|
|
#11
06-13-2005, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
Well my opponent in this hand was actually a friend of mine, so I figured it wouldn't cause any trouble. when i did it, he just chuckled. he actually agreed with me and a couple other at the table when the argument first started. Besides, you don't think there's any time that showing one card has value if you know you don't have to show the rest of your hand?
|
|
#12
06-13-2005, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
Please see Bob Ciaffone's article in the current issue of Card Player for a very good discussion of showdown rules. Although this is not a show one show all ruling as the player requested, however he does have the right to see your cards if the hand went to showdown.
TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#13
06-13-2005, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
Please see Bob Ciaffone's article in the current issue of Card Player for a very good discussion of showdown rules. Although this is not a show one show all ruling as the player requested, however he does have the right to see your cards if the hand went to showdown. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you didn't see the very first line of this thread. No showdown.
|
|
#14
06-13-2005, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
It's not a question of it having value, it's a question of preserving the type of game atmosphere that is conducive to you winning the most money possible. Showing one insignificant card often makes the opponents think the person who did so is a dick. I want happy, gambling opponents.
|
|
#15
06-13-2005, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
It seems like every room, and just about every floor has a different take on this. And many times different takes on it in a ring game versus a tournament.
Anymore if I feel it is to my advanage to show a card I just roll one to the top and back down and fire the hand into the muck at about 60mph. I dare any dealer to pick out my cards with a high degree of success. No point in getting worked up by it. The rule is the rule where and when you are playing, not too much to be done about that for right or wrong of it.
|
|
#16
06-13-2005, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
Please see Bob Ciaffone's article in the current issue of Card Player for a very good discussion of showdown rules. Although this is not a show one show all ruling as the player requested, however he does have the right to see your cards if the hand went to showdown. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I agree with Bob overall that the state we're in sucks and the whole 'exact timing' thing is bullshit. I find his second article in that magazine very odd though. He thinks whoever initiated last action on the river shows first is wrong (if that action was a check) and we should follow the "whoever took aggressive action anywhere in the hand rule". Which is one of the nittiest rules i've ever heard of. Basically he doesn't like having to show in these cases: flop: you check, evil bets, you call turn: you check, evil bets, you call river: you check, evil checks you show first. He said: "Why should i have to show after he lead the actions for ll streets and then checked the river". I say: Because it makes river showdowns, especially in multi-way pots, much easier. Left of button shows first if there is no aggressive action on the river is very simple. Remembering back to who bet or the turn or raised the flop, etc., is going to cause extra arguments, something bob typically wants to get away from. I really don't understand why someone who seems to understand these situations well overall would want to have an extra complicated river showdown procedure just so he can fold his EP non-winning hands without showing them. Here's the exact quote: Here is a situation that I think neither the traditionalists nor the revisionists handle properly. In a hold’em game, on both the fl op and the turn, Player A, acting first, checks, Player B bets, and Player A calls. On the end, Player A checks and so does Player B. Our present rules state that Player A shows first. I do not like this at all. When some guy bets you all the way through, then checks on the end, why should you have to show and he does not? Isn’t it more relevant who was carrying the betting than who was acting first? I suggested in 1987 when we were formulating the rules for the Las Vegas Hilton cardroom that the last show of strength should have to show first. "
|
|
#17
06-13-2005, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
Please see Bob Ciaffone's article in the current issue of Card Player for a very good discussion of showdown rules. Although this is not a show one show all ruling as the player requested, however he does have the right to see your cards if the hand went to showdown. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This is an over generalization too. There's no "right" in most cardrooms to see the mucked hand. It's been discussed many times here that the purpose of that rule is to prevent collusion. If I object to showing my mucked hand, I want the floor to decide whether to show it or not. Most dealers I have experience with don't understand that it is a tool to be used infrequently.
|
|
#18
06-13-2005, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Please see Bob Ciaffone's article in the current issue of Card Player for a very good discussion of showdown rules. Although this is not a show one show all ruling as the player requested, however he does have the right to see your cards if the hand went to showdown. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This is an over generalization too. There's no "right" in most cardrooms to see the mucked hand. It's been discussed many times here that the purpose of that rule is to prevent collusion. If I object to showing my mucked hand, I want the floor to decide whether to show it or not. Most dealers I have experience with don't understand that it is a tool to be used infrequently. [/ QUOTE ] The floor is also a tool to be used infrequently.
|
|
#19
06-13-2005, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't the blinds 2/3 in the no limit game with a 100 max buy in? I never played in the NL game there. One guy I met there told me people only play really good hands. I suppose they just play them poorly. [/ QUOTE ] oops - yeah - i meant 3/5 NL - haha - still thinking party poker and when i went - the action was crazy - this one guy would go all-in on any flush draw. The average flop bet was around $50 and people were drawing to a T high flush when a bettor made it $100 to go. It was nuts!
|
|
#20
06-14-2005, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Show one, show all rule at Hollywood Park
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a question of it having value, it's a question of preserving the type of game atmosphere that is conducive to you winning the most money possible. Showing one insignificant card often makes the opponents think the person who did so is a dick. I want happy, gambling opponents. [/ QUOTE ] Great point. Anyway, it seems a lot of players and staff misunderstand the rule, thinking it applies to cards rather than hands. ~ Rick
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
