Angle shoot, thoughts? (2 Viewers)

[p5woody]

In what way is player two being impacted?

Just talking hypothetical here. Player 2 would have been impacted if Player 1 had nothing and player 3 would have folded with out the losing hand comment, then player 2 wins the hand.

 

[Mojo1312]

Gotcha! I wouldn't get tied up in the situation. Player three should chalk it up as a learning experience and move on imo.

 

[JustinInMN]

Thanks for all comments, is there a difference if he was telling the truth and did have the losing hand?

Yeah, oddly TDA rules only forbid one of these things.

Player 3 was going to fold but based on comment decides to call, this would have impacted player 2. That is why I thought it should be discouraged but no penalty.

I would agree, only reason this would ever be a penalty is because it's more that two players imo.

I think you have right idea for how to handle this, @p5woody. Warning now, one round next time.

 

[Gobbs]

The rules on this are pretty straight-forward if you use RRoP (I'm too lazy to look at TDA and I use a hybrid of the two for my game). He can't discuss his hand until it's heads up (and that means, the entire tournament is heads-up, not just that hand). What is not straight-forward is the penalty/punishment.

I agree with what I think is the consensus, verbal warning the first time, but he wins the pot.

In addition, verbal warning to both player who called for being nits. (Well, maybe not...don't want to tap on the glass.)

 

[JustinInMN]

I agree with what I think is the consensus, verbal warning the first time, but he wins the pot.

Agreed. I would go so far as to say there isn't a circumstance in which the winning hand should be killed. (Unless the player himself moves to muck the hand.)

But I think orbit penalties are certainly in order after a warning.

 

[Mojo1312]

Do details on how the hand played matter?

Player one checks, player two bets, player three raises, player one goes all-in.

Player one bets, player two calls, player three raises, player one moves all-in.

Player one checks, player two bets, player three calls, player one moves all-in.

etc.

I cannot take a player who claims he would have folded if the villain had not stated that he had a "losing hand" seriously.

Basically, he is saying that he knew he had player two beat, but he was worried about player 1. Until player 1 kindly told him he was good. Gee, player one is a helluva nice fella. The game would be so much easier if everyone was as nice.

Pretty elementary come on that induced the call, if true.

So really, the only infraction is that he went to show his cards prematurely. By accident or design? I suspect the latter based upon the description of the Villain. He probably went so far as to calculate his remark beforehand. But what if he did make a mistake, and his off the cuff smart ass response to the situation fits his personality?

On its face, it looks like a douche move, but there was only one player left to act. And it was a binary choice. Call for his tournament life or fold. He had a few minutes to think about it. His reason for calling instead of finding the fold? Because player one told him he had nothing. Pretty weak.

I believe player three is upset/embarrassed about calling off his stack. (Or possibly being duped, if you take his story at face value.)

What I would take umbrage with is if player 1 made a motion of pitching his cards into the muck. IMO, that warrants a warning or a rebuke. Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing. Player three is simply using player ones statement to mask his bad call. Next hand.

 

[Nathanman123]

Am I the only one thinking that player 2 is a moron for calling an all-in with bottom two pair and a player left to act behind??? Both 2 & 3 are acting like three of a kind isn't even possible. Once 2 calls 3 should fold. The whole hand is a misplay

 

[JustinInMN]

So really, the only infraction is that he went to show his cards prematurely. By accident or design? I suspect the latter based upon the description of the Villain. He probably went so far as to calculate his remark beforehand. But what if he did make a mistake, and his off the cuff smart ass response to the situation fits his personality?

Doing this by design just doesn't make sense. If he's trying to target player 3 for a call, why risk exposing the nuts prematurely? For this to be a premeditated angle, it seems to me he has to have a plan to turn the cards face up and then quickly cover them by hands without actually exposing the straight. That seems to risky when it's just easier to keep your cards closed.

His actions just make more sense to me if he honestly doesn't realize player 3 is still in the hand. And then as soon as he realizes it, he figures he should cover the hand just in case and walk back the early exposure with a speech. (I get the second part is the rightful source of controversy.)

 

[longflop]

You'd leave and go do yardwork?

now that was funny!

 

[Nathanman123]

Doing this by design just doesn't make sense. If he's trying to target player 3 for a call, why risk exposing the nuts prematurely? For this to be a premeditated angle, it seems to me he has to have a plan to turn the cards face up and then quickly cover them by hands without actually exposing the straight. That seems to risky when it's just easier to keep your cards closed.

