Chip passing

[dik9]

Onto the subject of showdown rules

Roberts Rules state that any player involved in a hand has a right to see anyones cards at showdown, this means anyone dealt in can ask to see. IMHO this is Bollox for a few reasons
1) It causes bad feeling
2) Slows down the game
3) Gives free information to everyone about what cards people play
4) Leading on from 3) stops poker actually being played, no one would want to bluff
5) The only reason why any player is requesting would by rights be, that collusion was taking place
6) Leading on from 5) It is easier to dump without going to showdown if people were colluding

Caro and Cookes Rules which are my preferred rules, states that only the person that called the agressors bet can request to be shown, even then it is still seen as bad etiquette. I will explain this further in bit.

The rules we are using at DTD state that NO ONE can request to see any cards at showdown, and here are the reasons why, We use TDA rules which are the most worldwide used rules. The TDA rules do not mention who can request to see, it is purely a showdown in order. The last aggressive action must show first, therefore if someone calls a bet, they should wait until the aggressor has shown, the caller should never have his hand exposed unless they wish to do so. It is also etiquette to immediately turn your cards over if you believe you have the winning hand.

So if the caller has a very strong hand, but wishes to see the bettors cards, he should wait until the bettor has shown in order. But if the caller shows first he forfeits the right to see the bettors hand. Hence being bad etiquette if a caller shows first and then wants to see the other players.

I am actually warming to DTD's rules on this, although some people will say, what about if you suspect collusion. The dealers should be experienced enough to know when this is happening and will call for the floor OR if the dealer isn't call for the floor yourself if you suspect anything!

[dik9]

Originally Posted by Valiant23

I'm assuming this from Rich's post, but I guess that the dealer has the right to look at mucked hands if he suspects something fishy going on? What if Ross objects? Does the dealer have to look at the mucked hands to make sure nothing fishy has gone on? YES

What if the guy who claimed to have KK actually had an Ace? Unless he had the nuts, in this case AA no direct action can take place. If holding an Ace, I may have a quiet word, and keep a very close eye on

Hope thats cleared everything up as to what is behind my thinking, although in each scenario a decent TD will gather as much info as possible, and make the fairest desicion they can come up with, sometimes it differs from TD to TD as no 2 situations are ever the same and nearly never completely black and white

[dik9]

Originally Posted by AJ

I know, but in this case I think you could raise the issue with the TD, who would examine the players cards and make a decision on collusion. I recall a story related to this a while back, when a player folded Quad Queens on the turn against his brother in law who was all in at a bubble situation. He claimed he thought he was behind to a straight flush. The turn gave him quads, but put a third running diamond on the board.

Another player complained, the TD investigated and gave the guy with quads a penalty

I remember this, and the controversy at the time was that quad queens wasn't actually the Nuts, however the odds of quads actually losing in this case were so astronomical, that the TD ,rightly so, decided to penalize.

EDIT, If I recall, he was penalized for not betting on the river as last to act, not for folding, which is even more controversial

[glceud]

Facinating, you need to refer to a rule book to answer an ethical question.
Hope your up to date with the bible for the rest of your every day life

[GotaFancy?]

Surely you have to refer to the rulebook when you want an independant person to make a decision they have to make a judgement based on the rules, not ethics.....

By definition, ethics are voluntary arent they? Rules are binding. If someone breaks ethics, nothing you can do. If someone breaks rules, you ask for a ruling....

Would you trust poker players to act ethically without rules to back them up? I wouldn't!

[dik9]

Originally Posted by glceud

Facinating, you need to refer to a rule book to answer an ethical question.
Hope your up to date with the bible for the rest of your every day life

WTF?? I gave 3 examples of different rule books to answer a showdown question.

As for the original question, and going on ethics. I used common sense, and rather than assuming UTG was guilty, I have explained my thinking and my actions. I would hope any decision in a cardroom I make, would at it's simpleist be fair.

For the record, I am not religious in any way since the age of 14 , but my conscience doesn't need 10 stone tablets to tell me what is right or wrong. My Common Sense assists me greatly! (In your analogy, I live by the rules that govern this country, and hopefully would be pressumed innocent until proven guilty, as anyone who wants a FAIR trial should expect!) I also would rather find facts rather than simply assume someone was cheating. I may suspect someone is cheating, and would keep a very close eye on, but I am afraid I couldn't acuse anyone of it unless I was reasonably positive that they did.

For the record, I have a reputation for being one of the fairest TD's and running the straightest of games. I must have seen nearly every stroke possible in 20 years of running poker, and I would have no hesitation of disqualifying and barring anyone who I catch abusing the game. I ran/run an illegal cash game and compared to most casinos cardrooms is far far far more secure. The players that know me also know this and are very happy that they are playing in a straight game. My friends know that if they are in a pot with an "out of towner" there will be no bias to anyone.

My reputation means everything and you challenging my ethics is simply an insult. By all means challenge a ruling I make, I can explain them all, and as long as i can justify it in my own head, I will stick with that decision, and I am not so narrow minded that I won't listen to anyone elses reasons or thinking and change my mind.

I have given an explanation as to why I wouldn't penalize, so please give me your interpretation as to why you would punish, (I would actually like this as it makes me think more)

[glceud]

Woops, Ive done it again.
Sorry wasnt meant to come across like that.

Reply later, off out.

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Surely you have to refer to the rulebook when you want an independant person to make a decision they have to make a judgement based on the rules, not ethics.....

By definition, ethics are voluntary arent they? Rules are binding. If someone breaks ethics, nothing you can do. If someone breaks rules, you ask for a ruling....

I don't think this is really a matter of rules vs ethics. If anybody did
anything wrong, then it was collusion or softplaying, which are both
against the
rules and unethical. (In fact, they're unethical because they're against
the rules: it would be quite possible to have a game where the rules
allowed collusion, in which case there would be nothing unethical about
doing it, although I don't think it would be nearly as a good a game as
poker.)


I doubt very much that anybody commenting here disagrees about any
relevant ethical principle. I imagine that everybody would agree that if the
guy who folded did it because it benefited the other player, but knew that it
was a bad play, then he was being unethical, but if he did it because he
thought, however wrongly, that it was the right play, then that's not in any
way unethical?

The question seems to me to be purely one about how suspicious an action
has to be before it's right to penalize it. I don't think dik9 was saying that
the player definitely did nothing wrong (none of us know for sure what the
player's motives were); he was saying that in his opinion this incident
didn't constitute enough evidence to take action.

[glceud]

Apologies, my comments were not meant to be a slur on any one bar the two players involved.

The only two possible explantions for the utg player not pushing preflop or calling post flop are extremely bad play or having an interest in the raisers tourney life. As the first is impossible to prove and we dont have potographic evidence of them splitting their winnings later theres not a lot we can do.
Now as far as I'm concerned collusion should be punishable by immediate exclusion Its wrong because you are attempting to defraud a fellow human being, not becuse its against the rules.
You would exclude a player for violence but the rules probably dont need to mention that

If he didnt want his cards seen he should have folded to the initial reraise. If he had a hand he could call with he should have pushed.