http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blogs/15-r...s-a-major-angle
Full Version: Another Great Day In Paradise
I wouldn't want to be the Floor Guy. There's always something like this going on.
Fact is if the other guy in the hand would have been paying attention, he could have gotten more chips from DN.
Why should DN be called out for asking for a clarification of the rules?
I thought angle shooting was when you tried to bend the rules.
QUOTE (Balloon guy @ Friday, January 8th, 2010, 2:23 PM) 
Why should DN be called out for asking for a clarification of the rules?
I thought angle shooting was when you tried to bend the rules.
I thought angle shooting was when you tried to bend the rules.
By asking for a clarification of the rules, even when he knew the rules, he was hoping to get additional information about the hand based on the reaction of the player.
I think that's the argument.
QUOTE (JoeyJoJo @ Friday, January 8th, 2010, 2:27 PM)
By asking for a clarification of the rules, even when he knew the rules, he was hoping to get additional information about the hand based on the reaction of the player.
I think that's the argument.
I think that's the argument.
As someone else stated, there are lots of tournaments, and each one gets to write their own rules. It's a bit much to expect any single player to know every rule for every tournament.
Daniel lost exactly how much he was going to lose there. I doubt he was going to call a serious raise.
But it still all goes back to why would somebody in a major tournament not pay enough attention in a hand where you are holding the nuts with bets on every street, and go ahead and turn over most of his hand?
He doesn't do that, none of this happens, etc.
Personally I think the only dumb part of all of DN's actions was being in the hand with 34 suited drawing to a flush or a straight on a paired board with a pre-flop raiser.
QUOTE (JoeyJoJo @ Friday, January 8th, 2010, 4:27 PM)
By asking for a clarification of the rules, even when he knew the rules, he was hoping to get additional information about the hand based on the reaction of the player.
That's higher level thinking there.
OP is such a freaking troll.
Here is the bulk of the article:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr Winston has to know that this rule is a grey area and varies from Tourney to Tourney and even from Floor to Floor. He states that Daniel knows full well that the action isn't killed by his opponent's move. Well, guess what? It was ruled that the action WAS killed.
Apparently the author thinks that because the Floor has a PS logo he is part of a conspiracy to help Daniel cheat. At the end of the Hand, the clarification from the Floor goes in Daniel's favor - the opponent showed his hand prematurely and then tried to continue action. I've always heard that you can show your hand prematurely in a Cash game - for instance to get a read on your opponent while deciding if you want to call his bet - but you cannot do this in a Tournament. Daniel saw most of the hand and apparently the guy sitting next to him saw the entire thing. In a tourney that could result in a dead hand - or POSSIBLY kill any additional action. The Floor should and DID decide.
Furthermore - to imply that this is wrong you have to buy into the conspiracy theory and believe that not only is Daniel an angle-shooter, but the Floor is in on it too. In this case, if you disagree with the ruling, I'd be even more inclined to take exception with the floor than the Player asking for a clarification.
Reading the comments posted by readers of the article, it appears that there is a history of bad blood between the author and Daniel. Pretty poor editorial practice for Card Player to allow this to spill into their Reporting Coverage.
Here is the bulk of the article:
QUOTE
I am going to go out on a limb here and say Negreanu has to know the rules of poker by now. So when he raises his opponent’s river bet and his opponent thinks it was a call and begins to roll over his hand, he knows full well that it doesn’t stop the action. It may result in a warning or penalty, but the hand is not over. In fact Negreanu has the advantage because he has seen part of his opponent’s hand. Then at the end of the video Negreanu say’s “I wasn’t going to call anyway,” yeah right! The whole thing, calling the floor after he saw part of the hand was an attempt to see if his straight was good and decide if his opponent had aces up or a full house. It was a terrible decision by the floor person, clearly being pressured by Negreanu. Kind of interesting that he is helping roll out a new poker tour as an “ambassador” of PS, and he muscles the floor guy, who you can see has a PS logo on his shirt, I was truly shocked buy the whole episode. Let me know what you think.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr Winston has to know that this rule is a grey area and varies from Tourney to Tourney and even from Floor to Floor. He states that Daniel knows full well that the action isn't killed by his opponent's move. Well, guess what? It was ruled that the action WAS killed.
Apparently the author thinks that because the Floor has a PS logo he is part of a conspiracy to help Daniel cheat. At the end of the Hand, the clarification from the Floor goes in Daniel's favor - the opponent showed his hand prematurely and then tried to continue action. I've always heard that you can show your hand prematurely in a Cash game - for instance to get a read on your opponent while deciding if you want to call his bet - but you cannot do this in a Tournament. Daniel saw most of the hand and apparently the guy sitting next to him saw the entire thing. In a tourney that could result in a dead hand - or POSSIBLY kill any additional action. The Floor should and DID decide.
Furthermore - to imply that this is wrong you have to buy into the conspiracy theory and believe that not only is Daniel an angle-shooter, but the Floor is in on it too. In this case, if you disagree with the ruling, I'd be even more inclined to take exception with the floor than the Player asking for a clarification.
Reading the comments posted by readers of the article, it appears that there is a history of bad blood between the author and Daniel. Pretty poor editorial practice for Card Player to allow this to spill into their Reporting Coverage.
