconds to act or your hand is dead". I mucked my cards and admittedly lost it- no player had asked for a clock and it wasn't in the rules. Danny came over and calmed me down and later in the week the dealer appologised for his mistake ( I accepted the appology and theres no hard feelings). The reason I am saying this now is we have to get standardised rules. Maybe people like danny and co could get together with blonde to form these rules- I am sure if there were standardised rules casinos would use them, its just nobody can seem to be bothered doing it. Many forums have banded the idea about for a long time I think we should finally do it.

i played at walsall last night and the dealer told a player(not me) after a while that he had 30 seconds to act. i asked who called the clock on him and he said it was a house rule that players only had 2 minutes to act

Me too. It's the absolute height of childishness & stupidity, & it really is one of the few things that winds me up. "You have to show first", "No i don't you do".........

It is at Walsall, but it isn't at the Vic or at Luton

Three Grosvenor casinos, different sets of rules...hence ambiguity, confusion and avoidable resentment

 >:(

We had two 5 minute+ dwels on my table at walsall, on both occasions a player had to call for the clock, which IMHO is how it should be

i agree dealers should only clock a player if they are blatantly takin the piss ( as a certain blondite does hehehehe) we seem to ahve this discussion every 2 weeks lol

2 years ago, maybe more, Grosvenor sat down to make sure that rules are the same all over Grosvenor. They wrote a set, and sent them out and everyone used them. Unfortunately I read them one way and Dani in Walsall reads them another and Jeff at the Vic yet another way. So having the same rules the country over doesnt work straight away. The people making the rules, should sit down together with people who the rules are going to be used by and for. Namely the supervisors, and the players. Ironside, IFM and myself have all said the same and there are lots of poeple who agree, However after starting a thread on it and asking higher management about it, I have been politely warned away from sitting down with other companies supervisors. There my interest waned slightly or rather I was put off. Why should I make an effort if people who I am working for can't make the same effort??? It is only going to benefit everyone, and as Grosvenor have the biggest market share at the moment surely they will benefit the most.  

So for now perhaps Grosvenor should get it's house in order. We sat down to discuss the rules at the end of last year and made several changes. We still wait for these rules to be published. And there are probably now rules that need to be changed yet again, but probably won't. SOmething needs to be done and I'm sick of defending it or hearing about it. It bores me to harp on about it yet again as I'm sure it must bore you all to read it yet again.

Rules differences in the same group are not acceptable. Let's sort it out.

~YOGI~

Are you timing us?

not me no, not my job anymore lol

this is exactly my point. Someone high up at Grosvenor....rearrange the following phrase

head out get your of your arse...

and do something!

perhaps they just dont care???? certainly looks the case

It certainly feels that way to me, but I have to deal with them every day at work. Still if they aint interested they aint interested. Luckily some people are otherwise they prob wouldn't still have a business. But it's the same with all Casino groups. They are all filled with management types who are all full of their own self importance. Unfortunately the majority of these people are ex dealers with No Business skills, No People Skills, No Management Skills, just lots of experience of doing things the wrong way. Until they actually employ more managers with a clue about managing then things won't ever change.Until they actually put people in charge of areas that they understand then things won't change. And until then, the poker players amongst others will bear the brunt of the idiotic decisions made by people who have absolutely NO CLUE what is going on.


~Yogi~

Well the steps by Grosvenor was a good start - however no set of rules will be written unambigously or perfectly on first attempt. What is required is:

1) Rules are written
2) Rules are enforced
3) The various card room managers meet up at grosvenor's behest and fine tune any areas of ambiguity on a 6 monthly basis until there is complete consensus
4) These rules can then serve as a basis set that can be picked up by other card rooms.
5) within 5 years a rock solid rule set would emerge.


However there is a distinct conflict of interests, given that card-rooms are a decidedly side issue for most casino's. In the end all they (quite understandably) care about is getting bums on seats next to the roullette and blackjack tables. Any move in the right direction should be widely praised.

Well I don't know who you are  ??? but I'm glad someone else who witnessed this has read my post. I completely agree with the last paragraph, at the showdown it is really irritating for everyone else at the table when someone dwells when the rules and etiquette dictate he should show his hand first. So he declared 'one pair' and clearly didn't want to show his hand unless it was the winner, and not being one to waste time I tabled my hand and at the same time asked to see his hand. If the positions had been reversed, I would have shown my hand immediately when the opponent checks behind on the river.

The main reason for me making the post, was that at the time he said nothing, and five days later he posts a comment on my blog saying the following:

"Asking to see a losing hand is the height of bad etiquette. In fact as far as I can remember you asking to see my hand in that big pot was the first time it has ever happened to me in nearly 20 years of playing poker in Europe.

You aren't going to make many friends behaving like that."

I think on reflection, and having read some opinions on here, that in fact it was my opponent who showed 'bad etiquette', and making out that I played with bad etiquette the likes of which he hasn't seen in nearly twenty years of play is bang out of order and he owes me an apology.

