blonde poker forum

Simon Trumper has requested I post a thread re: a ruling at DTD. Ill just post the facts - thoughts appreciated - Simon is happy to look into changing the DTD rulings as a result (pls dont comment on players plays)

Action folds to player 1 on the button @ 150 300

Player 1 min raises from button to 600

Player 2 in BB calls

Flop 5 6c 8c

player 2 checks, player 1 bets 800, player 2 raises to 2200

player 1 tanks and asks player 1 how much he has left, (reply came 6250)

Player 1 then (a little flustered) says ok I call (kidding himself player 2 was all in) and flips his cards (KK for the record).

Player 2 asks for ruling..........................................

over to you guys:

I would expect player 1s hand is live but he can only call on the turn and river he can't open the betting and maybe a warning afterwards ?

Hand is live, the players an idiot, could well get a penalty after the hand but for the rest of the hand he just has to sit with his hand face up hating life and trying not to get levelled. normally he cant bet but he can cawl is the ruling no?

What they said.  Hand is live.  He can't bet but can call.

I think so

Hand is live, he can call but not make action or raise at any point is the ruling I would expect


DTD would give him an orbit penalty afterwards on the precedent of similar I saw last weekend, I think

I don't think a penalty would be appropriate here as he didn't expose his hand to gain an perceived advantage. He obviously thought that the action in the hand had finished.

It was simply a mistake as described whereas the penalty last week on my table (If that is the instance to which you are referring) was for a guy who deliberately exposed his hand before and while contemplating calling an allin.

Another hand ralph, on a final, accidental exposing and an orbit penalty

What is the point of this?

Presumably DtD have a rule for exposed cards, and presumably that rule was applied.

The OP  and title are quite clear

There was a  ruling at DTD - i discussed it with Simon, Simon asked that I post it on Blonde

any constructive input?

The player has substantially disadvantaged himself by exposing his hand, no ruling is required other than an instruction to deal the turn.

My point is that DtD have a rule, so why not just tell us what it is and then get the input.

This happened to me once at DTD playing 50p/£1 cash.

I thought the other player was all in on the flop, I called and flipped over QQ she had £20 back.

I thought the ruling would be that I could only call (as per an episode of Premier Poker League with Tony G) however DTD ruled I had all options open.

this...

we can always progress he discussion

This happened to me at DTD last week, I shove utg with AK , 3rd position calls & turns his cards over (AQ), with 3 still to act, ruling was called for and he was told that his hand was live but he could no longer bet, BB goes all in, he folds, there was no penalty. I thought it was fair enough.

You are just getting ppl saying what they think the ruling at DtD is and not what they think should happen and why.

not sure why the hate

i left it open ended for very good reason (which is becoming partially clear in the thread to be frank)

we can always progress the discussion - i didnt want a right/or wrong ruling style question, and from the basis of my discussions with simon i dont think he did either

tbh I don't care. either rule that the hand progresses as normal or that the player cannot bet or raise. either is fine as long as it's consistently applied

The ruling in all/most Glasgow and Edinburgh casinos were that the exposed hand was dead, no exceptions.  Havent seen it happen for a while so not sure if this is still the case.  Obv think this is a terrible ruling and that hand should be live but can only check/call/fold with a warning.  Repeated exposing of cards for a penalty or doing it in some sort of way to deliberately gain an advantage should get a penalty too imo.

In cash I think hand should be live with all options open.

I think dtd do hand is live but player can't make aggressive action. I think that's a silly rule. Hand is live obv but I don't see why the player shouldn't have all options open - he's betting with the disadvantage of the other players knowing what he has! Penalty after hand, accident or not, should be standard too.

rule at wsop is that action continues as normal with all options open to player- he just gets a round of the button penaly after the hand.

Personally I think if you expose your cards your hand should remain live- but you cannot make action

Am I allowed to answer this as I work as a supervisor at DTD?

http://ukpokerassociation.com/rules/dusk-till-dawn-rules/ DTD Rules
http://ukpokerassociation.com/rules/tda-poker-rules-latest/ TDA Rules  rule 42
http://ukpokerassociation.com/tournaments/ Roberts Rules - rule 22
http://ukpokerassociation.com/rules/ukipt-rules/ UKIPT rules Just states that a player cannot expose cards however at DTD the rules for the UKIPT (exposed hands) were the same as the DTD rules
http://ukpokerassociation.com/rules/gukpt-rules/ GUKPT rules you will notice a few strange rules at Grosvenors

http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/wsop.tournament-rules.08.pdf rule 50

This has been a standard rule for many years by the TDA (the rules that DTD go by), can't see why Simon would ask someone to post for advice when he has an account on blonde?