Roy Winston is the true angle shooter- he knows the last time Daniel did a parody off all the other blogs on CardPlayer and Winston got his panties in a bunch over DN making fun of his love for Borgata that a lot more people started reading Roy's blog. CardPlayer always posts the 10 most viewed blogs and Daniel's are always at the top, usually has 2 or 3 in the top 5 if he is posting regularly along with Doyle and sometimes one of Hellmuth's.
Now where is the topic discussing Daniel folding a set vs. E. Froehlich????
Now where is the topic discussing Daniel folding a set vs. E. Froehlich????
I dont get the hell where the problem is, if the guy was rolling his cards he was just calling anyways, so danny wasnt getting faced with a reraise anyways.
QUOTE (Pot Odds RAC @ Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 5:24 AM)
OP is such a freaking troll.
LOL...considering u replied with the longest rant...
This is a case of unhealthy obsession meeting an attempt to get more hits for one's blog.
Was I the only one expecting something about the greatest musician ever: Phil Collins?
Honestly DN would you have called the floor if you saw a king?
that's pretty much the only way to know if its an angle or not
that's pretty much the only way to know if its an angle or not
QUOTE (looshle @ Monday, January 11th, 2010, 9:09 AM)
Honestly DN would you have called the floor if you saw a king?
that's pretty much the only way to know if its an angle or not
that's pretty much the only way to know if its an angle or not
or if DN had the nuts
The question is, WHY did you call the floor Daniel? If you saw his hand, your decision is easy (if ahead, raise. If behind, fold). The only reason you have to call the floor is if you think the other player is going for a "I'll pretend to think he just calls, show my hand, but show it in such a way that it only fully exposes one card which is half the nuts and then raise so DN will think 'gee I saw some of his hand so he must have nuts, I better fold to the reraise' and then I will win the pot with a bluff!". Seriously, you must have thought this when you called the floor, otherwise, it's an angle shoot and you were just trying to get a free showdown.
QUOTE (All_In @ Sunday, January 10th, 2010, 5:35 PM)
LOL...considering u replied with the longest rant...
Has anyone ever come to your defense and agreed with you that you aren't a troll?
Anyone?
I honestly don't even know why Daniel feels the need to defend himself against something like this. This is such a no brainer...
Though I must say, I do enjoy how the 2p2 kids goad him into angry responses... but only because it makes for good reading.
Seriously though, why bother...
Though I must say, I do enjoy how the 2p2 kids goad him into angry responses... but only because it makes for good reading.
Seriously though, why bother...
QUOTE (Jam-Fly @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 10:35 AM)
or if DN had the nuts
The question is, WHY did you call the floor Daniel? If you saw his hand, your decision is easy (if ahead, raise. If behind, fold). The only reason you have to call the floor is if you think the other player is going for a "I'll pretend to think he just calls, show my hand, but show it in such a way that it only fully exposes one card which is half the nuts and then raise so DN will think 'gee I saw some of his hand so he must have nuts, I better fold to the reraise' and then I will win the pot with a bluff!". Seriously, you must have thought this when you called the floor, otherwise, it's an angle shoot and you were just trying to get a free showdown.
The question is, WHY did you call the floor Daniel? If you saw his hand, your decision is easy (if ahead, raise. If behind, fold). The only reason you have to call the floor is if you think the other player is going for a "I'll pretend to think he just calls, show my hand, but show it in such a way that it only fully exposes one card which is half the nuts and then raise so DN will think 'gee I saw some of his hand so he must have nuts, I better fold to the reraise' and then I will win the pot with a bluff!". Seriously, you must have thought this when you called the floor, otherwise, it's an angle shoot and you were just trying to get a free showdown.
ya but he showed an ace. the guy is not gonna put DN on a wheel or try to bluff him off a bigger ace.
I think the whole problem is not that this wouldnt be a big deal if it was a random person but its DN. he's made countless posts and blogs and speeches on PAD about how showing one card makes the game better and brings it to a higher level. He always talks about how he does whats best for poker and trys to keep things in the spirit of the game and then goes ahead and does something like this.
Yes, he didnt do anything "wrong" but he has seperated himself from the general poker public and is now held to higher standards, especially when he goes against everything he has argued (being able to show a card) in order to save some chips/get a showdown.
The only way to really know if its in poor taste is to know if he saw a K if would have called the floor. I think it's pretty safe to say that he wouldnt have called the floor and made comments like "i want to know if his bet stands" Calling the floor only when it best suits your agenda IS NOT doing anything in the spirit of the game or doing whats best for poker. Its laughable.
QUOTE (looshle @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 1:21 PM)
especially when he goes against everything he has argued (being able to show a card) in order to save some chips/get a showdown.
I don't think Daniel has ever argued that you should be allowed to show a card if the other players are ok with it even if it's against the rules.
I think you're probably right that he called the floor simply because it helped him, but I don't see anything wrong with that since what helped him was apparently the rules of the tournament.
QUOTE (looshle @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 9:21 PM)
ya but he showed an ace. the guy is not gonna put DN on a wheel or try to bluff him off a bigger ace.