His actions just make more sense to me if he honestly doesn't realize player 3 is still in the hand. And then as soon as he realizes it, he figures he should cover the hand just in case and walk back the early exposure with a speech. (I get the second part is the rightful source of controversy.)

This is nonsense though. How do you get to the river AND go all-in without knowing that there obviously are two other people in the pot?

 

[BGinGA]

Excited players with the nuts can do some pretty silly things at times.

 

[JustinInMN]

This is nonsense though. How do you get to the river AND go all-in without knowing that there obviously are two other people in the pot?

I can't say I expose my hands early, but I have played flops where I bet and and get called and the more chips come in from a guy I didn't realize was still in. (Undoubtedly the guy I missed usually ends up winning .)

Usually after the flop I know who's left, but it's entirely possible to me to honestly forget or mistake a fold on an early street or something. Perhaps just due to excitement like @BGinGA says.

You should always strive to know who's in every pot of course, but I can see mistakes happen on occasion.

That just strikes me as far more likely that a guy would prematurely expose the nut hand on purpose only to quickly cover it up to somehow pull off this angle. It seems easier to get called by just keeping your hand down than hoping this awkward parlay is somehow more effective.

 

[Mojo1312]

Doing this by design just doesn't make sense. If he's trying to target player 3 for a call, why risk exposing the nuts prematurely? For this to be a premeditated angle, it seems to me he has to have a plan to turn the cards face up and then quickly cover them by hands without actually exposing the straight. That seems to risky when it's just easier to keep your cards closed.

His actions just make more sense to me if he honestly doesn't realize player 3 is still in the hand. And then as soon as he realizes it, he figures he should cover the hand just in case and walk back the early exposure with a speech. (I get the second part is the rightful source of controversy.)

Playing both sides, I have little doubt that a crafty Villain could be capable of such an act knowing other at the table would speak up, thus stopping him from exposing his hand. Then again, I have been caught in the same situation of prematurely revealing my cards with a player left to act. A few minutes is a long time to wait, even two minutes for that matter. Especially with 20 minute levels. People don't always have their cards out in front of them so they are visible, or they might be blocked from view by another player. Player one's attention could have been on the clock. Who knows?

Exclaiming he "was going to show the losing hand" doesn't violate any rule to my knowledge. Dave or someone else who stays on top of this subject will correct me if I am wrong. Acting out of turn is a clear violation, but his infraction occurs after the river with one player left to act. Again, player three is left with a binary choice that isn't going to change the outcome of the hand for player two.

What would be our opinions on the subject if Player one had said I have the nuts and Player three folded, only to have nothing? What foul did he commit?

 

[JustinInMN]

Exclaiming he "was going to show the losing hand" doesn't violate any rule to my knowledge.

Again, player three is left with a binary choice that isn't going to change the outcome of the hand for player two.

It does impact player two in the situation where player two has player one beat but not player 3. Not the case here with player 1 having the nuts, but what if player 1 was the short stack here? Then he is influencing a side pot. It's enough for me to say a warning is justified and a penalty for repetition. But no where near killing hands.

What would be our opinions on the subject if Player one had said I have the nuts and Player three folded, only to have nothing? What foul did he commit?

In this situation there is definitely the possibility that player two can beat player one and not player 3. That very clearly can be undue influence affecting player 2.

 

[Mojo1312]

You should always strive to know who's in every pot of course, but I can see mistakes happen on occasion.

Agreed, and they do. No different than misreading your hand.

This is nonsense though. How do you get to the river AND go all-in without knowing that there obviously are two other people in the pot?

Depends on the caliber of players. Usually, I have a fairly solid idea where I am in the hand before I commit all of my chips. I have made this mistake twice. Both times involved a prolonged tank by another player. Tanking is often a sign that your hand is good. In this case player one had the nuts. He had no worries.

It does impact player two in the situation where player two has player one beat but not player 3. Not the case here with player 1 having the nuts, but what if player 1 was the short stack here? Then he is influencing a side pot. It's enough for me to say a warning is justified and a penalty for repetition. But no where near killing hands.

In this situation there is definitely the possibility that player two can beat player one and not player 3. That very clearly can be undue influence affecting player 2.

You are punishing him based upon scenarios that could have affected the outcome.

To your last point. Should player one be punished for lying about his holdings?

