Tourney What tilts you? (1 Viewer)

To be the recipient of the chips in a chip-dump, you show, then the possibly better hand can still fold. If the game is Limit, then going to the river is the best option.

Note: I am not accusing you of doing anything illegal. I'm just trying to point out that it could be used by someone to angle-shoot or to collude. If that door is open I'd prefer to close it, by requiring the correct order of play.
You remove some opportunities by enforcing standard order at showdown, but you don't really close the door since chips can still be dumped if the dumper has position on the dumpee.

And of course I know you weren't accusing me of anything, I was just speaking hypothetically. I will happily table in order if you have a house rule that requires me to do so. Just warn me ahead of time so I know that we're not following TDA... :sneaky: :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Only thing that has ever really tilted me is slow players. Drives me bug nuts insane, and I've really had to work on not letting it get to me. Everything else by comparison is very easy to let slide. This tanking with Q3o shit is just asinine.
 
I'm not following what you're saying here.

A bets
B calls and says "callin" and tables
A thinks B is "all in" and... then what?...

Nothing changes here.

Actually, come to think of it, why would B go all-in and show his cards to A before A responds? Is that even allowed? And did B never move his chips (call) out in front of his stack?

I'm just not seeing where the confusion is that stems from tabling the cards, just from A not listening.
Nevermind... you still don't get it.
 
The only thing that really tilts me is having to sit next to someone who needs to talk non-stop about random shit that no one cares to follow.

Bubbling use to tilt me.

Jamming or calling an all-in with the same high card and losing to a weaker kicker pairing the board still tilts me, but to a lesser degree now than in the past.
Where in Maine are you? I am n Lewiston.
 
Showing out of turn doesn't bother me much, although I certainly see the reason for the rule. As a matter of common courtesy I always show right away if I think I have the best hand, but this ties directly into my distaste for slow players rather than concern for "slow rolling" - I don't need to sit around and stare at the other player wasting precious seconds. Next hand, move on. I show my busted bluffs almost as fast - I wait for a beat, and if my opponent just sits there I just turn up my cards. If I am the one being called, I Insta-show, bluff or monster makes no difference.

Truthfully, unless you're dealing with a scummy regular at Commerce or something, I don't really believe intentional slow rolling exists. I've only seen it maybe a handful of times in over a decade of playing poker as a serious hobby. Recreational home gamers and most casino players have a million reasons why they are slow to show their obviously winning hand - very rarely is it to needle someone intentionally.
 
seems the real problem occurs when he's wrong then... Like now...
I'm with @BGinGA on this one. You don't seem to understand the issues that could arise by showing out of order. It can lead to unnecessary confusion.
 
Last edited:
So it's ok to go all in and then show your hand before the other player acts?
If I understand BG's scenario correctly, B said "calling" to A's bet. Instead of waiting for A, the aggressor, to show, he shows out of order.

But A thought he said "all-in", and calls what he thinks is B's shove, after B turned over his cards.

There was a misunderstanding that is inflated because of B showing prematurely.
 
can you answer my question though?
Obviously, it's not ok to go all in and show your cards before the other player acts. But that's not the scenario. B didn't go all in and show instantly. B thought he was calling A's bet. A thought B said "all-in", and the confusion arose because B didn't wait for the aggressor to show.
 
no, it ultimately is exactly the situation. It doesn't matter if B waits or not, it's not ok to go all in and then show before the next player, A, acts.

Player A is clearly under the impression that either it's ok, or that B thinks it's ok. Either assumption is wrong and clearly A is at fault here. I've never ever seen what A thinks he's seeing. Ever.

The problem is A, not B.
 
but All in is rule 16, not 17 right?

16: Face Up for All-Ins
All hands will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete.
No player who is either all-in or has called all betting action may muck his or her hand without tabling.
All hands in both the main and side pot(s)must be tabled and are live.


Illustration Addendum

Rule 16: Face Up for All-Ins. “All cards will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete”. This rule means that all down cards of all players will be turned up at once when at least one player is all-in and there is no chance of further betting action by the other player(s).

Do not wait for the showdown to turn the cards up; do not wait for side pots to be divided before turning up the all-in who is only in for the main pot; if betting action is finalized on any street prior to the showdown, turn the cards up at that point and then run out the remaining cards.

Example 1. NLHE. Two players remain. On the turn, Player A (the shorter stack) pushes all-in and is called by B. Turn both A and B’s down cards up at this point, then burn and turn the river and proceed to showdown.

Example 2. NLHE. Three players remain. Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in and is called by both B and C. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible. On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet. On the turn B pushes all-in and C calls. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because no further betting is possible. Burn and turn the river then proceed to showdown. Award the side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: you do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.