I think the whole problem is not that this wouldnt be a big deal if it was a random person but its DN. he's made countless posts and blogs and speeches on PAD about how showing one card makes the game better and brings it to a higher level. He always talks about how he does whats best for poker and trys to keep things in the spirit of the game and then goes ahead and does something like this.
Yes, he didnt do anything "wrong" but he has seperated himself from the general poker public and is now held to higher standards, especially when he goes against everything he has argued (being able to show a card) in order to save some chips/get a showdown.
The only way to really know if its in poor taste is to know if he saw a K if would have called the floor. I think it's pretty safe to say that he wouldnt have called the floor and made comments like "i want to know if his bet stands" Calling the floor only when it best suits your agenda IS NOT doing anything in the spirit of the game or doing whats best for poker. Its laughable.
I think the whole problem is not that this wouldnt be a big deal if it was a random person but its DN. he's made countless posts and blogs and speeches on PAD about how showing one card makes the game better and brings it to a higher level. He always talks about how he does whats best for poker and trys to keep things in the spirit of the game and then goes ahead and does something like this.
Yes, he didnt do anything "wrong" but he has seperated himself from the general poker public and is now held to higher standards, especially when he goes against everything he has argued (being able to show a card) in order to save some chips/get a showdown.
The only way to really know if its in poor taste is to know if he saw a K if would have called the floor. I think it's pretty safe to say that he wouldnt have called the floor and made comments like "i want to know if his bet stands" Calling the floor only when it best suits your agenda IS NOT doing anything in the spirit of the game or doing whats best for poker. Its laughable.
I don't actually know what the board is, so that's why I don't fully understand 'if he saw a K' comments, what was the board?
QUOTE (Jam-Fly @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 2:38 PM)
I don't actually know what the board is, so that's why I don't fully understand 'if he saw a K' comments, what was the board?
It was like A2TA5 meaning if he saw a K he knows he cant lose.
QUOTE (looshle @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 1:46 PM)
It was like A2TA5 meaning if he saw a K he knows he cant lose.
I think you made a good point.
And I agree with you that had DN seen the K I'm not confident he would have called over the floor.
I'd like to think he would, but Loosh makes a good point here.
QUOTE (JoeyJoJo @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 2:26 PM)
I don't think Daniel has ever argued that you should be allowed to show a card if the other players are ok with it even if it's against the rules.
I think you're probably right that he called the floor simply because it helped him, but I don't see anything wrong with that since what helped him was apparently the rules of the tournament.
I think you're probably right that he called the floor simply because it helped him, but I don't see anything wrong with that since what helped him was apparently the rules of the tournament.
Well its the law that smoking pot is illegal but I dont agree with that law so I'm not going to start calling cops every time one of my friends starts smoking. When you are so adamant about a rule or law, when you are in a situation where what you believe is ok (i.e. people smoking pot) you dont call the cops just as much when you think showing cards is ok and then you get free information from such an act, you dont call the floor for the simple reason that you dont want to betting action opened back up again.
What about people who are so anti-abortion? People devote a lot of themselves to the anti abortion movement, whether its rallies, poisoning groups trying to get laws changed. etc. What would happen if someone who put so much out there about being anti abortion accidentally got pregnant and then got one? They didnt break a rule or a law either. MY point is we're talking about critique of the person from other people in the field and whether or not they look bad. Not breaking a rule does not go hand in hand with not looking like a hypocrite.
I mean hes stated countless times that showing cards makes you think on a higher level. Why wouldnt he want to do this in a big tourney? He knows the guy thought he was just calling and it was an innocent mistake. He should just use the free info he got and make a better decision. I cant imagine he thinks calling the floor and trying to know if his bet stands is in the spirit of the game and is what is best for poker, its whats best for DN.
It would be different if the floor came over or if someone else called but he saw a chance to get a free showdown and tried to take it. Like i said before, it's not unethical, or really an angle shoot imo, it just goes against everything he adamantly says and makes him a hypocrit.
So yea, its his right to call the floor and get the ruling right, I just dont wanna read any more blog posts about all the great things hes doing for poker and how he has its best interests at heart. People can say w/e they want. I can blog about how much I care about starving childen in Africa. I can mention it in every facet of media available to me, but if I'm not donating money or volunteering then wtf does it matter? Actions speak louder than words, and when he was put in a situation where what he was fighting for directly went against what he personally wanted at the time (the philosophy against the person) he got selfish.
So is everyone free to show Daniel a card or two if they want?
not sure if this helps or hurts...
(grabs popcorn)
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-jour...&ucat=&
QUOTE (JoeyJoJo @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 2:22 PM)
So is everyone free to show Daniel a card or two if they want?
Only if it doesn't help him.
I believe that if DN saw a K he would still call the floor over. The reason is because he would want to know if the person would still have to put in the call for the raise. It seems to me that this is being really blown up for such a small issue. Obviously there are different rules for different tournaments. The best thing would be to have ONE rulebook that is followed at EVERY poker tournament. That way when the hand goes down, DN would know what the proper rules are because being the pro that he is he would have read the rulebook a few times.
