DTD Ruling at request of Simon Trumper

[doubleup]

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

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

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

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.


 

[titaniumbean]

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

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

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

Went to see this, absolutely hilarious !!! 

[mondatoo]

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

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

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

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.


 

It wasn't.

[outragous76]

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!

[Cf]

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...

[outragous76]

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

[gatso]

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?

[outragous76]

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

[Cf]

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.

[outragous76]

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one



turn

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

[Cf]

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one



turn

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.

[outragous76]

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one



turn

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!

[mondatoo]

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.

[Cf]

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one



turn

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!

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.

[Claw75]

both players start hand with 25-30bbs

hand played as this one



turn

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

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.