Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

I think we can safely hold back the flames on misunderstandings the rules here.....I've read SEVERAL rules in detail and to the best of my knowledge until this past week with this thread - exposed hands were dead. I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

(though I still would have declared the example this thread is about as a call in a friendly home game.)

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because it can be used to get a read on someone? Isn't that part of poker? Its a nit rule.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are the rules on this? In Supersystem, DB talks about if he has A-A and a player is betting into him, he will show the A-A and try to get a read. I assume DB was talking about a cash game, not a tournament, and was heads up.

I have used the trick myself, like when I had an Ax with x being a low kicker. Why you would show with the nuts is beyond me, maybe he was flustered/excited. It was a big hand.


I would really like to know the rules, officially. Have they changed since Supersystem? If so, why? Collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, people, how hard is it to google the rules or even read the thread and see the answers of people who have read the rules.

Tournament Directors Association:

Rule 35: A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a penalty but will not have his hand killed.

for those who are google impaired

I don't see a rule that specific in Robert's rules of poker, but if you look under the section heading: "Dead Hands," exposing your cards is not listed as a reason to kill a hand. Also under "Showdown," Rule 6 "show one show all" its strongly implied (indeed I don't see any way to read the rule otherwise) that an exposed hand is not a dead hand.

Linky, cause I know google is so hard to use


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Zetack, I did read through the threads and I saw different answers. Is the Tournament Director's official, or just one set of rules out of several?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately there are no official rules. The TDA rules are the Tournament Directors Association rules. They are as close to a defining standard as we have for tournaments. That said, any tourney or tourney director is free to change the rules in whatever way they see fit.

Roberts Rules of Poker is a standard work and an often cited authority. However, it is not the "official" rules of poker, because there is no such thing.

However, in combination, these are as authoritative a set of rules as you will find anywhere.

--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can safely hold back the flames on misunderstandings the rules here.....I've read SEVERAL rules in detail and to the best of my knowledge until this past week with this thread - exposed hands were dead. I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

(though I still would have declared the example this thread is about as a call in a friendly home game.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read very many sets of rules, because I consider the TDA and Robert's rules to be fairly authoritative, so you may very well be correct that house rules tend toward another interpretation.

I would note, though, that the WSOP uses the TDA rules with some minor modifications. See WSOP main event rules Look at rule 37 which is identical to the TDA rules and states that an exposed hand may be subject to penalty but is not dead.

However, it looks like in circuit events they may allow house rules to modify the TDA. I can't find any rules specific to any circuit events except of the Jeff Gordon Foundation Charity event, that does have this rule:

A Participant may not show any cards during a hand. If a Participant shows a card to induce action, the hand may be ruled dead. [Emphasis mine] link.

I'm not sure if I can only find this one because the regular ciruit events follow the main event rules, or because they are a bunch of slack-asses. In any case, all this "may" stuff doesn't provide as much guidance as the TDA rule so I'm not wild about it.

--Zetack

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

Personally I would consider you a cheat and angle shooter and anal retentive and never play with you again if you objected for any longer than 9 seconds about this in a low limit home game tournament

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is what your opponent was up to though, given he had the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're NOT SURE [this is what he was up to] ?

- Way to not go out on a limb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

If he was last to act with the nuts and flipped before calling an allin bet I'm not sure even a cardroom would cry foul (though it's conceivable they would - they allow alot less discretion in these matters)

If there were others to left to act and he flipped the nuts prior to calling he should be given a discount on all future buyins as he is obviously not even trying to win.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I would consider you a cheat and angle shooter and anal retentive and never play with you again if you objected for any longer than 9 seconds about this in a low limit home game tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

Damnit.... I think I waited 9.5.....but somewhere around 6 seconds my girlfriend smiled at me and I got distracted thinking about sex.....Am I still cool?

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

If you were cool before the hand came up you are still cool, albeit a cool angle shooter. If she gave you head during the argument you are now cool even if you hadnt been before the start of the hand [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've read casino rules that call them dead. I've read tournament rules that call them dead. I've read more rules that call them dead than not. I was very surprised to learn there is some contraversy on the subject.

Thanks for linking the TDA rules. I'll check those out soon.

I still contend that an intentionally exposed hand SHOULD BE declared dead. ... at least it would be if I wrote the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank god, your not writing rules then.
Care to quote the author of the rules you've read where that's a dead hand in this case?

By you contending that, I'm gonna contend that your being a nit, and looking for a reason to keep the best hand from winning, you know damn well it was a call, after all he didnt throw em face down in the muck did he? Don't be a nit, because you pushed into the nuts. Man up.

I've just got done watching the wsop from the 70's and 80's, quite frequently people would show their hands before calling a bet.. this was common, The guy had the nutz do you really think he was looking to gauge a reaction? Come on, this is a silly. If you were to pull that protest crap on me, I'd never even consider playing with you again.

Re: Another Interesting Home Game situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
didnt Chan flip his cards over before he said call durring the last hand of the 88 wsop?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, he began to push his stack into the middle before he flipped his cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative. I just watched it. He turned his cards over THEN pushed.