What is an example of "a huge mess"?
One example: Player B shows instead of waiting for Player A to show (or fold). Immediately upon Player B showing his cards, Player A yells "CALL" and flips over his cards, thinking action was on him to call or fold to Player B's all-in bet. Only gets uglier from there (he-said she-said), and that's not the only scenario where acting out of turn can only cause problems, while acting in turn never does. A simple "the actions's on you" comment from Player B to Player A is always correct, and never generates an issue due to somebody misunderstanding something.it will never inadvertently cause some kind of issue (if a player didn't think the betting had actually ended, or mis-heard an "ALL-in" vs "cALL", etc.).
** sigh *** Old guys who still try to say, “I see your bet... and raise you [x].” (Yes, this is still a thing.)
* People who keep loudly arguing/debating a hand from half an orbit ago, talking over the new action.
* Guy on his phone nonstop who has to be reminded that it’s his blind or action every single hand.
* String betters.
* People who habitually either act out of turn, OR never know when it’s on them.
* Amateurs who try to hide their lone high denom chip begins their stack.
* Players who constantly try to quiz you about what you had in a hand, well after you’ve made it clear that you’re not the type to tell.
* Dealers who make mistakes because they are so busy talking with regs, or trying to be the life of the party.
* Players who are more focused on shouting to their buddy at another table about what just happened, or (in a tourney) more focused on their $10 Last Longer bet with a friend at another table than keeping things moving at their own.
* People who in a tourney who never know what level the blinds are at, including when you just told them last hand.
* Players in a self-dealt game nittily stack every chip they just won in a hand before bothering to cut/pass the deck/clear cards/deal.
None of these things individually really “tilt me.” But I enough of them occur in combination or in succession, I can start feeling exasperated with the game, and start playing less than optimally.
As far as I can see you're describing two different things now. I don't think anybody is going to disagree that the above is just plain stupid.One example: Player B shows instead of waiting for Player A to show (or fold). Immediately upon Player B showing his cards, Player A yells "CALL" and flips over his cards, thinking action was on him to call or fold to Player B's all-in bet. Only gets uglier from there (he-said she-said), and that's not the only scenario where acting out of turn can only cause problems, while acting in turn never does. A simple "the actions's on you" comment from Player B to Player A is always correct, and never generates an issue due to somebody misunderstanding something.
I think you missed the point. Player B thought they were in showdown (he said 'I'm callin'') and Player A was hesitating to show, so he acted out of turn and showed. And Player A thought they were still in the betting stage (thought Player B had said "I'm all-in"), and was trying to get a tell on whether or not he should call or fold. Nobody else was apparently paying attention, or somebody would have told somebody to act already. Regardless, it's now a mess that easily could have been avoided, simply by following the rules. It's not that hard.As far as I can see you're describing two different things now. I don't think anybody is going to disagree that the above is just plain stupid.
I always advocate speaking one's decision clearly rather than relying on gestures and motions, and what you're describing is someone acting without speaking before the betting round has completed and then someone else misunderstanding that.
But to me that's entirely different from:
A: Says "check"
B: Says "check"
B: Shows first to speed up the process.
Whether or not betting is involved is irrelevant to me as long as betting concludes before B shows before A. And I have no recollection of seeing a rule allowing for tabling the hand = checking and tabling... or that it's even an accepted etiquette.
Just seems like fundamentally different things; your case is someone checking by showing cards (is that even legal?), 'our' case is betting rounds are over and we're in the showdown - someone takes initiative to show "out of turn".
PS: I personally verbally check behind to close betting and if the player in front of me is hesitating and I feel like it I just show my hand. I don't care if they muck it if I show first. If two other people do this and both are hesitating then of course the rest of us who pay attention push for the first to act to show first, or the aggressor to show first.
Glad you guys keep all that crazy old-man behavior in Europe. Bit more civilized here in the USA.I noticed in my last tournament, the gap that exist between 2 generation of players, let's say the 60+ and 40 and bellow.
I will not say that there is a lack of "etiquette" but rather a different "poker etiquette"
Most of the 50+ had their chips in the racks and in general they play with a mindset "face value" and not in BB or Pot Size.
(this hands worth $$$ vs. I will raise xBB) usually they are busted because they over estimated their hand like KQ on a A Q 7 board. And as @Highli99 tells in his post, I saw most of the 50+ hide their card behind their stacks which are behind their hands, or cards under their hands over the rail.
And no matter how many time do you ask "please show that you are in the game" ; they have the eyes lost in the board and mechanically they fall back in the old habits 2 hands later.
I've discussed with my stepfather about it, and the best answer that he could provide me it's that in the 70's and 80's there was a lot of gambling at the rear of pubs, mostly dices and 5 Card Draw. And part of the hype back them was to "fool the adversary" (I think that today it's clearly angle shooting). They could have $1500 on the table and another $1000 in the poker and those $$$ was also in play and no-one complained about it.