EDIT: Forgot to say, any live hands have all options open, anything other than this is a made up house rule. Hence the penalty comes after the hand.

Can I answer as well.

PLEASE DIKKY9. LET ME LET ME.

Hand is live. All actions are available to the player. Penalty will be given at the end of the hand.

Not too difficult is it? Requires no thought process at all. Dead simple. Black and white.

Did i get it right Mr Richard???

Yogi

Not sure why people keep querying the simon element of this. He did not ask for advice, he wanted it discussed.

Ok, so let's discuss.

The original consensus on here was hand live, no aggressive action. As pointed out by dtd floor person above, ruling issued was that hand is live, all options available. Thoughts?

Happened at DTD during APAT ME Day 1 last weekend, was ruled by Simon that hand was live and all options available and he gave no penalty in this instance, thing is the guy who exposed his cards (55) continued to bet into the other player, who called all the way to the river hoping to hit and never did, therefore the pot was a nice size when he eventually folded having not hit to beat 55.

Personally when someone exposes their cards like that, yes allow them to remain live, but they have no options

Wasn't his hand ruled dead in this hand, Ralph, which is contrary to the rulings on this thread?

Different circumstances though.  The guy was a live game n00b and while contemplating ForthThistle's all in shove he flipped over his AQ and asked the rest of the table whether they would call!  ;gobsmacked;

Its hardly hate and you still haven't been clear what you are trying to achieve.

If you want opinions on what is the best ruling for exposed cards, and use the example provided, you will get opinions based on this example.  

If you were to provided an example of someone in a satellite and on the bubble, betting and then flipping their cards (to minimise variance) you would get another answer.  

I am not trying to achieve anything - for once in my life i am trying to keep personal opinions off a thread a steer a debate!

pls read the contents of the thread they are self explanatory

Suppose both options make sense in their own way.  

By not allowing the person to act but remain live in the hand, they are basically taking their penalty during that hand.  They've no way of boosting the pot when/if their hand improves.

That said, the argument that a hand can only be either live or dead makes sense too.  If it's live - the player should be permitted to act as usual.  Then given a penalty after the hand is over.

Every time I've ever been present during a similar situation, they've gone with the first option.  Hand live, but player cannot act.  But if I ever came across what appears to be the 'correct' ruling I'd be hard pressed to find a disagreement with the it. 

Glad you posted this.  At least next time I'm asked the question, I'll have the correct answer. 

Some debate as guy wanted. We all seem in agreement that the hand is live so...

For those of you who think the player should not be allowed to make an aggresive action: why?

CF - just for clarification there was never any question hand was dead

but yes i would like debate over whether the player should be allowed to take aggresive action or not

I'm used to playing in G's, the rule being no aggressive action allowed

Can argue both ways as to which is a preferable ruling, an issue that will crop up for as long as venues don't operate standardised rules.

Personally I prefer "no aggressive action" as it removes that grey area of - was it accidental or is it an angle shoot - for when a a hand is exposed mid-hand  

As long as a venue operates its rule consistently, I can live with either

the no aggressive action is the old school ruling. I quite like it as a) it teaches people not to be dicks and to pay attention and b) it stops people from intentionally flipping their cards and pretending it was an accident

What correct answer?

What ppl think should happen at DtD or what ppl think should happen generally or what ppl think should happen in this particular (non-malicious) situation.

These are the exposed card scenarios

cards exposed accidentally multiway with action pending in a betting round

cards exposed accidentally multiway with action finished in a betting round

cards exposed deliberately multiway with action pending in a betting round

cards exposed deliberately multiway with action finished in a betting round

cards exposed accidentally heads-up with action pending in a betting round

cards exposed accidentally heads-up with action finished in a betting round

cards exposed deliberately heads-up with action pending in a betting round

cards exposed deliberately heads-up with action finished in a betting round


Should there be a distinction between deliberate and accidental?  It is obviously difficult for a TD to know a players motivation so the only consideration should be whether any advantage has been gained by the player and how to nullify this advantage.

The only situations imo where it is advantageous to expose cards are:

on the river facing a bet and trying to get some reaction from an opponent (a bit dubious but some say it can be done). 

on or close to the bubble of a tournament (in reality probably only a satellite) where a player considers that his $equity if called is quite close to the $equity if not called.  eg he has AA and an opponent in the bb would be getting 3-1 on a call.

It is really only the latter situation that needs strong action and an away from the table penalty should be enough,  all other card exposures can be warnings but obviously stronger action for persistent offenders.

