DTD Ruling at request of Simon Trumper

[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

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 

board comes   

and you face heat on the turn

you getting ur money in?

[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?

OK cards are unseen - you hold 

board comes   

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.

[outragous76]

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!

[Cf]

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.

[outragous76]

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!

[Cf]

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.

[Yogi-Bear]

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

[doubleup]

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.

[Yogi-Bear]

 
 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.

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 
 
 

[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.

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. 

[mondatoo]

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

[doubleup]

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

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

[mondatoo]

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.

[Yogi-Bear]

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

Its the internet ffs its designed for arguing.

LOL

[Bongo]

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: