DTD Ruling at request of Simon Trumper

[TightEnd]

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

[gatso]

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

[doubleup]

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

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.

[Claw75]

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?

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.

[outragous76]

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?

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

[WarBwastard]

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?

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?  SIMON...I SAID I.....SIMON I SAID I COULD...oh come back.



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.

FYP

[dik9]

Yes Yogi, Yes Yogi

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

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   first to act exposes   knowing that his penalty is no aggressive can be made ....... his brother is the BB ...... please rule

Doubleup has it spot on

[david3103]

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

Public flogging and disqualification?

[Laxie]

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.

[Bongo]

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

[outragous76]

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.

[Laxie]

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

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.

[doubleup]

 when he has just shipped 25bbs he would necessarily have won.

How is that going to happen? 

[outragous76]

 when he has just shipped 25bbs he would necessarily have won.

How is that going to happen? 

or any other amount currently sat in the pot

[doubleup]

 when he has just shipped 25bbs he would necessarily have won.

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?