I suspect it went something like this:

simon: here's my ruling......hand live - all options open/no aggressive action
player: don't agree, should be no aggressive action/should have all options open
simon: that's my ruling
player: but i don't agree - most people would agree with me.  i could start a thread on blonde seeing what the consensus is?
simon: if you like


my view - hand should be live.  no aggressive action preferable, but as someone else said, as long as whatever is decided is consistently applied then would be happy with either ruling.

[  ] correct
[  ] soul read
[  ] simon was invovled in the ruling

FYP

Yes Yogi, Yes Yogi :)


So we have established that every venue (apart from grosvenors) have a live hand, and each of these venues may issue a penalty after the hand.
The TD is to consider to the fairness of the game and stop people gaining an advantage or at least minimising. If we take the situation where someone has exposed and not allowed to make aggressive action, is the player who exposed not already at a disadvantage as opponents now know his holding? So we are expected to punish them twice?

If looking for a reaction when exposing, they are going to get penalized after the hand anyway, penalizing does not exclude disqualification, depending on severity of offence, if it is clear that the player is looking for a reaction when facing a bet then it is possible they may be disqualified.

2 quick scenarios, two people expose there cards on the flop and they are the only ones remaining in the pot, is the turn and the river dealt straight out as no one can bet?

Playing at a G , Sb v BB the flop comes  Ahrt Kh Qh first to act exposes  Jh Th knowing that his penalty is no aggressive can be made ....... his brother is the BB ...... please rule

Doubleup has it spot on

Public flogging and disqualification?

That's the thing.  There are so many different scenarios that you're never going to get the ruling spot on 100% of the time.  Especially if you've to determine the player's intentions when they exposed their cards.

If I were forced, I'd have to say hand is live and no aggressive action.  Why?  Well, doesn't matter if it's intentional or not on the player's part.  You can say refusing them action is like dishing out a second penalty, but in reality they potentially have a read on their opponent for the rest of the hand. 

You can say there's no guarantee they have a read on their opponent, which is true.  But there's also no guarantee a TD is going to know what was going through the player's mind when they exposed their cards either.

They might have a read on their opponent but their opponent definitely has a pretty strong read on them.

I am going to throw in my opinion

I believe the rule should be no further aggresive action. Back in the day, you hand was dead, that was always too harsh, this for me is the middle ground.

Why? - well otherwise it is subject to huge angle shoots. A player knows they are going to miss an orbit, so thats 2.5bbs if you have antes. Well if he is playing for any pot - its more than his penalty. For me I couldnt give two hoots if the guy sits out an orbit, when he has just shipped 25bbs he would necessarily have won.

The problem with cards to come is that any line that player 2 was going to take is immediately taken away from him. SO he now has to either bluff/catch/or stay ahead (whatever the situation is). By allowing player 1 to still take aggresive action it is no punishment at all (unless he gets shipped on as a bluff, but the set up of the hand has to be right for that to occur - which you cannot rely on).

Giving a 1 orbit penalty is not a punishment IMO.

And that's the chance they take if it was in fact intentional.  Unlucky for the poor misfortune who accidentally does it...and I bet they learn their lesson the first time.

How is that going to happen? 

or any other amount currently sat in the pot

I don't understand - how is a player going to win a pot he wouldn't otherwise have won by showing his cards?

OK cards are unseen - you hold  Kd Kc

board comes  8h 9h 6c  Th

and you face heat on the turn

you getting ur money in?

I have absolutely no fcking idea


If you are trying to put forward, as a matter of poker theory, that it is a good idea (ie it is better to do this than keep it hidden) to expose your hand on the turn when the board is co-ordinated then I suggest you get your thoughts together and post on 2+2.

its kinda irrespective - the point being him exposing his hand completely changes the dynamic of the way in which it would play out, which is simply unfair to the other player in the hand, who should not be peanlised in a way shape or form!

Ok... you show your hand.

The ruling is you can take aggressive action.

You then make a pet.

How is you making a bet penalising me? I can play perfect poker against you.

The fact of the matter is, yes obv you can jam bluff, but him revealing his hand changes the dynamic of how the hand would have played out!

Of course it does. Hence I state I'd 100% be giving a penalty afterwards.

But you haven't answered the question about why letting him take aggressive action is penalising the second player. As I said: you can play perfect poker if you know your opponents hand.

Why can the ruling not be the same every single time.

It shouldn't matter how new the player is at the game, or if they are pulling a stroke, or someone else at the table is pulling a stroke.

Surely the simplest and easiest rule that penalises no-one except the person that shows their cards is.....

HAND IS LIVE. ALL ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PLAYER. THEY WILL BE PENALISED AFTER THE HAND.Standard 1 round of the table. Further violations by the same offender can be treated more harshly. Of course if the TD thinks the whole situation stinks, why not make it a more severe penalty.