Also, just to throw this out there, there are plenty of golfers who when faced with something that is "weird" they will call the rules official over. In their mind they know what the ruling is, but at the cost of the tournament they want to make sure that they are 100% doing the correct thing. So they call a rules official over and make sure that it is done the proper way. I feel that this is much the same situation. Yes he probably knew the correct ruling, but it doesn't make him any less ethical to call the floor over to get the correct decision.
Also, just to throw this out there, there are plenty of golfers who when faced with something that is "weird" they will call the rules official over. In their mind they know what the ruling is, but at the cost of the tournament they want to make sure that they are 100% doing the correct thing. So they call a rules official over and make sure that it is done the proper way. I feel that this is much the same situation. Yes he probably knew the correct ruling, but it doesn't make him any less ethical to call the floor over to get the correct decision.
QUOTE (looshle @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 9:59 PM)
Well its the law that smoking pot is illegal but I dont agree with that law so I'm not going to start calling cops every time one of my friends starts smoking. When you are so adamant about a rule or law, when you are in a situation where what you believe is ok (i.e. people smoking pot) you dont call the cops just as much when you think showing cards is ok and then you get free information from such an act, you dont call the floor for the simple reason that you dont want to betting action opened back up again.
What about people who are so anti-abortion? People devote a lot of themselves to the anti abortion movement, whether its rallies, poisoning groups trying to get laws changed. etc. What would happen if someone who put so much out there about being anti abortion accidentally got pregnant and then got one? They didnt break a rule or a law either. MY point is we're talking about critique of the person from other people in the field and whether or not they look bad. Not breaking a rule does not go hand in hand with not looking like a hypocrite.
I mean hes stated countless times that showing cards makes you think on a higher level. Why wouldnt he want to do this in a big tourney? He knows the guy thought he was just calling and it was an innocent mistake. He should just use the free info he got and make a better decision. I cant imagine he thinks calling the floor and trying to know if his bet stands is in the spirit of the game and is what is best for poker, its whats best for DN.
It would be different if the floor came over or if someone else called but he saw a chance to get a free showdown and tried to take it. Like i said before, it's not unethical, or really an angle shoot imo, it just goes against everything he adamantly says and makes him a hypocrit.
So yea, its his right to call the floor and get the ruling right, I just dont wanna read any more blog posts about all the great things hes doing for poker and how he has its best interests at heart. People can say w/e they want. I can blog about how much I care about starving childen in Africa. I can mention it in every facet of media available to me, but if I'm not donating money or volunteering then wtf does it matter? Actions speak louder than words, and when he was put in a situation where what he was fighting for directly went against what he personally wanted at the time (the philosophy against the person) he got selfish.
What about people who are so anti-abortion? People devote a lot of themselves to the anti abortion movement, whether its rallies, poisoning groups trying to get laws changed. etc. What would happen if someone who put so much out there about being anti abortion accidentally got pregnant and then got one? They didnt break a rule or a law either. MY point is we're talking about critique of the person from other people in the field and whether or not they look bad. Not breaking a rule does not go hand in hand with not looking like a hypocrite.
I mean hes stated countless times that showing cards makes you think on a higher level. Why wouldnt he want to do this in a big tourney? He knows the guy thought he was just calling and it was an innocent mistake. He should just use the free info he got and make a better decision. I cant imagine he thinks calling the floor and trying to know if his bet stands is in the spirit of the game and is what is best for poker, its whats best for DN.
It would be different if the floor came over or if someone else called but he saw a chance to get a free showdown and tried to take it. Like i said before, it's not unethical, or really an angle shoot imo, it just goes against everything he adamantly says and makes him a hypocrit.
So yea, its his right to call the floor and get the ruling right, I just dont wanna read any more blog posts about all the great things hes doing for poker and how he has its best interests at heart. People can say w/e they want. I can blog about how much I care about starving childen in Africa. I can mention it in every facet of media available to me, but if I'm not donating money or volunteering then wtf does it matter? Actions speak louder than words, and when he was put in a situation where what he was fighting for directly went against what he personally wanted at the time (the philosophy against the person) he got selfish.
Good post, and if the bolded part is true, then calling the floor in my mind is angle shooting.
If DN honestly believes that his opponent knew DN raised, pretended to think it was call, turn over an ace, then realising there was still action put in a reraise, hoping to bluff DN off a straight, then fair enough, call the floor.
If you are calling to floor to see if you can get a showdown a bit cheaper because your an opponent made an innocent and honest error and you would NOT call the floor if he has exposed a king (not to mention the fact that DN IS an advocate of allowing to show cards in situations like these), then it is an angle shoot.
QUOTE (dapokerbum @ Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 4:51 PM)
I believe that if DN saw a K he would still call the floor over. The reason is because he would want to know if the person would still have to put in the call for the raise. It seems to me that this is being really blown up for such a small issue. Obviously there are different rules for different tournaments. The best thing would be to have ONE rulebook that is followed at EVERY poker tournament. That way when the hand goes down, DN would know what the proper rules are because being the pro that he is he would have read the rulebook a few times.
Also, just to throw this out there, there are plenty of golfers who when faced with something that is "weird" they will call the rules official over. In their mind they know what the ruling is, but at the cost of the tournament they want to make sure that they are 100% doing the correct thing. So they call a rules official over and make sure that it is done the proper way. I feel that this is much the same situation. Yes he probably knew the correct ruling, but it doesn't make him any less ethical to call the floor over to get the correct decision.
Also, just to throw this out there, there are plenty of golfers who when faced with something that is "weird" they will call the rules official over. In their mind they know what the ruling is, but at the cost of the tournament they want to make sure that they are 100% doing the correct thing. So they call a rules official over and make sure that it is done the proper way. I feel that this is much the same situation. Yes he probably knew the correct ruling, but it doesn't make him any less ethical to call the floor over to get the correct decision.
Golfers want to make sure they get it right because they dont want to be penalized strokes or disqualified. There's a dealer at a poker table to run the action and if it is out of his control, he calls the floor. Both are there to judge situations and the dealer doesnt always get it right. The dealer pulled in the chips so the other kids raise amount was in front of him. He was going to let DN have the option to re raise or call but DN didnt want to call. He wanted it to be over then because he didnt want to get "bluffed" off the worst hand (meaning the guy is just terrible and 3 betting the river for value with A4) or he didnt want to call more off. I believe him that he wasnt going to call a 3 bet but he wanted to see if he could get a showdown for free instead of letting the hand play out the way his opponent intended to act.
Many things go on at the table which are "against the rules" Dealers let a lot of stuff slip because everyone knows the intention of the person. Like in limit holdem, the 1 seat puts his blind up sometimes thinknig he is big blind when hes really UTG because the dealers in the way and its easy to mess up.. When the cards are out, by the rules, he is committed to call. I've seen it probably once where someone has a good hand or is in a bad mood and calls the floor over to make sure that guys money stays in the pot but most limit holdem games at the low-mid stakes are generally social and people obviously dont mind the guy taking his bet back and having the chance to act.
Theres obviously nothing "wrong" with DN calling the floor and trying to get a showdown. According to the rules, that is what is supposed to happen. But to sell it like he wasn't just trying to get a free showdown and wasn't going against the whole showing cards thing like hes professed is great for poker every chance he gets is hypocritical and insulting to our intelligence.
Eat my Hawk, Chief butt
QUOTE (looshle @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 12:08 AM)
Golfers want to make sure they get it right because they dont want to be penalized strokes or disqualified. There's a dealer at a poker table to run the action and if it is out of his control, he calls the floor. Both are there to judge situations and the dealer doesnt always get it right. The dealer pulled in the chips so the other kids raise amount was in front of him. He was going to let DN have the option to re raise or call but DN didnt want to call. He wanted it to be over then because he didnt want to get "bluffed" off the worst hand (meaning the guy is just terrible and 3 betting the river for value with A4) or he didnt want to call more off. I believe him that he wasnt going to call a 3 bet but he wanted to see if he could get a showdown for free instead of letting the hand play out the way his opponent intended to act.
Many things go on at the table which are "against the rules" Dealers let a lot of stuff slip because everyone knows the intention of the person. Like in limit holdem, the 1 seat puts his blind up sometimes thinknig he is big blind when hes really UTG because the dealers in the way and its easy to mess up.. When the cards are out, by the rules, he is committed to call. I've seen it probably once where someone has a good hand or is in a bad mood and calls the floor over to make sure that guys money stays in the pot but most limit holdem games at the low-mid stakes are generally social and people obviously dont mind the guy taking his bet back and having the chance to act.
Theres obviously nothing "wrong" with DN calling the floor and trying to get a showdown. According to the rules, that is what is supposed to happen. But to sell it like he wasn't just trying to get a free showdown and wasn't going against the whole showing cards thing like hes professed is great for poker every chance he gets is hypocritical and insulting to our intelligence.
Many things go on at the table which are "against the rules" Dealers let a lot of stuff slip because everyone knows the intention of the person. Like in limit holdem, the 1 seat puts his blind up sometimes thinknig he is big blind when hes really UTG because the dealers in the way and its easy to mess up.. When the cards are out, by the rules, he is committed to call. I've seen it probably once where someone has a good hand or is in a bad mood and calls the floor over to make sure that guys money stays in the pot but most limit holdem games at the low-mid stakes are generally social and people obviously dont mind the guy taking his bet back and having the chance to act.
Theres obviously nothing "wrong" with DN calling the floor and trying to get a showdown. According to the rules, that is what is supposed to happen. But to sell it like he wasn't just trying to get a free showdown and wasn't going against the whole showing cards thing like hes professed is great for poker every chance he gets is hypocritical and insulting to our intelligence.
DN has always said that showing cards is a great thing for the sport and that it helps not hinders the action at a table. However, and correct if I'm wrong, Doesn't every tournament have a rule that you can't expose your hand. So you are saying that as a professional poker player he should let things that are against the rules happen ... just because in his personal opinion they should be able to do this? This kind of thinking is off base IMO. He must play the game with the rules given as a professional player. IF there is something "weird" that happens then he should call the floor over. Sometimes, as you say, the dealers will let things slip if they think it is an innocent mistake. However at the top level you cannot let things slip and if you do it is up to the players then to call the floor over.
