Matt Savage Responds To Dn On 2p2

[rgold79 0]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...=0#Post10499850Figured someone should cross post this here.

[ratwastard 0]

the problem with allowing to show cards is that situations arise where players can use it to screw others over. although i think it would make for more interesting viewing.

[nutzbuster 7]

Let's suppose Daniel was involved with a friend of his and shows him the best hand before that person calls, should that be allowed Daniel? When you are in a tournament you are never heads up until there are two players left and TD's should not have to make constant judgment calls about whether there is collusion or not and that would definitely happen if this was allowed.

Matt has a point here. While I fundamentally agree with DN that denying the "show" rule takes away from the game as a whole, in tournaments perhaps it should not be allowed.If for no other reason than if allowed it would potentially cause so many complaints that the TD's would be running all over the place making rulings and slowing down play. I could see where this might be a big negative in large field events.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think you would catch DN showing a friend the best hand in order to be nice to him.That level of player doesn't soft play friends, they pound on them and then remind them of it later. Like Eric catching two outs on Dn and saying he had twice as many outs as Gus.Kind of an insult to imply DN or other top pros are soft playing anyone.Now novices? yes I can see that for sure. Take Jamie Gold telling his buddy he's got the nuts. That is wrongo.It could be a judgement call every time though and I don't know about you, but dealers are not my first choice to make that judgement. And TDs not at the table wouldn't understand the way the table's been playing etc. to make good decisions.Best to leave the rule the way it is.

[ratwastard 0]

Kind of an insult to imply DN or other top pros are soft playing anyone.Best to leave the rule the way it is.

i think a sizable minority of the poker players are shady and wouldn't think twice about cheating or bending the rules if they knew they couldn't get caught

[lind0 0]

Sort of an offshoot of the same topic, but Matt Savage also brought up Jamie Gold and his talking during hands at the Series last year. What Gold was doing is considered illegal as well, but I don't really understand that either. Why can't you talk about your hand? Why can't you say exactly what you have or don't have? It's up to your opponent to believe you or not, so how he/she uses (or doesn't use) what you say is up to him/her. Again, it just adds another element of "phsychological warfare" to the game. Look how effective it was for Gold last year.The two arguments Matt Savage makes against this stuff are the time factor, and collusion. As for taking extra time and allowing your table to play less hands, players have the option of calling "clock" on someone any time they are slowing the game down. Sometimes you're at a slow table, sometimes you're at a fast table. It's just how it goes. Some tables see more hands and some see less. It's not such a big deal that we'd ever consider going hand for hand the whole way right? That would be the most fair way, but all the waiting around just wouldn't be worth it. Everyone accepts the fact that not all tables will see the same number of hands, so if a player decides to go "hollywood" and takes a long time, so what, call clock if you're that worried about it. The other argument against this is collusion. I can understand this argument more than the time thing, but really, do you think two people who are working together would ever collude so obviously? Same goes for the card showing. I understand the collusion argument in theory, but in reality two people who are colluding would never be so open about it. It's pretty easy to distinguish between someone who is prying for information, and someone who is giving his opponent a free walk. And as for all this stuff somehow being different in a tournament, that's just silly. The same collusion or "soft playing" that could arise from card reavealing and coffehousing in a tournament, could easily happen in a cash game too. How is it any different? Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I say open up all this stuff for players to use. The arguments against it just don't hold up.

[DCJ001 0]

The same collusion or "soft playing" that could arise from card reavealing and coffehousing in a tournament, could easily happen in a cash game too. How is it any different? Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I say open up all this stuff for players to use. The arguments against it just don't hold up.

I agree with Matt. Cards should not be shown in a tournament. Players should also not state what cards they hold, while playing in a tournament. In a tournament, even if the hand is heads up, each player is still playing against the rest of the field.In a cash game, players can show cards when heads up because the money at stake will be won by one of the two players. The two are only playing against each other, at that point. In a multi-way cash game hand, it is against the rules to discuss hand possibilities and to show cards because doing so may act as collusion against one or more players in the multi-way cash game hand.Much of what Daniel says in his article below, regarding soft-playing a friend, actually contains arguments against his opinion for showing cards while in a tournament:http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/140189

[lind0 0]