Example 3. NLHE. Three players remain. Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in for 700 and is called by both B and C who have several thousand each left. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible. On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet. On the turn B bets 1000 and C calls. Since both B and C still have chips and the river remains to be dealt, betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet. On the river both B and C check. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because betting is over and the hand is moving to showdown. Award the 2000 side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.
 
no, it ultimately is exactly the situation. It doesn't matter if B waits or not, it's not ok to go all in and then show before the next player, A, acts.

Player A is clearly under the impression that either it's ok, or that B thinks it's ok. Either assumption is wrong and clearly A is at fault here. I've never ever seen what A thinks he's seeing. Ever.

The problem is A, not B.
Nevermind... you still don't get it.
 
being an asshole is a prerequisite for being a tourney director?

Look, I'm not being anything. I was actually trying to bring some understanding to a situation where you don't appear to understand. I'm confused about what you don't understand about what BG was trying to tell you. I think I was polite, and doing my best to clarify the scenario. You're the one who has called @BGinGA "obnoxious" and myself an "asshole".

I'm new-ish around here, and I don't have BG's reputation. He's blunt, for sure, but well respected for his knowledge. But I sure hope I have never come across as insulting or obtuse with others as you have with BG and myself.
 
I have to confess, I have shown first as the caller occasionall, thinking the EV of someone incorrectly mucking a winner is higher than the lost EV from them seeing my cards and adjusting to my strategy (spoiler alert- my strategy is to call). In the past I’ve even announced it as “two pair” when there is a board pair... but that feels too angly so I’m trying to get away from that.
 
Look, I'm not being anything. I was actually trying to bring some understanding to a situation where you don't appear to understand. I'm confused about what you don't understand about what BG was trying to tell you. I think I was polite, and doing my best to clarify the scenario. You're the one who has called @BGinGA "obnoxious" and myself an "asshole".

I'm new-ish around here, and I don't have BG's reputation. He's blunt, for sure, but well respected for his knowledge. But I sure hope I have never come across as insulting or obtuse with others as you have with BG and myself.

You're being more than a bit of a prick when you resort to basically just saying people lack the ability to comprehend something as opposed to further explaining what they're apparently missing. Just like you're comfortable saying "you don't get it" I can say exactly the same, and then nobody has achieved anything really.

The actual fact here is that in his example A was wrong. B was not wrong. We've by now all seen the rules quoted and they state that showing "out of turn" is not only acceptable but seemingly desirable. I don't know by what standard or means of reasoning that can be construed as exactly the opposite. If anything it's far worse that someone tables a hand after going all in before others have acted in response to that - and misunderstanding that etiquette or rule (presuming it exists) is far worse than folding "out of turn".

Now, having said that yet again you're obviously free to explain to me why either A is not wrong, or why A is wrong but why what B is doing is worse, or any other permutation of reasoning or fact that will somehow illuminate dumb me so that I finally comprehend this objection of yours.

Or you can simply quote BG's "you still don't get it.", in which case 'yes', I'm going to think you're both bit of assholes...
 
here is my list

  1. When players slow rolls their hands (either the winning or losing hand)
  2. When the DEALER (not in the hand), during a showdown, slow rolls the flop/turn/river, looking at each before turning them over and gasping
  3. When a player takes chips off his stack, moves them out in front (not enough to be considered in play), then slowly, deliberately, methodically stacks them as if about to call a big bet or make a big raise, then puts all their chips back and folds.
  4. excessive rabbit hunting.....like every hand....
  5. And then all the other posts about "action is to you", "post your blind", "blinds are $xx and $xxxx"
 
For starters, I've seen players do a lot of silly stuff at the poker table, including open folding a winner (because they thought the hand was over and they won), exposing cards because they thought some action had occurred that had not, to blurting out FOLD when they meant CALL (seriously, they had the nuts), to making a raise and immediately tabling their hand (yes, I've actually seen it). So nothing that happens at the table is likely to surprise me, no matter now inappropriate or insane it may sound. People do stupid stuff.

The actual fact here is that in his example A was wrong. B was not wrong.
And that is the meat of the argument -- A was wrong, but A was wrong simply because he did not show first. B only made the problem worse by showing, but nothing bad would have happened had he not shown (which has been the the very premise of my position all along -- nothing bad comes of acting in turn, but bad things can happen if you don't act in turn).

If A shows first, there is no issue.
If B waits for A to show first, there is no issue.
If A delays, and B waits for him to eventually show, there is no issue.
It is only when A delays, and B shows prematurely, that there becomes an issue.

I can't explain it any clearer than that. If you can't understand it, I guess I'm an asshole. So be it.
 
If it’s any consolation, @BGinGA , I agree you’re an asshole :p:LOL: :laugh::sneaky:. Still, you’re a correct asshole and I understood your point the first time (and the second, and the third, and... ).

Actually, you and @Beakertwang had more patience than I would have. Of course, I’m an asshole, too.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom