Paul Phillips
Mike Sexton
an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
On TV, I proclaim Paul's actions to be "unethical". I wish I hadn't said
that (and have apologized to Paul for doing so). That is a strong word
that may imply that Paul was intentionally dishonest. I wish I would have
said what he was doing "may be" against the rules (which I believe is
true) and/or that "I'm suprised the TD isn't saying anything to him" about
calling his hand out before action is complete.
Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction? In both cases,
this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
Paul used this tactic twice on Mel (thinking he was doing nothing wrong)
-once with the top pair (when Mel moved all-in with two dueces) and again
on the last hand when he said he had a straight.
I'm very curious as to what Mel would have done (if anything) had Paul
called him with the two Jacks after announcing he had top pair. He would
have cost Mel the tournament by using this tactic. (If you look at Mel's
face after Paul says he has top pair, I think Mel does react as though
he's bluffing and I was surprised that Paul did not pick up on it.) Is
this a rules violation?
Where are the Tournament Directors when you need them?
Mike Sexton
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Big Dave
turning his hand over. What the hell is the differance ??
Really enjoy your commentary,keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Dave B
MSavageTD
>an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
>before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
>action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
>believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
>
Yes it was an ifraction or infraction
>On TV, I proclaim Paul's actions to be "unethical". I wish I hadn't said
>that (and have apologized to Paul for doing so). That is a strong word
>that may imply that Paul was intentionally dishonest. I wish I would have
>said what he was doing "may be" against the rules (which I believe is
>true) and/or that "I'm suprised the TD isn't saying anything to him" about
>calling his hand out before action is complete.
Knowing Paul he was definitely NOT being dishonest, but the play was unethical
in respect to being against the rules.
>
>Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
>announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
>it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
>it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction? In both cases,
>this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
>difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
>hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
>
I would and did give Victor Ramdin a 10 minute penalty during the final table
at the Sands Tournament
>
>Where are the Tournament Directors when you need them?
Playing tournaments on Party Poker
Matt
Steve Brecher
> I am still waiting to hear from Tournament Directors about whether it was
> an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
> before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
> action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
> believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
Question 1: is announcing the strength of your hand (e.g., top pair) or
verbally identifying your hole cards an infraction of TDA rules
<http://www.thepokerforum.com/tdarules.htm>?
Rule 6 says that "a penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with
action pending." Is verbal description of the cards or their strength
equivalent to exposing for the purpose of this rule? Does this mean, to ask
a question often heard these days, that it's OK to lie about one's hand but
illegal to tell the truth?
Rule 35 says:
"35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until
the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players
in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand
possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands
during the play."
Does the second sentence ("obligated to protect the other players") provide
the entire motivation for this rule? If so, what would be the application
of that motivation to a player's interaction with a sole all-in opponent?
(If there is no application does that mean that the rule doesn't apply to
that case?) Is this rule really about disclosing folded cards, or is that
third sentence just thrown in for good measure?
> Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
> announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
> it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
> it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction?
That would be a violation of Rule 6. However, that brings us to...
Question 2: What *should* the rule(s) be with respect to discusssion by
players holding cards of the value or identify of those cards?
> In both cases,
> this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
> difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
> hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
I would advocate a prohibition on physical contact and that poker continue
as a mental game. But *where verbal behavior or exposure of one's cards can
not affect pending action other than one's own* I think it ought to be
allowed. I don't think there's anything wrong with attempting to get a
reaction. Moreover, there is no existing prohibition of attempting to get a
reaction per se. If there were, that would require prohibition of all
talk. If we don't go that route, what's so special about attempting to get
a reaction by disclosure or exposure of one's hand?
Do the TDA written rules have to prohibit description or exposure in all
cases simply because exempting the case where only one's own action can be
affected would make the rule too complex? Maybe, but even without
additional complexity the current rule is a source of many questions about
what's allowed. It would be good to get a rewrite with clear statements of
motivation and better guidance for players.
--
For mail, please use my surname where indicated:
st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Smorgass Bored
NEXT,
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Foul Mouse
Problem solved, just gag everbody playing...
but you know that might take the TV viewer ratings down a notch or 2.
Seriously, what fun is it to watch games with no verbal interaction, and
how come you're picking on Paul? Stuff like this happens all the time
with Scotty N. and many others chatting about their hands to misdirect or
get a reaction? Trying to shame the guy for a little loose talk when he's
last to act is a bit caddy dont you think? Let's just move the WSOP to
partpoker.com and mute everybody playing, would that be fair enough?
beanie
to enforce this rule? Often times, if a rule is broken and the tournament
director isn't called a penalty will not be assessed.
I've always found this interesting since if the player being affected says
or does something it may gave as much or more information about thier hand.
_________________________________________________________________
wg bradley
about the "official" tourney rules, but I think it's a good general
rule.
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4025ed88$0$211$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
wg bradley
"Foul Mouse" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40262a84$0$167$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Well Mike,
>
> Problem solved, just gag everbody playing...
> but you know that might take the TV viewer ratings down a notch or
2.
>
> Seriously, what fun is it to watch games with no verbal interaction,
and
> how come you're picking on Paul? Stuff like this happens all the
time
> with Scotty N. and many others chatting about their hands to
misdirect or
> get a reaction? Trying to shame the guy for a little loose talk
when he's
> last to act is a bit caddy dont you think? Let's just move the WSOP
to
> partpoker.com and mute everybody playing, would that be fair enough?
I think you are allowed to talk...just not about the content of your
hand while that hand is in progress.
Bob Maheu
Mel turned 3 shades of green, and clearly reacted when Paul annouced his
hand. Even limited to the camera shots, I noticed it.
ps - The next time Vince calls Mel a 'Former Hairdresser', kick him under
the table for me, please. Thanks.
DennyLynch
>Where I come from you don't talk about a hand in progress. Not sure
>about the "official" tourney rules, but I think it's a good general rule.
This sums up the case of the Sexton-bashers. They don't even know the rules of
the tounamwent, but they assume that it's played the same way as their playing
for matchstick game on the kitchen
table.
Thank you, Mike, for your articulate response. Keep calling them as you see
them--especially with players who pull stunts like these more than once.
And thanks, too, for Matt Savage for confirming what PP did was a rules
infraction--or ifraction.
DennyLynch
hand, had called the TD over and asked for a ruling? The pot would have been
shoved Mel's way, right?
I have personal experience with this. I've had the same thing happen to me at
3 tourneys, two in Vegas, one in Paris last summer, and when I asked the dealer
to get the TD, the pot was given to me. I didn't even have to show my hand.
lvdlrs
DennyLynch wrote:
> Another question for the TDs: What if Mel, at the point when PP announced his
> hand, had called the TD over and asked for a ruling? The pot would have been
> shoved Mel's way, right?
Don't think so. Hand would be completed and then a time penalty
assessed. Rule 36 talks about exposing cards but I think you can
apply talking about you hands as well.
Gary (...) Philips
Foul Mouse
intervene at that time? I think it's because they were being CONSISTENT
with every other event televised the past year on the WPT where many
examples of loose talk were let go without consequence...
_________________________________________________________________
timmer
Iit surprizes the hell out of me how the WPT TV Poker Movie People can award
100s of millions in prize money but not have a published list of
understandable and enforceable rules. These have some unbaised contractually
bound individuals to enforce them.
This whole rules senario is ridiculiously sloppy in my view.
But then again the 100s of millions aren't really the WPT TV Poker Movie
People's money. They belong to the players.
I guess Ive answered my own question.
timmer
wheres the juice ?
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4025ed88$0$211$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
timmer
"timmer" <timme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DctVb.19758$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Bad Bob
whatever) but I do have an opinion and will state it.
I always thought that the game of poker was about intimidation and false
information as much as it is about cards and money. I realize tournament
poker is a different animal. Someone made a good point about saying what
your hand is, vs, showing the cards. I guess I am old school sort of a
guy but I always thought you could lie all you wanted to about what your
hand is in poker. Maybe it is different after you are actually no longer
in the hand though. I don't know anything about Casino or tournament
play. No experience except on line and home/backroom games.
JMHO
--
Bad Bob
"Cook him till he's blue,
and smother him in onions."
Terrence Chan
>I would and did give Victor Ramdin a 10 minute penalty during the final table
>at the Sands Tournament
Matt, would you have given Paul the same penalty in this situation?
Gregory Raymer
about your hand. I like the old school style of bull-shitting your way
through the hand, telling what you really have, or lying about it, and using
that table talk to your advantage. I also think it would make for a better
show on TV as well. At a minimum, they should allow such table talk once
the hand becomes heads-up. I can see the validity of an argument that the
table talk of 1 player could help two of the players at the expense of a
third, and therefore be inappropriate. But, once the hand is heads-up, even
though it's true that the outcome of that hand has an impact on everybody
still in the tourney, it is clear that a player who starts talking is only
doing so for his or her OWN personal benefit, even if it coincidentally
helps someone else.
I can also see drawing the line at showing cards. It may be that when I bet
all-in with what is almost certainly the best hand, I will often still want
the opponent to fold, because I'd rather win what's in the pot now than race
for a bigger pot. If I say to him something about why he should fold, he
can always wonder if I'm telling the truth. While if I show him my cards,
there is no doubt. While it's true that such avoidance of conflict helps
the two of us out at the expense of the field, as long as it's part of the
overall banter, and the veracity of that banter always being in doubt, I
think it should be allowed as a normal part of the game. And again, a part
of the game that adds a lot of flavor to the show.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Mike Sexton" <sext...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4025ed88$0$211$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Peg Smith
<sext...@aol.com> writes:
>...Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
>announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
>it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
>it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction?...
It should be.
The difference is that there are no other parties involved who may be screwed
by Paul's yakking and Mel's reaction to it. If Paul wants to dance a jig, sing
the national anthem of Yugoslavia, and turn his cards face-up on the table, I
can't see how anyone is harmed by that. I suspect that's why the TDA rule about
coffee-housing and showing cards includes the word "may" regarding being
penalized; they, too, know that there are situations where no harm is caused,
they just didn't write the rule well enough to make that clear.
Peg
A. Prock
>Question 2: What *should* the rule(s) be with respect to discusssion by
>players holding cards of the value or identify of those cards?
This depends on your view of what poker is and what it should
be. Is poker a card game or a people game?
For an illustration of just how far this can go you need only
consider tournament bridge, where pretending to think about
easy decisions is against the rules.
On the other hand, if you are allowed to discuss/show your
hand at some point in the game, when is that point? How
do you decide when that point is? Should it be the end of
the hand, or throughout the hand?
Clearly there is an element of degree involved here, and
where one group thinks the line should be drawn is going
to be different from where other groups think the line
should be drawn.
- Andrew
Steve Brecher
So a player who announces his hand should have it killed -- presumably per
rule 35 against "discuss[ing] the hands" -- but, per rule 36, a player who
exposes his cards may NOT have it killed?
http://www.thepokerforum.com/tdarules.htm
RMITCHCOLL
>On TV, I proclaim Paul's actions to be "unethical". I wish I hadn't said
>that (and have apologized to Paul for doing so). That is a strong word
>that may imply that Paul was intentionally dishonest. I wish I would have
>said what he was doing "may be" against the rules (which I believe is
>true) and/or that "I'm suprised the TD isn't saying anything to him" about
>calling his hand out before action is complete.
very classy reply...well done
Randy Collack
Lloyd Fonvielle
> In article <4025ed88$0$211$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>, "Mike Sexton"
> <sext...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>...Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
>>announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
>>it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
>>it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction?...
>
> It should be.
>
> The difference is that there are no other parties involved who may be screwed
> by Paul's yakking and Mel's reaction to it.
Why do there have to be other players involved? Mel's reaction will
determine how Paul plays his cards. If the rules say you can't discuss
your hand, much less show it, to get a reaction from other players, then
there only needs to be one other player who could be harmed by the
behavior. If it's not against the rules then it's just a breach of
common poker etiquette. The tactic wouldn't be tolerated in the
low-stakes home games I play in, and I've never read about it being used
by any of the big-time players in the game's history. There's a lot lot
of space between those two levels of the game, of course -- perhaps
others could report games or venues where the tactic is accepted.
Steve Brecher
"MSavageTD" <msav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040208040833...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> >I am still waiting to hear from Tournament Directors about whether it was
> >an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
> >before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
> >action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
> >believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
> >
>
> Yes it was an ifraction or infraction
Of which TDA rule, exactly? --Rules 6 and 36 against exposing cards, rule
35 against discussing hands, or some other rule?
Do you agree that rule 35 is vague and raises more questions than it
answers? Is there a prospect of getting it clarified, or more generally
getting this disclosure issue clarified, in the TDA rules?
Peg Smith
proc...@pokerstove.com (A. Prock) writes:
>...Clearly there is an element of degree involved here, and
>where one group thinks the line should be drawn is going
>to be different from where other groups think the line
>should be drawn.
Isn't that why the TDA was established in the first place? Their rules should
be clear and specific, otherwise what's the point?
Peg
Peg Smith
Fonvielle <navi...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> ...The difference is that there are no other parties involved who may be
>screwed
>> by Paul's yakking and Mel's reaction to it.
>
>Why do there have to be other players involved? Mel's reaction will
>determine how Paul plays his cards...
If you're saying it's wrong to solicit a reaction, then we'd better start
banning the famous "Lederer stare-down". Should the TDA adopt a rule with a
time limitation on how long you can look at your opponent?
Am I the only one who sees where this is going, and how silly it is?
>...If it's not against the rules then it's just a breach of
>common poker etiquette. The tactic wouldn't be tolerated in the
>low-stakes home games I play in, and I've never read about it being used
>by any of the big-time players in the game's history....
There are many famous stories about players showing cards to get a reaction.
The one off the top of my head is when Amarillo Slim had a 72 (I think), wanted
his opponent to fold, and offered to show one of his cards if the opponent gave
him a green chip.
Peg
DennyLynch
the national anthem of Yugoslavia, and turn his cards face-up on the table, I
can't see how anyone is harmed by that."
Suppose 3 player's left, one all-in. Chip leader yakker/exposerer reveals his
hand, and decided he'll call or fold based on the reaction.
He gets his tell and folds. You don't think player 3 is harmed by that?
Steve Brecher
> Peg Smith wrote:
> ...
> > The difference is that there are no other parties involved who may be
screwed
> > by Paul's yakking and Mel's reaction to it.
>
> Why do there have to be other players involved? Mel's reaction will
> determine how Paul plays his cards. If the rules say you can't discuss
> your hand, much less show it, to get a reaction from other players, then
> there only needs to be one other player who could be harmed by the
> behavior.
Nowhere do the TDA rules mention getting a reaction.
The reason that harm to other players is an issue is that in a tournament,
unlike live play, the interests of players not in a hand are affected by the
outcome. Certainly a general principle against "harming" ANY other players
would be ridiculous in poker; it is, after all, a game whose object is to
"harm" opponents. If such "harm" is to be allowed only via poker actions,
then all talk during a hand ought to be prohibited. Otherwise -- and sorry
to be so repetitive on this point -- I've yet to see any explanation or
rationale for a prohibition against talk in a tournament which can affect at
most only one's own pending action.
> If it's not against the rules then it's just a breach of
> common poker etiquette. The tactic wouldn't be tolerated in the
> low-stakes home games I play in, and I've never read about it being used
> by any of the big-time players in the game's history.
Comments such as "I've got top pair" to a sole opponent would not cause even
a raised eyebrow in the live NLH game in which I regularly play (Eldorado,
Reno).
beanie
Mel was a "Former Hairdresser" that enhances his appeal to the average
watcher. As many of you may know by now, you are not the average watcher.
I do believe Mel mentioned it in depth in his interview.
As a group, if we are to ever become marketable, this is the typr of thing
that will differentiate you from the group.
Andrei
> On TV, I proclaim Paul's actions to be "unethical". I wish I hadn't said
> that (and have apologized to Paul for doing so). That is a strong word
> that may imply that Paul was intentionally dishonest.
If the Bellagio event is not in the can on taping and voice overs, you
should say the same thing on national television to rectify the situation
when Paul wins that event. You owe it to Paul for making this strong a
statement when it was not warranted, IMHO.
> Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
> announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
> it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
> it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction? In both cases,
> this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
> difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
> hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
Maybe if we can, get a ruling on various table talk. (If Matt thinks it
would be useful.)
So, is there anything wrong with saying the following:
"I have a good hand, you like yours?"
"Bottom pair any good, Mel?"
"What? You hit flush draw? Why bet it?"
"Wow... I should re-raise you. I think I have you beat."
"I guess I missed a bet on the turn there? Wonder if my hand is still any
good though..."
What do people think of these sorts of responses? For the most part, I
agree with Peg on the rules when it gets heads up, but in the spirit of
trying to keep the game such that people don't affect others outcomes by
using underhanded tactics, kind of like helmet butting a quarterback when
you tackle them, I see the need for the rules in high-stakes tournaments.
Andrei
Lloyd Fonvielle
> If you're saying it's wrong to solicit a reaction, then we'd better start
> banning the famous "Lederer stare-down". Should the TDA adopt a rule with a
> time limitation on how long you can look at your opponent?
>
> Am I the only one who sees where this is going, and how silly it is?
It's never wrong to solicit a reaction unless the tactic you use is
against the rules. Many games have a rule against discussing or showing
your hand to get a reaction. Even where there isn't a rule, the tactic
is generally considered a breach of poker etiquette. It's only a
convention, of course, and conventions can be changed. One reason not
to change it would be that allowing an exception in certain situations
would muddy the rule in other situations. How different was the recent
situation from one in which a player on the button began discussing his
hand to get a reaction from the other players who had already acted? At
that point, nothing he said could affect their play on the round -- he's
just trying to get a reaction to determine what his play should be.
Simpler to just disallow the tactic across the board.
> There are many famous stories about players showing cards to get a reaction.
> The one off the top of my head is when Amarillo Slim had a 72 (I think), wanted
> his opponent to fold, and offered to show one of his cards if the opponent gave
> him a green chip.
That was the only remotely similar situation I could recall from the
literature on poker. The fact that Slim gave his opponent a choice in
the matter indicates that he didn't feel free to simply expose the card
on his own hook, which would have served his purposes just as well.
Presumably it would have been a breach of etiquette and possibly of the
rules. And note that this incident is always characterized as an
outlandish if not unique play in the history of the game.
Steve Brecher
Suppose the chip leader says, "I'm seriously thinking of calling -- you look
to me as if you're bluffing" gets a reaction, and folds. Is that OK? If
so, what's the difference? And regardless, the issue isn't harm to third
party players resulting from the normal course of poker play. The issue is
harm due to risk avoidance that is advantageous only in tournaments;
tournaments are peculiar, vis-a-vis live play, in giving survival per se a
value.
My phrase "normal course of poker play" begs the question, of course. I'd
like the TDA rules to better answer that question with respect to disclosure
of hands or their values.
AlwaysAware
>I would and did give Victor Ramdin a 10 minute penalty during the final table
>at the Sands Tournament
>
And what about Phil Hellmuth? He stated his exact hand while you were present,
did he also receive a penalty? Just about the entire table was bantering about
whether or not it could be said, yet there was no intervention or clarification
from the floor.
Joan
John Herbst
> > I am still waiting to hear from Tournament Directors about whether it was
> > an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
> > before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
> > action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
> > believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
The big question is whether taunting should be allowed. Clearly no
players were given unauthorized information from the move, nor did it
alter the action from any other players. The cards were not exposed,
so it is not a violation of Rule 6. It seems to me, though, that Paul
did violate rule 35. He deliberately discussed the hand, specifically
hoping that it would alter the action (albeit his own action) and
therefore affect the outcome of the game.
However, this interpretation of rule 35 leads to a problem of
magnitude: what is discussing the hand and what's not? Could one ask
his opponent "Do you want me to call?" How about mumbling, "so, you
made your flush..."? Either of these could be considered discussing
the hand, but I can't imagine invoking a penalty for the last one.
Therefore I agree with Steve that we need to examine the motivation
for the rules as they stand and amend them one way or another to
reflect the purpose of the rule and remove some of their subjectivity
and ambiguity.
> Steve Brecher:
> Question 1: is announcing the strength of your hand (e.g., top pair) or
> verbally identifying your hole cards an infraction of TDA rules
> <http://www.thepokerforum.com/tdarules.htm>?
>
> Rule 6 says that "a penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with
> action pending." Is verbal description of the cards or their strength
> equivalent to exposing for the purpose of this rule? Does this mean, to ask
> a question often heard these days, that it's OK to lie about one's hand but
> illegal to tell the truth?
>
> Rule 35 says:
>
> "35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until
> the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players
> in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand
> possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands
> during the play."
>
> Does the second sentence ("obligated to protect the other players") provide
> the entire motivation for this rule? If so, what would be the application
> of that motivation to a player's interaction with a sole all-in opponent?
> (If there is no application does that mean that the rule doesn't apply to
> that case?) Is this rule really about disclosing folded cards, or is that
> third sentence just thrown in for good measure?
>
> > MS: Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
> > announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
> > it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
> > it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction?
>
> SB: That would be a violation of Rule 6. However, that brings us to...
>
> Question 2: What *should* the rule(s) be with respect to discusssion by
> players holding cards of the value or identify of those cards?
>
> > MS: In both cases,
> > this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
> > difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
> > hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
>
> SB: I would advocate a prohibition on physical contact and that poker
> continue as a mental game.