Why have different rules for different situations. Surely you are asking for trouble if there are 10 different rulings for 10 different situations. Facing a bet not facing a bet etc.etc.etc. Also asking the TD to know the players mindset, abilities etc to make different rulings is asking for trouble.

Yogi

Don't think anyone has suggested 10 different rulings. Although, if a TD can't understand the difference between an infraction that advantages a player and one that doesn't he should get some extra training or another job imo.

i do believe that is your post Double Up. Think you are saying that a TD may have problems determining intent. Also several different situations. i may be mistaken of course. Perhaps you should all think of what you think should be FAIR for EVERYONE. Not just what you all think should happen if it happens to you.

Yogi 
 
 

wtf is the conclusion of my post? - (in bold to help you out)

Its pretty sad that someone as experienced as you can't tell the difference between an analysis and a conclusion. 

Doubleup,is there a reason why every single one of your posts is aggressive/argumentative ??

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

So you just like to argue then yeah ?? I think the internet has a lot more to offer than that and so does Blonde.

LOL

Dude, I think you missed a memo somewhere along the line:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W31ue-9u4z4

I wondered if that was what mondatoo was hinting at, but my preference is too be a grumpy old man rather than a dirty one, so a good argument is fine with me.


 

Went to see this, absolutely hilarious !!!  ;nipnip;

It wasn't.

I am really surprised that people think a 1 orbit penalty is acceptable. This is so open to angle shooting for the types that do that kind of thing!

In the first instance then as a minimum this penalty is fine. Obviously depending on the severity of the case the penalty can be harsher all the way up to disqualification.

You still haven't answered my other question btw...

its too hand specific,


people in those spots often, due to the "in the moment feeling" of having fucked up with KK just cry call anyway, meaning bluffing isnt great

The point is that the guy who hasnt made a mistake is getting punished in these spots, but the guy who has gets off with a 2.5bb penalty

I'm still a bit lost on how the person who can now see his oppo's cards is being punished. if you really believe this shouldn't you always play with your hand face up?

self inflicted - thats not a punishment thats a fuck up

I don't see how you can say exposing a hand disadvantages the other player(s) in the hand. As such, I'm not entirely convinced that the no aggressive action rule is neccesary.

Exposing hands does however disadvantage everyone else in the tournament because the game is now not being played in a fair manner. This is why the guilty party should at least (accident or not btw) be getting a 1 orbit penalty. And you might say 2.5bb in certain spots isn't much. Perhaps, but if the player is short they're potentially missing lots of chances to make a move with their dwindling stack. Depending on the nature of the offence the punishment can be more severe.

The impression I got from this thread was that you wanted to discuss the "no more aggressive action" rule. I've pointed out why I think it is unneccesary. You continue to counter with the fact that exposing a hand and allowing aggressive action disadvantages the other person in this hand. You have yet to show us why this is the case. Show us an example hand. I think you'll struggle to think of one where me having knowledge of your exposed hand is going to disadvantage me. Everyone else in the tournament: sure. Me specifically: no.

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one

5h 6c 8c

turn Jc

player2 checks

KsKc - jams

if his hand wasnt face up he probs checks  behind here - given that he catches plenty more outs if he was behind

Not getting it.. Looks like a value shove to me. He has an overpair plus 2nd nfd with a shortish stack. Most of his value is gonna come from getting called by worse. Player 2 knowing the hand can now calculate the pot odds and whether or not to call. Let's say player 2 has QcJs. He will prob call the jam without the hand being face up. But now he knows to fold.

And this shows why there should be a penalty. Everyone else in the tournament is directly affected by this. But I fail to see how player 2 himself has been put at a disadvantage.

player 2 has A5 off

but thats not what he was representing!

If you had the worst hand vs xx would you never be less inclined to bluff vs villain thus villain gets to win the pot whereby he may've folded his marginal hand if you'd put him to the test ? Yes you can still put him to the test but it definitely effects the dynamics of the hand for hero.TBH I don't favour either way and as long as the rule is always the same then I'd be happy with that.If I had to choose I'd say no more aggressive action as a punishment for exposing your hand.I also don't think an orbit penalty is necceassary for the first time.

So? Player 2's bluff has failed as soon as KK jams the turn. Except he now knows not to hero call. Are you somehow saying that KK showing his hand stops player 2 from being able to bluff? I don't see how it does. If he jams without showing then he might get called by worse. The only loser here is KK.