 

[BGinGA]

To your last point. Should player one be punished for lying about his holdings?

He definitely violates tournament rules by merely talking about his hand with more than two players involved. Makes no difference what he says; he cannot attempt to influence action when not heads-up.

So yes. Verbal warning for first offense; sit-out penalty for second offense. The rule is there to protect the other players in the hand.

 

[200 Motels]

Pretty greasy to make that comment AFTER being warned another player has action pending . . . VERY greasy.

How experienced a player is the villain?

I feel the comment of saying "I was going to show a losing hand" is someone just trying to save face after almost exposing their hand. Players should shouldn't give this comment any credit or discredit and take it like anyone else would say in a poker hand. I don't know the players but feeling as this is probably just something he said to recover from doing something dumb, I'm doubleful it was intented to get another player to call him with a worse hand but likely was to disguise the strength of his seeing how he almost exposed his nuts. My thoughts.

 

[BGinGA]

I would normally tend to agree with you, if @p5woody had not brought up his previous antics:

He has done some questionable things in the past but nothing this obvious. He normally tries to play it off as oh shucks I don't know what I am doing when people call him out on it. Overall is a good guy but likes to do these types of things.

 

[Mojo1312]

Going by the rule book.

My point is the only action he can influence is player three, who is left with the decision to call or fold. Unlike the alternate scenarios given by the O.P., Justin and myself, player two is unaffected by player threes decision.

This reminds me of a home tournament where a player checked-jammed all in. The other player tanked. He tried unsuccessfully to get information from the other player, who after several minutes asked if he could go outside for a smoke. The host said yes, and the other player in the hand said no, otherwise his hand would be dead. The player placed his capper on top of his cards and calmly left the table. The host declared his hand live and told the other player that he had enough time to discern whether or not he had the winning hand. The player eventually made the call with the worst hand and threw a fit after losing.

Technically, both players have legitimate gripes according to the rules, but how far do you want to carry them?

I don't find this to be a big offense worthy of a warning. Player three was outplayed, or he was calling in spite of player three's remark. Same as the player above.

I stopped falling for the Jedi mind trick years ago. Player 1: "I was going to show a losing hand." Player two: "He is going to show a losing hand."

 

[Mojo1312]

He definitely violates tournament rules by merely talking about his hand with more than two players involved. Makes no difference what he says; he cannot attempt to influence action when not heads-up.

So yes. Verbal warning for first offense; sit-out penalty for second offense. The rule is there to protect the other players in the hand.

62: No Disclosure Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the hand or not, must not:

1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands, 2. Advise or criticize play at any time, 3. Read a hand that hasn't been tabled.

One-player-to-a-hand is in effect. Among other things, this rule prohibits showing a hand to or discussing strategy with another player, advisor, or spectator.

Which one of the above is player one violating?

 

[JustinInMN]

My point is the only action he can influence is player three, who is left with the decision to call or fold. Unlike the alternate scenarios given by the O.P., Justin and myself, player two is unaffected by player threes decision.

But this is only true in this case because we know player 1 has the nuts and player 2 is a loser either way. Given the action only there certainly are scenarios is which player one attempting to influence player 3 impacts player two without knowledge of the hole cards. Rulings that make this sort of influence allowable only when holding the nuts leads to problems. That's why I think a warning is in order.

But if we want to make this about TDA rules 67 (part one in particular) and 68 are applicable.

http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

Etiquette & Penalties
67: No Disclosure

Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the hand or not, must not:

1. Discuss contents of live or mucked hands,
2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
3. Read a hand that hasn’t been tabled.

One-player-to-a-hand is in effect. Among other things, this rule prohibits showing a hand to or discussing strategy with another player, advisor, or spectator.

68: Exposing Cards and Proper Folding

Exposing cards with action pending may result in a penalty but not a dead hand. Any penalty begins at the end of the hand. When folding, cards should be pushed forward low to the table, not deliberately exposed or tossed high (“helicoptered”). See also Rule 66.

So yes, 68 is pretty blantant that penalties may be in order for premature exposure. There's wide latitude for context, and I would tend to warn first.

 

[JustinInMN]

I don't find this to be a big offense worthy of a warning. Player three was outplayed, or he was calling in spite of player three's remark. Same as the player above.

And don't misunderstand, I am not trying to say player 3 was harmed as the basis for supporting a warning. And if heads up, I wouldn't have a problem. I am saying the potential for player two to be harmed (even if he's already all in) in any scenarios in which player one does not have the nuts is the reason.