LOL.
> But *where verbal behavior or exposure of one's cards can
> not affect pending action other than one's own* I think it ought to be
> allowed. I don't think there's anything wrong with attempting to get a
> reaction. Moreover, there is no existing prohibition of attempting to get a
> reaction per se. If there were, that would require prohibition of all
> talk. If we don't go that route, what's so special about attempting to get
> a reaction by disclosure or exposure of one's hand?
It's just a matter of opinion, but I think fishing for tells is not in
the spirit of the game. I'm probably in the minority here, but I just
find it annoying when an opponent goes through a 2 minute act to try
to get me to crack. It's unfair to newer players, plus it's a huge
time-waster for televised poker.
>
> Do the TDA written rules have to prohibit description or exposure in all
> cases simply because exempting the case where only one's own action can be
> affected would make the rule too complex? Maybe, but even without
> additional complexity the current rule is a source of many questions about
> what's allowed. It would be good to get a rewrite with clear statements of
> motivation and better guidance for players.
As I said before, I agree. Best to choose a side and go with it.
-John Herbst
A. Prock
I was responding to "Question 2" that Steve asked, which
was more about what the rules *should* be, not what they
actually are.
A. Prock
Also, I think that the rule in question is clear:
"35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until
the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players
in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand
possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands
during the play."
If Paul discussed his hand before the action is complete, then
it is something which violates rule 35 and may incur a penalty.
The motivation may be suspect, and the implementation of "A
penalty may be given..." is vague, but it is clear that discussion
of the hand is a violation of the rules.
Paul probably knew the rules, and he probably knew that he
could get away with what he did. It was at the very least an
angle, akin (not equivalent) to Slim's "Let's go" that was much
debated in the not so distant past.
Gary Carson
behavior first?
If you do something purposeful, and it violates the rules, are you saying it's
not dishonest if you didn't go to the trouble to learn the rules?
Do we need a rule that requires participants to read the rules?
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Bad Bob
I agree with Peg also... if you are going to have rules at all they
should be clearly written an defined.
timmer
"lvdlrs" <lvd...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:40265342...@midsouth.rr.com...
>
>
> DennyLynch wrote:
> > Another question for the TDs: What if Mel, at the point when PP
announced his
> > hand, had called the TD over and asked for a ruling? The pot would have
been
> > shoved Mel's way, right?
>
> Don't think so. Hand would be completed and then a time penalty
> assessed. Rule 36 talks about exposing cards but I think you can
> apply talking about you hands as well.
>
> Gary (...) Philips
Peg Smith
denny...@aol.comnojunk (DennyLynch) writes:
>Suppose 3 player's left, one all-in. Chip leader yakker/exposerer reveals
>his
>hand, and decided he'll call or fold based on the reaction.
>
>He gets his tell and folds. You don't think player 3 is harmed by that?
No, not any more than if the chip leader had stared him down for two minutes
and got a reaction.
Peg
Badandy
cut in this game. Chris Ferguson, Mel, and Paul were
deciding what the cut would be before they played heads up
right? That would explain why the studio audience had to be
cued to applaud because they saw the whole thing take place.
Did you take notice to the audience, COMPLETE silence after
the showdown. They knew.
I listened to the final table at the WPO the other day. And
everytime a move was made the crowd went nuts.
Unknown
wrote:
>Did it really matter. If I read correctly there was a deal
>cut in this game. Chris Ferguson, Mel, and Paul were
>deciding what the cut would be before they played heads up
>right? That would explain why the studio audience had to be
>cued to applaud because they saw the whole thing take place.
>Did you take notice to the audience, COMPLETE silence after
>the showdown. They knew.
They knew nothing. I was there. Even if they did who gives a rats
ass.
Vince lepore
> Is it ethical to play a game without bothering to learn the rules of proper
> behavior first?
>
but it sure has nothing to do with ethics whether you know the rules
or not. Either wya you suffer the consequences of breaking those
rules.
> If you do something purposeful, and it violates the rules, are you saying > it's not dishonest if you didn't go to the trouble to learn the rules?
>
Of course it's not dishonest, don't be silly. If you don't know the
rules and break them you are not being honest or dihonest. You are
just in violation of the rules. It has nothing to do with ones
character. On the other hand if you do know the rules and purposely
break them then you are certainly unethical and reflects negatively on
your character.
> Do we need a rule that requires participants to read the rules?