Anyone who has played with me would I hope vouch for my integrity, good manners and conduct at the poker table. The Main Event at Luton was my first sponsored event, and obviously to have a chance of further sponsorship it's important to conduct oneself in a proper manner, which I always strive to do. Having someone make completely unjustified attacks like this could damage my reputation and impact on any future sponsorship opportunites, hence why I am keen to clear this matter up.

I purposely avoided naming the player in question as I didn't think that who he is should have any bearing on the responses to my original post, but he is no shrinking violet and won't want to remain anonymous. In fact I'm sure he will have a lot more to say on this matter once he reads this thread. I believe he has just gone to the top of the European rankings after winning the main event in Sheffield. For that congratualtions Mr Hawkins and I look forward to reading your response to this thread.

Regards

Rob

I thought this rule was pretty much standard everywhere, likely winner shows, if nobody does, last aggressive action has to show first. At any point a player may ask to see the "mucked" cards.

Even online poker rooms are the same. Many give you the option to muck and not show but if the other player wishes to see the hand, he can request the Hand History which will show the mucked cards of the other player.

see blackpool cash games for reference to above point lol

Yogi I sympathise completely! Maybe as card room managers we can unofficially meet up for a drink over a couple of days and thrash out controversial rulings to give players the hymn sheet to sing off, whilst we play the organ. I presume you have the right to change or ammend rules, so why can't we sit down (maybe at a poker table) and bring some order ourselves!!

I can only imagine the rules we might make when On Tilt at a poker table.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Yogi

Rob,

Now, I have no intention of getting into a slanging match about this. My words on your blog were probably a little too harsh and I aplogise for them. But they do reflect how angry I was about you asking to see my hand.

I was first to act. I could/should have just turned my hand up. I also hate these stand offs when neither player wants to reveal their cards. When it went check check I immediately announced "one pair". It is common (although possibly wrong) to announce a hand rather than table it. You showed your winning hand. I mucked.

It is the case in some provincial casinos all cards are tabled on showdown. I have expounded on my blog why this is wrong. This is not the case at Luton. You are entitled to see my hand but if you ask any experienced player they will tell you what terrible etiquette it is to do so. As I said, noone has ever asked me to show my hand in any case in Europe in the 15+ years I've been playing poker.

The phrase which comes to mind is "Get it quietly". I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want to appear like a bad loser and I thought Ray Hammer's words spoke loudly enough.

It is my philosphy not to try and upset or wind up my opponents at poker. I like the game to be played with smiles, not scowls. Making someone show their hand in a situation like this is just going to upset him/her and what is the point of that?

Keith,

The point is that you should have showed your hand as soon as I checked the river without being prompted. I am quite offended that you have accused me of terrible etiquette here when it is quite blatant to me that it is you who was trying to shoot an angle to avoid showing the bag of spanners you had bet into me with.

If I had been the bettor and you the caller, then I would not have insisted on you showing the hand, and etiquette dictates that you can muck it. If I had asked then to see your hand I agree that would be bad etiquette. But that was not the case. You bet into me on the turn, and the river was checked down. When you declared 'one pair' I thought that was bad etiquette from yourself and you should have tabled the hand immediately.

And just one further point, I wrote that at the Luton festival in April all hands had to be shown at showdown, and this was strictly enforced by the dealers. I'm sure you will be able to remember this yourself? If one casino can't even decide what rules they want to use from month to month then these sort of disagreements will continue to happen.

Anyway I also don't wish to get into a slanging match about this. I am quite happy that some posters on this forum and your blog seem to agree with me on this matter.

Best of luck on your break from poker

Rob

You are accusing me of bad etiquette and then say you don't want to get into a slanging match?

You are clearly delusional.

I admit I should have tabled my hand. But, it is not the "done thing" for you to ask to see my hand.

You made a dreadful call on the turn and got lucky. I felt aggrieved about that and then very annoyed when you rubbed salt into my wounds by asking to see my hand. Ray Hammer said at the time "You've won the hand. Isn't that enough?"

If this is the first time it has happened in 15+ years would you not agree that it is unusual?

I was in Vegas in April so don't know what happened then. With the exception of the short blonde dealer who sometimes turns all the cards over no dealer has ever exposed my hand at Luton.

You say I threaten to spoil your chances of getting sponsorship again. I reckon that a sponsor wouldn't like you to upset other players. I don't think what you did is a very good advert for the site you represented.

I absolutely guarantee that Willie Tann, DC, Julian or The Hendon Mob would NEVER have asked to see my hand in that situation. Perhaps their manners at the table is one of the very many reasons they are sponsored in the first place.

two wrongs make a right then I guess....  ::)

It is not the "done thing" to muck your cards in a showdown when you are first to act. However, in this case, you called your hand without turning it.

When I lose it I really lose it.

I am very close to losing it now. I haven't been this angry on a poker subject for a very long time.

I would however like Dave Colclough to read the thread completely.

If he disagrees with me that Rob showed bad etiquette in asking to see my hand I will withdraw my allegations completely and unresevedly apologise.

Gents, it looks like your views are diametrically opposed. Maybe an independant arbiter would be the way forward. It's difficult to come between you two as you both have vastly more experience than me on the tables (though I have more experience at argueing than both of you  ::)  ).