QUOTE (dapokerbum @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 10:59 AM)
DN has always said that showing cards is a great thing for the sport and that it helps not hinders the action at a table. However, and correct if I'm wrong, Doesn't every tournament have a rule that you can't expose your hand. So you are saying that as a professional poker player he should let things that are against the rules happen ... just because in his personal opinion they should be able to do this? This kind of thinking is off base IMO. He must play the game with the rules given as a professional player. IF there is something "weird" that happens then he should call the floor over. Sometimes, as you say, the dealers will let things slip if they think it is an innocent mistake. However at the top level you cannot let things slip and if you do it is up to the players then to call the floor over.
WHY DID HE NOT CALL THE FLOOR OVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE GUY EXPOSED HIS HAND? Answer: He thought he had the best hand and wanted to get paid off. All floors are different. Maybe the guys hand is dead to some, maybe he only has the option to call. He didn't call the floor until the guy wanted to raise. He was fine with the situation and the slipup until it negatively affected him. Then he calls the floor over when the situation turns against him. Clearly just a case of the guy not wanting anything to slip at the top level right?
Also not sure how that thinking can be off base. He was put in a situation where he was going to be able to see cards and then make a decision which he has argued so much should he an advantage to him, so you think he called the floor over because he didn't want an advantage rather than he wanted a free showdown. Are you serious? Are you one of those fanboys that will just blindly defend him?
Anyone who thinks he acted consistent with how he has portrayed himself in the last year or two in this situation is biased plan and simple.
QUOTE (looshle @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 1:01 PM)
WHY DID HE NOT CALL THE FLOOR OVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE GUY EXPOSED HIS HAND? Answer: He thought he had the best hand and wanted to get paid off. All floors are different. Maybe the guys hand is dead to some, maybe he only has the option to call. He didn't call the floor until the guy wanted to raise. He was fine with the situation and the slipup until it negatively affected him. Then he calls the floor over when the situation turns against him. Clearly just a case of the guy not wanting anything to slip at the top level right?
Also not sure how that thinking can be off base. He was put in a situation where he was going to be able to see cards and then make a decision which he has argued so much should he an advantage to him, so you think he called the floor over because he didn't want an advantage rather than he wanted a free showdown. Are you serious? Are you one of those fanboys that will just blindly defend him?
Anyone who thinks he acted consistent with how he has portrayed himself in the last year or two in this situation is biased and borderline delusional. I'm done with this thread.
Also not sure how that thinking can be off base. He was put in a situation where he was going to be able to see cards and then make a decision which he has argued so much should he an advantage to him, so you think he called the floor over because he didn't want an advantage rather than he wanted a free showdown. Are you serious? Are you one of those fanboys that will just blindly defend him?
Anyone who thinks he acted consistent with how he has portrayed himself in the last year or two in this situation is biased and borderline delusional. I'm done with this thread.
Whoa there dude ... I thought we were having a well thought out debate as equals. No need to say I am "borderline delusional" for trying to form an opinion on what we both saw in a video. I am definitely a fanboy of DN as I think he is a great poker player ... but I am also a fanboy of Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, PA, Durr, and many others because they are great poker players. I was merely trying to offer a different way of looking at this.
But I guess if we are done debating (since you are "done with this thread") then I won't bother with this anymore ...
QUOTE (dapokerbum @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 4:07 PM)
Whoa there dude ... I thought we were having a well thought out debate as equals. No need to say I am "borderline delusional" for trying to form an opinion on what we both saw in a video. I am definitely a fanboy of DN as I think he is a great poker player ... but I am also a fanboy of Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, PA, Durr, and many others because they are great poker players. I was merely trying to offer a different way of looking at this.
But I guess if we are done debating (since you are "done with this thread") then I won't bother with this anymore ...
But I guess if we are done debating (since you are "done with this thread") then I won't bother with this anymore ...
yea you're right i apologize im just sick of the fanboys (not you personally) that will blindly defend him no matter what and when a situation that comes up where his intentions look pretty cut and dry and some people are still blindly defending him it gets pretty frustrating.
QUOTE (looshle @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 5:01 PM)
yea you're right i apologize im just sick of the fanboys (not you personally) that will blindly defend him no matter what and when a situation that comes up where his intentions look pretty cut and dry and some people are still blindly defending him it gets pretty frustrating.
No worries.
So the thing I said before about being "off base" was in regards to a pro player knowingly letting the rules slide because he believes that it shouldn't be a rule. That should never be allowed.
That aside, I just re-watched the video again ... this time taking everything that has been said and trying to process it. I think the best argument that you have that defends your POV is the fact that he didn't call the floor until the guy tried to reraise. So, I want to try to call DN again in here and see why he waited until that moment (when the guy tried to reraise) to call the floor and why if there was a rule violation he wouldn't have called the floor right then when it happened.
My thoughts are that he was letting the dealer do his job and then when it was going against what he thought were the rules (not his own personal agenda) that is when he called over the floor. Which would cut back to my golf analogy where if there is a question with the rules they will always get clarification. This happens in many other sports. However, you have a very strong argument and it looks to me that it could go either way. As it is I am 75% convinced of your argument, but there is always another side to the story so hopefully we can hear why DN decided to wait to call the floor.