No we need the judges to enforce the rules, that's it.
Vince
A. Prock
>I agree with Peg also... if you are going to have rules at all they
>should be clearly written an defined.
That's pretty easy to agree with.
Bad Bob
> According to Bad Bob <bad...@blueflintcat.us>:
>
>>I agree with Peg also... if you are going to have rules at all they
>>should be clearly written an defined.
>
>
> That's pretty easy to agree with.
>
> - Andrew
>
I agree with Andrew... that is pretty easy to agree with...
Robert W. Rooney
not much different than saying "I think I have the best hand" or "I think
you're bluffing, I might have to call you down" or something to that
effect. It's not different from stacking your chips to call or staring
someone down. Poker is a people game played with cards and if you take
away the psychology with stupid time clocks and rules that limit the table
banter, I think poker will lose something. Besides a good poker player
should be able to bluff and nothing that another person says should have
any effect. Look at Moneymaker's bluff vs. Farha, IMO one of the greatest
moments in televised poker, it wouldn't have been possible with the time
clock. Also, Farha said something to the effect of "I think you're
bluffing" and Moneymaker didn't flinch.
Anyway, considering what a big part of poker lying and deception are, who
believes someone when they talk about their hand anyway?
On Feb 8 2004 12:06AM, Mike Sexton wrote:
> I am still waiting to hear from Tournament Directors about whether it was
> an infraction when Paul Phillips was telling his opponent what he had
> before action was complete on the BIKE'S WPT event. (Yes, his opponent's
> action was complete, but not his.) And if it is an ifraction (which I
> believe it was), then what penalty should have been assessed?
>
> On TV, I proclaim Paul's actions to be "unethical". I wish I hadn't said
> that (and have apologized to Paul for doing so). That is a strong word
> that may imply that Paul was intentionally dishonest. I wish I would have
> said what he was doing "may be" against the rules (which I believe is
> true) and/or that "I'm suprised the TD isn't saying anything to him" about
> calling his hand out before action is complete.
>
> Many on RGP (and elsewhere) seem to think Paul did nothing wrong by
> announcing his hand in an effort to get a reaction out of Mel. I believe
> it's against the rules. He announced his hand to get a reaction. Would
> it be OK if he turned his hand face up to get a reaction? In both cases,
> this tactic is done to get a reaction from your opponent. What's the
> difference? Where do you draw the line? (Would it be OK if he put his
> hand on Mel's heart to get a reaction?)
>
> Paul used this tactic twice on Mel (thinking he was doing nothing wrong)
> -once with the top pair (when Mel moved all-in with two dueces) and again
> on the last hand when he said he had a straight.
>
> I'm very curious as to what Mel would have done (if anything) had Paul
> called him with the two Jacks after announcing he had top pair. He would
> have cost Mel the tournament by using this tactic. (If you look at Mel's
> face after Paul says he has top pair, I think Mel does react as though
> he's bluffing and I was surprised that Paul did not pick up on it.) Is
> this a rules violation?
>
> Where are the Tournament Directors when you need them?
>
> Mike Sexton
_________________________________________________________________
Patti Beadles
cards or discuss the hand in order to influence the play of anyone
else at the table.
If the only decision left is mine, then I'm completely and utterly
failing to see the harm. It's just another example of looking for
a tell.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | 1991 EX500 (RIP, stolen)
Check out www.tribe.net! | 2001 Sprint ST ("Booh")
A. Prock
>It would be easy to word the rules such that you could not expose
>cards or discuss the hand in order to influence the play of anyone
>else at the table.
>
>If the only decision left is mine, then I'm completely and utterly
>failing to see the harm. It's just another example of looking for
>a tell.
What if, by announcing your hand, the other player thinks that
the showdown has started and exposes their hand?
John Harkness
wrote:
That would be his problem, wouldn't it?
John Harkness
Steve Brecher
> It would be easy to word the rules such that you could not expose
> cards or discuss the hand in order to influence the play of anyone
> else at the table.
>
> If the only decision left is mine, then I'm completely and utterly
> failing to see the harm. It's just another example of looking for
> a tell.
In another thread, Gary Philips ("lvdlrs") posted a rationale that I find
persuasive: the rule is intended to prevent or make more difficult
soft-playing or chip transfers between confederates. It is, as he admitted,
a highly imperfect tool; and in any case IMO the rule(s) on this issue need
reworking.