I agree with Matt. Cards should not be shown in a tournament. Players should also not state what cards they hold, while playing in a tournament. In a tournament, even if the hand is heads up, each player is still playing against the rest of the field.In a cash game, players can show cards when heads up because the money at stake will be won by one of the two players. The two are only playing against each other, at that point. In a multi-way cash game hand, it is against the rules to discuss hand possibilities and to show cards because doing so may act as collusion against one or more players in the multi-way cash game hand.Much of what Daniel says in his article below, regarding soft-playing a friend, actually contains arguments against his opinion for showing cards while in a tournament:http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/140189

I still don't see how it makes any difference in a tournament. Every skill and every decision an opponent uses to beat another opponent affects the tournament as a whole. Everything that happens affects everyone else. Why should this particular skill be banned? If an opponent uses his mathematical abilities to win a hand it's ok, if he uses his "reading abilities" ("lol, reading abilities" Shawn Sheikawn) it's ok, if he uses any other means to win the hand it's ok, so if he reveals a card or talks about his hand as a psychological ploy why is that not ok? Exposing a card or talking about your hand affect the outcome of a tournament no differently than any other event that happens.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

"So I suppose he thinks what Jamie Gold did during the 2006 WSOP Main Event should also be allowed? Even Norman Chad and Lon Mechron could see that he was breaking the rules by claiming what he had in his hand with action pending."So, why didn't some astute Tournament Director do something about Gold if what he was doing was so blatantly "breaking the rules"?

[nutzbuster 7]

So, why didn't some astute Tournament Director do something about Gold if what he was doing was so blatantly "breaking the rules"?

Ummm....perhaps they were busy eating a bowl of Blueberries?

[GWCGWC 83]

I don't that players aren't allowed to show one card after the hand is over. Apparently, this is considered needling which I think is silly.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't that players aren't allowed to show one card after the hand is over.

Got English?

[GWCGWC 83]

Got English?

nein

[DCJ001 0]

nein

ten

[doox 15]

I don't that players aren't allowed to show one card after the hand is over. Apparently, this is considered needling which I think is silly.

I'm guessing the missing word is "I don't like that..."What confuses me is the fact that dealers say you can't show one card because of the "show one, show all" rule. But doesn't that rule mean that if you show one person your hand, you have to show the entire table? Show one, show all shouldn't be about the # of cards you flip over after your opponent mucks.

[DCJ001 0]

I'm guessing the missing word is "I don't like that..."What confuses me is the fact that dealers say you can't show one card because of the "show one, show all" rule. But doesn't that rule mean that if you show one person your hand, you have to show the entire table? Show one, show all shouldn't be about the # of cards you flip over after your opponent mucks.

It's sometimes referred to as "show one, show both" to differentiate between the two rules.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

You made some decent points, fortunately I could easily defend my position on each and every one of them.What I found odd about Matt's response is the fact that he neglects to reference the main objection that I have: the morphing of the "show one show all rule" that is designed to not allow players to share information with just one player, into showing one card meaning that you must show both.You will have an impossible time convincing me that there is anything unethical about a hand being over, a player winning a pot, and then flipping over a 5c so that all could see it.Under the current rule, that player, who just shared FREE information about a part of his hand, is told that other players would now have the right to see the other card as well. Are you kidding me? Why? Explain that one to me? Nevermind, it's simply not possible to explain how this makes any sense and I don't know that you will find a professional poker player to agree with that stance.As for being able to show a card during the middle of the hand, I could see where making a change back to a more pure form of poker at this point could be problematic since the industry has weeded out this poker SKILL from the game. However, why in the world should I be penalized for turning my hand up on the river when a player has made a bet and it's up to me to call in a heads up pot? Why in the world should I not be allowed to show my opponent my hand? In my blog I took my position to the extreme, but frankly, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm hoping that the show one show all rule is clarified so that a player, after the hand is over can show one card without being forced to show the other card if asked, or as McLelland would have it, having the dealer turn it up!The other main objection I have is that when it's a heads up pot and a player has made a bet at me on the river, I should have every right to show him my hand. Look him in the face, and gauge his level of fear. That is an integral part of the game that was part of the WSOP in the late 90's when I started and it was NOT problematic. There was never an uproar from the players to change this rule. It was only changed later by tournarment directors, not poker players necessarily, with little to no provication.As much as I'd like to go back the old ways, I'd be more than happy with the following compromise:1. Allow players to show one card at the end of the hand without being forced to show both cards.2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