If we're going to start making assumptions about what KK guy would have done if his hand wasn't face up, is it not reasonable to assume that he would have bet the flop?  So player 2 has got to see a free card and now knows exactly where he stands on the turn.  

edit - just re-read op - had thought cards were exposed pre-flop so what i have said is clearly nonsense.  Agree with tighty's post a few posts down though.

if I had KK on that board (face down) facing that action I would check the turn allowing my opponent to bluff on the river (and catch up if im behind)

I'm confused Guy....you are making assumptions about what the player might or might do face down/face up..the assumptions may be valid or may be completely wrong


I personally prefer the no aggressive action rule, but as long as DTD apply the "all options open" line every time then I don't see the problem as this thread is beginning to prove trying to infer whether a player is angle shooting/making a mistake/is getting an advantage or isn't is a minefield for a TD.

If a venue goes with "all options option" then a one orbit penalty seems fair to me as again, impossible to have to rule mistake or angle shoot.

this thread is now turning into comedy gold

I agree if you leave all options open then a one orbit penalty should be given.

i was asked to give an example, how on earth can i do that without making assumptions?

Im sure some poker minds could come up with a better example

Im just surprised that despite 90% of people initially saying that they think it should be no aggresive action, now think its fine he can still act.

I guess the rule will stand - ill be flipping cards for fun in a DTD card room near you shortly (obv not!)

Would a better example be one where the opponent was disadvantaged by seeing the cards and not by a difference in the betting?

If the dealer/TD thinks the cards were exposed deliberately, isn't there a different penalty to one applied to someone who is deemed to have done it by mistake?

No, as I understand it. The problem being establishing motive is subjective.

Incident at the Irish Poker thing I played last year (or was it the year before, I forget) in Dublin.

Drunk, loud-mouthed player on my table has been berating players and generally been an idiot.  During one hand he's heads up and on the river the other player makes a large bet.  He thinks for a while, and then flips his cards over saying "what do you reckon, should I call?" - obviously trying to get information from the other player (and possibly others round the table).  The floor was called, and after it was established that it wasn't an unintentional act, his hand was declared dead and he was given a 10-minute (or one orbit, can't actually remember now) penalty - which was more than fair imo.

So in this case, if it was at DTD there wouldn't be a different penalty imposed to what has been stated above for an unintentional (or difficult to ascertain) exposure of a player's cards during a hand.  Surely up to the discretion of the TD?

10 minute orbit live?!

were you playing 3 handed?!?!

Two guys in a hand at Luton earlier this year.

Betting pre, on the flop, turn and river. As player B is considering whether to call or fold. Player A who has been making all the betting turns over one card. A card that doesn't relate to the board. Think it was the Qs. Board was 4 diamonds and a club i think.

What would the ruling be?

Depends. Which night of the week was it?

Sigh

Just wasted an orbit of my life reading this thread

Please change title to 'questioning perfectly sensible dtd rulings for no good reason - tl;dr'

Thx

welcome back

 ;)

lol guy

Am I the only one that thinks, in a hand that is heads up, either player should be allowed to reveal any of his cards at any time, still be allowed to make any actions he see's fit and get o penalty afterwards

Seriously I see no reason why this shouldn't be absoluelty fine???

I agree with you!

If everyone wants to play with their hands face up apart from me Im up for that too.

In cash then fine as once heads up it really is only down to you two.

In tournaments though it's unfair on everyone else still in the tournament. eg, we're nearing the bubble and we're heads up in a pot. i suspect you're on a draw so show my hand to prove to you that I have it and you don't have the odds to call. As a result you fold - but actually, if you'd have called (which you would have done knowing that my range includes bluffs/worsedraws) then you'd have won and the bubble would have burst. Me showing my hand is unfair on everyone else in this spot.

Once the tournament is heads up it's fine - show to your hearts content.

Also, exposing your cards allows other players to react to the cards, influencing the play and some might use this to benefit their position.  In cash, it doesn't matter as each hand exists in isolation and once it's heads-up the other players can't benefit directly from the decision that's made.

I get the point, but dont 100% agree that its a problem, If someone feels they can get an advantage by showing there cards, then i dont see why they shouldnt be allowed to show them, as  long as its a HU pot ofc.

He turns his cards over intentionally. So, can we assume he doesn't believe that his hand will be ruled dead, otherwise he wouldn't have turned it over. Isn't the penalty for turning it over killing his hand?

Or, to look at it another way..

As soon as he turns his cards over in a heads up pot his hand is dead and the hand is therefore over, why the need for any other penalty? Only a need for a penalty if it isn't a heads up situation.

Poor ruling I think.

And the fact he is a loud mouthed drunk shouldn't affect this ruling. He could get a warning and penalty for that independantly of this hand.