 

[Mojo1312]

But this is only true in this case because we know player 1 has the nuts and player 2 is a loser either way. Given the action only there certainly are scenarios is which player one attempting to influence player 3 impacts player two without knowledge of the hole cards. But player 1 knows that he has the nuts, so the rest is irrelevant. Rulings that make this sort of influence allowable only when holding the nuts leads to problems. That's why I think a warning is in order.

But if we want to make this about TDA rules 67 (part one in particular) and 68 are applicable.

http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

So yes, 68 is pretty blantant that penalties may be in order for premature exposure. There's wide latitude for context, and I would tend to warn first.

I enjoy reading your posts and am glad we can discus this in a thoughtful way. Did player 1 truly discuss the contents of his hand? No. He had the nuts.

And he didn't reveal his cards. He was stopped by the other players.

 

[JustinInMN]

Did player 1 truly discuss the contents of his hand? No. He had the nuts.

If I grant your narrower interpretation of 67 part 1 I still say any discussion on the part of player one is out of line and a failure to protect player 2, even though in this case player one happens to have thes.

And really I would say the near pre exposure isself is worthy of a warning. If he had fully exposed the hand he would have grossly damaged player two by providing player three with information player two didn't have.

enjoy reading your posts and am glad we can discus this in a thoughtful way.

Glad you are enjoying the back and forth, hopefully other readers are as well.

 

[Mojo1312]

If I grant your narrower interpretation of 67 part 1 I still say any discussion on the part of player one is out of line and a failure to protect player 2, even though in this case player one happens to have thes.

And really I would say the near pre exposure isself is worthy of a warning. If he had fully exposed the hand he would have grossly damaged player two by providing player three with information player two didn't have.

The rules and their application needs to make sense. Language matters. 2017 TDA rules states a player may not disclose the content of his or her hand. Granted, that is narrow. They do not state that a player cannot misrepresent his hand.

How is player two damaged if player one reveals his hand prematurely? He is all-in. Nothing left for him to do. It is to his detriment if he exposes his hand before player three has a chance to act.

We are scrutinizing the intent of player 1. I question whether player three intended to fold. I believe he is merely trying to save face for making a bad call.

Again, no one has given a compelling reason as to why player 1 should be admonished or penalized for his actions, other than they find his antics (if premeditated) distasteful.

 

[BGinGA]

It's because player 1's actions and comments can influence player 3's action, which may subsequently harm player 2. Dunno how to make it any clearer for ya.

What the players actually had in this particular hand is immaterial. It is because of potential harm to other players in the hand that the rule exists.

 

[Mojo1312]

It's because player 1's actions and comments can influence player 3's action, which may subsequently harm player 2. Dunno how to make it any clearer for ya.

What the players actually had in this particular hand is immaterial. It is because of potential harm to other players in the hand that the rule exists.

Shenanigans!

You are right. What the players had in this hand is immaterial, because player 1 could not lose and had both players covered. He could only harm himself by turning over his cards prematurely.

BTW, I like the how you worded your response. Player 1's actions and comments can influence player 3's action, which may subsequently harm player 2. Dunno how to make it any clearer for ya.

You could clear everything up by citing what rule(s) player one violated.

 

[JustinInMN]

How is player two damaged if player one reveals his hand prematurely? He is all-in. Nothing left for him to do.

Because he is giving player 3 information from which player two did not have. Player 3 gets to opportunity to fold everything that isn't the nuts, player two doesn't.

 

[Mojo1312]

I gotcha now! Little slow. I was looking at it from the perspective that he had already acted, not from the angle that player three would have been spared from a similar fate.

That potentially raises a host of other questions, like collusion or soft playing. By and large, the rules are designed to protect the integrity of the game. Assuming player 1 is innocent regarding the motion of revealing his cards out of turn, what are we left with?

Verbally, he did nothing wrong. Player three called. In what way did player one harm the integrity of the game? And is player three scapegoating?

 

[JustinInMN]

Player three called. In what way did player one harm the integrity of the game? And is player three scapegoating?

This is the part on which we agree, player three was not harmed and if anything stood to benefit greatly if there was an actual exposure.

But I say it again, the only reason we know player two was not harmed is because we know player one had the nuts. In any other circumstance there is potential for harming player two and that warrants a warning, at least imo.