What say you both PM the Blonde one, maybe via tikay, and in the meantime agree to differ?

You seem determined to come out of this smelling of roses but I don't see how you can. You tried to avoid showing your hand and encourage me to show mine first, even though ETIQUETTE DICTATES that you should show first. And then you decide to slaughter me in the public domain.

I really don't mind you criticising my play, in fact I find that quite interesting. I only take offense when you try to criticise my gamesmanship and manners.

It's also interesting that you can't manage to credit me with anything beyond basic thinking. My 'dreadful' call on the turn was not dreadful at all for the simple fact that when you bet, I put you on a weak holding (which is precisely what you had), with the plan of setting you in on the river if you checked to me (and I hadn't hit one of my 14 outs). As it happened I hit one of those 14 outs, however if the river had come 8, T, J, or Q I am sure you would have check-folded the best hand when I set you in.

For the benefit of others I held AK with the K of diamonds, Keith held 45s (not in diamonds), and on the turn I think the board was 9423 with 3 diamonds.

I am prepared to agree to disagree on the etiquette matter. I think basically your idea of 'etiquette' was probably right in the 90's (obviously before my time), but nowadays it is correct etiquette for, in this precise situation, you to immediately table your hand when I checked behind you on the river.

Anyway what's done is done, I bear you no ill feeling. But wouldn't it be great to get some water-tight rules applied to all cardrooms consistently in the UK and then disagreements like this wouldn't arise.

Good luck.

Well the water-tight rules thingy is something that you KNOW we at blonde, & the Forum Membership, are all lobbying for, & working towards.

But let's sort this other business out first, & get it put to bed. I am sending a link to this thread to Dave, to seek his comments. All being well, he will respond tonight.

Lets wait until he does, eh guys?

I once had a dispute over a game of snooker, we couldnt agree or resolve the matter so we decided to ask a pro that we were both friends with to give his opinion, this he did, and as it happened he ruled in my favour

The other guy never spoke to him again

Well thanks for THAT Red........

I understand both points of view here, just a pity how they have been put across.

Rob i think if you showed your hand first then it was bad etiquette, i also believe Keith should show first. I would have waited for him to open his hand then open mine if i wanted to see it.

Bingo!

That's exactly what should have happened if he wanted to see my hand. Although in his position I would have been more than happy to take the pot without seeing the other guys hand.

I was 99% certain I had the losing hand. That's why I didn't table it. The only hand I could beat was the bare ace and I didn't think he could call me with that (he actually called with the bare king!!!). That's why I declared one pair and prepared to muck.

You are allowed to see all cards at showdown. But, just imagine what a farce it would be if everyone decided to do just that!

Sorry, wasnt trying to be facetious, Its just that being the person who decides the matter isnt always the most enviable position

I'll shut up now

A bit

Well I'm only throwing in my tuppence worth because I was asked. And if RED-DOG is to believed neither of you will speak to me again. Etiquette is a very hard word to spell and it's even harder to agree what comes under the umbrella.
However, If I was playing this pot in Keith's position. I would have immediately turned my cards over after the check-check action on the end. I think it is a pain in the neck when the person who should be first doesn't do this. (I consider it bad etikette)
In 20 years of poker I don't recall ever asking to see a losing hand when I have won the pot. I dont think it's nice to rub the loser's nose it. (I consider it bad etuiquet) Although of course you do have every right to annoy people if you so wish.
Personally I think you should both drop the ball as you are both acting a bit silly here. This isnt some political sitting on the fence. I genuinely believe that neither of you acted in the interests of a friendly smooth running poker game.
 :-*

(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:4A1ayUgD7_0J:www.tamaramadden.com/fence.jpg)

 ;D

I'll get me coat...

great reply from the Blonde one  :)

I just had to see that again

 :-*

Hi Dave, thanks for offering your opinion. I just want to make clear that it was not my intention to annoy Keith or rub his nose in it. I wanted the rules to be abided by and his hand to be shown. The fact that he should have shown his hand first, but didn't and when he didn't I tabled my hand I believe is neither here nor there and I did that to stop any timewasting in a potential 'Chinese Standoff' situation, as someone put it. I called a bet to see his hand, and I shouldn't have been put in a position where I have to ask to see the hand. And if the same situation arose again I would feel quite comfortable doing the same thing. When Keith declared 'one pair' I was quite annoyed and thought to myself 'just turn your two cards over, it's not that difficult'.
Well the same situation won't arise with Keith again because I guess in future he will just turn his cards over like a good professional should, thanks to the feedback of this forum.

I would quite like this to be my last post on this subject as I feel it has now been exhausted.

Regards and no ill feelings to anyone

Rob

Posted on page 1 of thread. Why does nobody listen to me? LOL

July 26

August 9


 ;D ;D ;D

OUCH .... a bit below the belt i think, and nothing to do with the discussion.

 ;D

That's the main reason Betfair offered to sponsor me in the first place, because I cut down my play on their site due to the shoddiness of the Cryptological Software. It's not exactly a big secret. The software is far more reliable at the moment though  ;)