QUOTE (dapokerbum @ Thursday, January 14th, 2010, 7:49 PM)
No worries.
So the thing I said before about being "off base" was in regards to a pro player knowingly letting the rules slide because he believes that it shouldn't be a rule. That should never be allowed.
That aside, I just re-watched the video again ... this time taking everything that has been said and trying to process it. I think the best argument that you have that defends your POV is the fact that he didn't call the floor until the guy tried to reraise. So, I want to try to call DN again in here and see why he waited until that moment (when the guy tried to reraise) to call the floor and why if there was a rule violation he wouldn't have called the floor right then when it happened.
My thoughts are that he was letting the dealer do his job and then when it was going against what he thought were the rules (not his own personal agenda) that is when he called over the floor. Which would cut back to my golf analogy where if there is a question with the rules they will always get clarification. This happens in many other sports. However, you have a very strong argument and it looks to me that it could go either way. As it is I am 75% convinced of your argument, but there is always another side to the story so hopefully we can hear why DN decided to wait to call the floor.
So the thing I said before about being "off base" was in regards to a pro player knowingly letting the rules slide because he believes that it shouldn't be a rule. That should never be allowed.
That aside, I just re-watched the video again ... this time taking everything that has been said and trying to process it. I think the best argument that you have that defends your POV is the fact that he didn't call the floor until the guy tried to reraise. So, I want to try to call DN again in here and see why he waited until that moment (when the guy tried to reraise) to call the floor and why if there was a rule violation he wouldn't have called the floor right then when it happened.
My thoughts are that he was letting the dealer do his job and then when it was going against what he thought were the rules (not his own personal agenda) that is when he called over the floor. Which would cut back to my golf analogy where if there is a question with the rules they will always get clarification. This happens in many other sports. However, you have a very strong argument and it looks to me that it could go either way. As it is I am 75% convinced of your argument, but there is always another side to the story so hopefully we can hear why DN decided to wait to call the floor.
BUMP
01-09-2010, 06:11 PM
Daniel Negreanu said:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post15968950
01-10-2010, 04:32 PM
Daniel Negreanu said:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post15993154
01-11-2010, 01:58 PM
Daniel Negreanu said:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post16016441
Daniel Negreanu said:
QUOTE
Wow, angle shoot? This is absurd people! First of all, as for my play in the hand: read the board people: I had a straight flush draw and he made a tiny bet on the turn. 5h is bingo for me, I get them all.
When the guy turned up his hand, the whole table saw it, but I saw the Ad and I "thought" I saw the 4s or 5s. I was puzzled that he would show me his hand, then re-raise me without the nuts. It didn't make any sense. I was certain he had a full house and I was beat, but this was not the first time the guy broke the rules. I didn't call the floor on him when he tapped the table with his fingers to check, and then bet anyway. I kindly told him to be careful about it.
The guy on my right called the floor to inform him that the hand WAS tabled and that he actually saw that it was the 10s, and not the 5s which I thought I saw.
Now suppose he NEVER turned his hand up. How in the world can ANYONE honestly believe that I was going to raise the river there and pay off the re-raise? How about I'll take a million consecutive lie detector tests and tell you that I was NEVER calling the re-raise. Zero chance. I raised for value, with the full intent of folding to a re-raise. If anyone honestly believes there was even a remote chance I call there, then you are just clueless. Period.
I called the floor for a ruling, because I KNOW there are penalties for showing your hand when there is action still pending. I can't make the ruling. I'm not a floor man. I called one over to rule on it. When the floor asked me what I want to do, he was asking if I wanted to call the bet or re-raise again. He was asking to hear what action I wanted to take, but that was obviously irrelevant to the situation.
The video did NOT show the first half of what happened at all. You only have half, actually less than half of the info since you don't realize that the guy made several infractions prior to that one. I don't think any reputable floor person or poker player would consider my behavior to be an angle shoot in the least. Since when is asking a floor for a ruling an angle shoot? Seriously huh???
When the guy turned up his hand, the whole table saw it, but I saw the Ad and I "thought" I saw the 4s or 5s. I was puzzled that he would show me his hand, then re-raise me without the nuts. It didn't make any sense. I was certain he had a full house and I was beat, but this was not the first time the guy broke the rules. I didn't call the floor on him when he tapped the table with his fingers to check, and then bet anyway. I kindly told him to be careful about it.
The guy on my right called the floor to inform him that the hand WAS tabled and that he actually saw that it was the 10s, and not the 5s which I thought I saw.
Now suppose he NEVER turned his hand up. How in the world can ANYONE honestly believe that I was going to raise the river there and pay off the re-raise? How about I'll take a million consecutive lie detector tests and tell you that I was NEVER calling the re-raise. Zero chance. I raised for value, with the full intent of folding to a re-raise. If anyone honestly believes there was even a remote chance I call there, then you are just clueless. Period.
I called the floor for a ruling, because I KNOW there are penalties for showing your hand when there is action still pending. I can't make the ruling. I'm not a floor man. I called one over to rule on it. When the floor asked me what I want to do, he was asking if I wanted to call the bet or re-raise again. He was asking to hear what action I wanted to take, but that was obviously irrelevant to the situation.