Foul Mouse
The interplay between one player and another in a big heads up pot is a
key part of the entertainment value of watching poker. The rule
infractions mentioned, I believe, were meant to apply to 3rd parties
affected by those who whould expose or indicate their down cards. Who
should really believe anything a poker player "says"?
> I don't think it's unethical or that it should be against the rules. It's
> not much different than saying "I think I have the best hand" or "I think
> you're bluffing, I might have to call you down" or something to that
> effect. It's not different from stacking your chips to call or staring
> someone down. Poker is a people game played with cards and if you take
> away the psychology with stupid time clocks and rules that limit the table
> banter, I think poker will lose something. Besides a good poker player
> should be able to bluff and nothing that another person says should have
> any effect. Look at Moneymaker's bluff vs. Farha, IMO one of the greatest
> moments in televised poker, it wouldn't have been possible with the time
> clock. Also, Farha said something to the effect of "I think you're
> bluffing" and Moneymaker didn't flinch.
>
> Anyway, considering what a big part of poker lying and deception are, who
> believes someone when they talk about their hand anyway?
_________________________________________________________________
Vince's Mother's Spirit
Think, then write. I keep telling you this. Think first, then write. Its
not that hard, Vinny. You just really, really have to try. That's all.
Think, then write. The shrinks at the mental hospital will help you,
Vinny. Please check yourself back in. I love you, Vinny. I want what's
best for you. I'm your mother. I have to love you.
--
Vincent's Mother's Spirit
_________________________________________________________________
whoareume
go to bed right now? Do you know their policy on this?
jw_steve
"Foul Mouse" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402827bf$0$191$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Very well put!!
>
> The interplay between one player and another in a big heads up pot is a
> key part of the entertainment value of watching poker. The rule
> infractions mentioned, I believe, were meant to apply to 3rd parties
> affected by those who whould expose or indicate their down cards. Who
> should really believe anything a poker player "says"?
>
ability to lie is pretty much useless.
-Steve
<snip>
jd00123
> Does anyone know if pokerstars would refund my tourny buyin if I wanted to
> go to bed right now? Do you know their policy on this?
Two original ideas for you...........WHY DONT YOU ASK
POKERSTARS???and.....KEEP YOUR POSTS ON TOPIC OF TITLE!
jd00123
> Does anyone know if pokerstars would refund my tourny buyin if I wanted to
> go to bed right now? Do you know their policy on this?
Go ahead and go to bed,since you have no shot in the tournament at least
you will get some rest.Your welcome.
A. Prock
>>the showdown has started and exposes their hand?
>
Well,
It would be a problem all around. At that point procedure
would be broken, and someone would have to step in to fix
the mess.
And given that you aren't supposed to announce your hand,
it is all of a sudden who should bear what kind of penalty
for the SNAFU.
Tmo
> action pending." Is verbal description of the cards or their strength
> equivalent to exposing for the purpose of this rule? Does this mean, to ask
> a question often heard these days, that it's OK to lie about one's hand but
> illegal to tell the truth?
>
> the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players
> in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand
> possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands
> during the play."
>
One point I don't see discussed here is the fact that Mel did not
request action on Paul's comments. If anyone has the right to demand
action on Paul's clear violation of the rules, it would Mel. But in
this situation it is actually to his advantage. Paul says he has a
straight. So now Mel thinks "OK, so do I. If he has a 7 we chop. The
only hand I can lose to is a 78."
We all want an edge when we play poker. If we could, we all would love
to have ESP and know what our opponent has. This was the next best
thing. The only thing that would have been better for Mel would for
Paul to have said "I have the bottom end of the straight."
but let's say Mel has two pair or a set (or Paul had a flush [if that
was possible]). Is it within Mel's right to have the hand declared
dead and take the pot? In my mind I think it is. If that had happened
there would have been a whole different string of debate. We would all
be arguing whether Mel was within his rights to request a ruling and
if it was Paul's fault for saying what he had.
Personally I pray that one day I'm heads up at a final table and my
opponent tells me what he has (and I have the nuts).
-Tank
Steve Brecher
> but let's say Mel has two pair or a set (or Paul had a flush [if that
> was possible]). Is it within Mel's right to have the hand declared
> dead and take the pot? In my mind I think it is.
TDA rule 36: "A player who exposes his cards during the play may incur a
penalty, but will not have his hand killed." I don't think the penalty for
verbally describing one's hand would be more severe than that for exposing
it.