Then poker disappeared until late 2000 and the same old guys, looking for some fun play as they were used to because they do not know that poker evolved with TDA rules and Robert Rules and House rules. They do not use internet and the last poker TV show disappeared with Poker After dark.
Fair enough, and I'll admit that showing out of order does have some potential to create a problem, though I probably think the likelihood of such a problem occurring is a lot lower than you do. I accept that risk, though, for the reward of faster showdowns and not forcing my opponents to show failed bluffs.Thread title: "What tilts you?"
Answer: Players who don't act when it's their turn to act. And that includes players at showdown who refuse to either fold or show when action is on them.
If I'm not the aggressor (or first to act in rotation order, if applicable), I'm not showing jack-shit until the correct player acts. Waiting until it's my turn is never against the rules, and it will never inadvertently cause some kind of issue (if a player didn't think the betting had actually ended, or mis-heard an "ALL-in" vs "cALL", etc.). It's never wrong to wait until action is on you to show, but it can potentially create a huge mess to show prematurely.
That's a good enough reason for me to follow the rules, every single time, regardless of cash game or tournament. Make the time-wasting asshat either show his hand or fold; I"m not the one at fault here (but could be the one at risk).
Technically correct. Only REFUSING to show cards in proper order is against the rules. But showing out of order, while not a punishable offense, certainly goes against the intent of the rule regarding showdown order.And to stay on-topic, I get a little tilted when you and PZ equate showing in order with "following the rules."
I want it to be clear that showing out of order does not violate any rules (at least not in RRoP or TDA). If it did, or even if it was legal but angle-y, I wouldn't be doing it.
Oh yeah, I'm a huge advocate of consistent rules enforcement, and that hasn't changed. I think the crux of the problem is that we disagree on whether showdown order is actually a rule.Technically correct. Only REFUSING to show cards in proper order is against the rules. But showing out of order, while not a punishable offense, certainly goes against the intent of the rule regarding showdown order.
Showing your hand out of order only makes you an enabler, not a violator.
You are effectively allowing him to break a rule (that he doesn't want to follow for selfish personal reasons).
And allowing rules to be selectively broken (vs consistently enforced) for any reason is a slippery slope. I've even seen you preach that aspect.
That is how I read it. Must = must. The period after the "TD may enforce" clause ends that thought, and a new section of ruling follows.Oh yeah, I'm a huge advocate of consistent rules enforcement, and that hasn't changed. I think the crux of the problem is that we disagree on whether showdown order is actually a rule.
I read 17A (TDA 2017) as: "Players should spontaneously table or discard at showdown. If they don't, here is a specific tabling order that the TD may choose to enforce." (That's off the top of my head but pretty damned close to the actual wording.) The word spontaneously indicates, to me, that players at showdown can table or discard at any time and in any order they choose.
I think you interpret this rule as: "This is the order in which hands must always be shown down, and the TD will enforce it if necessary." Is that right?
This is specific to tournaments, correct?B: A non all-in showdown is uncontested if all but one player mucks face down without tabling. The last player with live cards wins and is not required to table the cards.
8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so.
I'm not following what you're saying here.I think you missed the point. Player B thought they were in showdown (he said 'I'm callin'') and Player A was hesitating to show, so he acted out of turn and showed. And Player A thought they were still in the betting stage (thought Player B had said "I'm all-in"), and was trying to get a tell on whether or not he should call or fold.
Well, I think there are a couple of things to say about that; first, that people appear to disagree with you on this issue. I and others think that it's ok to sometimes show 'early' to just be done with it and get to the next hand sooner. So disregarding the rules for the purpose of talking about any "good reason" people seem to disagree.Regardless, it's now a mess that easily could have been avoided, simply by following the rules. It's not that hard.
Point is, the confusion never happens if Player B doesn't act out of turn. And that's just one example, but certainly not the only one. There's no good reason to act out of turn - ever - but plenty of good reasons not to.
Yup, But only for the tournament that uses the TDA rules.This is specific to tournaments, correct?
I do a lot of perfectly legal things (that aren't angle-shooting) to give myself an advantage in poker. That's the point of the game, no?I do think that showing out of order allows for angle shooting (you yourself said you table out of sequence to gain an advantage), and the possibility to chip dump.
100% agreed as stated earlier. If someone is intentionally abusing the situation, it's different from "I think I have the best hand so I'm going to show first."But in my games, if I see someone that continually refuses to show, I will enforce the order of show, including tabling the delayer's cards face up before mucking them.
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.And if I'm going to chip dump, I'm not going to showdown and risking that someone may ask to see my cards. I'm folding to turn or river bets.