[looshle 6]

You made some decent points, fortunately I could easily defend my position on each and every one of them.What I found odd about Matt's response is the fact that he neglects to reference the main objection that I have: the morphing of the "show one show all rule" that is designed to not allow players to share information with just one player, into showing one card meaning that you must show both.You will have an impossible time convincing me that there is anything unethical about a hand being over, a player winning a pot, and then flipping over a 5c so that all could see it.Under the current rule, that player, who just shared FREE information about a part of his hand, is told that other players would now have the right to see the other card as well. Are you kidding me? Why? Explain that one to me? Nevermind, it's simply not possible to explain how this makes any sense and I don't know that you will find a professional poker player to agree with that stance.As for being able to show a card during the middle of the hand, I could see where making a change back to a more pure form of poker at this point could be problematic since the industry has weeded out this poker SKILL from the game. However, why in the world should I be penalized for turning my hand up on the river when a player has made a bet and it's up to me to call in a heads up pot? Why in the world should I not be allowed to show my opponent my hand? In my blog I took my position to the extreme, but frankly, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm hoping that the show one show all rule is clarified so that a player, after the hand is over can show one card without being forced to show the other card if asked, or as McLelland would have it, having the dealer turn it up!The other main objection I have is that when it's a heads up pot and a player has made a bet at me on the river, I should have every right to show him my hand. Look him in the face, and gauge his level of fear. That is an integral part of the game that was part of the WSOP in the late 90's when I started and it was NOT problematic. There was never an uproar from the players to change this rule. It was only changed later by tournarment directors, not poker players necessarily, with little to no provication.As much as I'd like to go back the old ways, I'd be more than happy with the following compromise:1. Allow players to show one card at the end of the hand without being forced to show both cards.2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

I totally agree with point #1. I thought they were jokin with me at the Bellagio, I was waiting for Ashton to come around the corner when they flipped my other card up after I showed one.But one question about #2, should it be allowed if the player whos betting into you moves all in or not? Because while you never have any intentions of raising in this spot, if he has chips behind, then hypothetically there is still action pending.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Just a point on how the electronic tables might be better than normal felt...the PokerTek table that I played on in the spring allowed you to show just one card.

[PairTheBoard 0]

1. Allow players to show one card at the end of the hand without being forced to show both cards.2. When there is no more action pending and a player is facing a bet, he should have EVERY right to show his opponent one, or both of his cards.

There were two main arguments given by what's-his-name. One was "collusion" and the other was "even playing field". The Collusion argument was by far the stronger. The Even Playing Field argument held that some of these tactics would be applied by the pros almost exclusively against the amatuers. Thus making for an uneven playing field. That argument is pretty iffy. So it looks like Daniel has compromised and given up on those tactics that most clearly can be seen as opening doors to collusion. It looks like his Two Points above are free from that possibility. If so, they look like a good compromise.However, I'm afraid I see a possibility for chip dumping in Point 2. Suppose I am trying to dump chips to my buddy. I think he has me beat and will call me so I make a bet hoping to dump chips to him. He knows I'm trying to dump chips to him, but the problem is he's afraid I've made a mistake and overestimated his hand. So just to make sure the Chip Dump works right he shows me his cards. If he doesn't have me beat I subtly give it away with some kind of prearranged Act. Chip Dump accomplished.Maybe too nitish a situation to worry about. There is definite value in allowing the move for enhancing the game with a normally legitimate poker tactic. It's a judgement call for how to weigh the two factors. I'd lean toward Daniel myself on this one. It's a great move, great for television, and the Chip Dump can easily be done without it anyway.PairTheBoard

[psujohn 0]

I suspect that what it comes down to is that if we allow people to show a card in DN's specific situation it would make for a pretty complicated rule;You can reveal a card if:- it's head's up on the river- you're last to act- you're facing a betAre you allowed to raise after revealing a card? And yes, there is still the issue of signaling between players. Overall I think there's so much of a chance of sticky situations arising that it's more trouble than it's worth to change this rule. I also think that what Jamie Gold did was over the line in terms of talking about your hand. As for the "show one, show both" rule .... I can't even imagine a valid argument for that.