The video did NOT show the first half of what happened at all. You only have half, actually less than half of the info since you don't realize that the guy made several infractions prior to that one. I don't think any reputable floor person or poker player would consider my behavior to be an angle shoot in the least. Since when is asking a floor for a ruling an angle shoot? Seriously huh???
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post15968950
01-10-2010, 04:32 PM
Daniel Negreanu said:
QUOTE
If they called the guys hand dead I'd think it's an absurd ruling and that isn't at all what I would have expected to hear. Having said that, I remember that rule being in place in Foxwoods and a few other places. It's an awful rule and I've spoken out against it many times.
If Bobo made that ruling I would have said this, "Dude, that can't be the right ruling. Seriously, that's a little much. I can see a warning or a penalty but not a dead hand. You better make sure."
If the other floorman made the same ruling, you know just as well as I do, that I don't have a choice as to whether I'd "accept" the ruling since the floorperson's decision is final.
****
To the other posters. Since when is calling a floor person over when you think it could benefit you in some way considered an angle? I called the floor because the guy did something against the rules and I know that there is often some form of penalty for that.
I called the floor in another instance in the tournament and my plea was overruled. It was another close one, but ultimately I guess it was just a dealer error and I'd have to live with it:
I limped in the cut off and everyone folded, including the big blind. He thought I raised, pushed his hand to the muck, but it didn't hit the muck. The dealer just let the cards sit there, and then she pushed the cards back to him and he realized I didn't raise. I called over the floor and he ruled that because the cards didn't hit the muck, the hand was still live. The dealer was SUPPOSED to muck his hand, but she didn't. I plead my case, and I lost. No big deal, but I thought it made sense to call the floor.
In two instances I called the floor, one time they gave me a decision that was in my favor, and in the other they ruled against me.
Here is a lesson for you that you SHOULD follow: when in doubt about a rule, ALWAYS call the floor over. It only takes a second, and you just never know what the house rules may be.
If Bobo made that ruling I would have said this, "Dude, that can't be the right ruling. Seriously, that's a little much. I can see a warning or a penalty but not a dead hand. You better make sure."
If the other floorman made the same ruling, you know just as well as I do, that I don't have a choice as to whether I'd "accept" the ruling since the floorperson's decision is final.
****
To the other posters. Since when is calling a floor person over when you think it could benefit you in some way considered an angle? I called the floor because the guy did something against the rules and I know that there is often some form of penalty for that.
I called the floor in another instance in the tournament and my plea was overruled. It was another close one, but ultimately I guess it was just a dealer error and I'd have to live with it:
I limped in the cut off and everyone folded, including the big blind. He thought I raised, pushed his hand to the muck, but it didn't hit the muck. The dealer just let the cards sit there, and then she pushed the cards back to him and he realized I didn't raise. I called over the floor and he ruled that because the cards didn't hit the muck, the hand was still live. The dealer was SUPPOSED to muck his hand, but she didn't. I plead my case, and I lost. No big deal, but I thought it made sense to call the floor.
In two instances I called the floor, one time they gave me a decision that was in my favor, and in the other they ruled against me.
Here is a lesson for you that you SHOULD follow: when in doubt about a rule, ALWAYS call the floor over. It only takes a second, and you just never know what the house rules may be.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post15993154
01-11-2010, 01:58 PM
Daniel Negreanu said:
QUOTE
You sir, just don't know what angle shooting is. I said I saw his hand. I saw the Ad, and I DEFINITELY saw pips on a spade on the second card. I thought it was the 4s or the 5s and that's when my dialogue started. He actually had the 10s.
I stated clearly what I "thought" the second card was, not that I KNEW what the second card was. Do you doubt that I saw the Ad? I clearly saw that card, and don't need to see the other card AT ALL to make calling the floor the absolutely correct procedure.
When I'm at a poker table, playing in a 10k buy in event, I don't owe beginners any favors in terms of them not knowing the rules, or not paying attention, or whatever. It's not a team sport. What you clearly missed from my blog, is that this particular player had already screwed up several times and I gave him a pass.
In an earlier pot against me, he was tapping the table with his fingers, then he wanted to bet. I had nothing anyway, and just told him this, "Be careful with your fingers. I can easily call that a check if I want to." He thanked me for the advice.
He also folded out of turn, bet out of turn, it was habitual. He was a really nice guy, we talked most of the day, and HE apologized to ME after that hand about flipping his hand up early. I told him, no big deal, just be careful with stuff like that.
The whole thing is the epitome of making a mountain out of a molehill.
I stated clearly what I "thought" the second card was, not that I KNEW what the second card was. Do you doubt that I saw the Ad? I clearly saw that card, and don't need to see the other card AT ALL to make calling the floor the absolutely correct procedure.
When I'm at a poker table, playing in a 10k buy in event, I don't owe beginners any favors in terms of them not knowing the rules, or not paying attention, or whatever. It's not a team sport. What you clearly missed from my blog, is that this particular player had already screwed up several times and I gave him a pass.
In an earlier pot against me, he was tapping the table with his fingers, then he wanted to bet. I had nothing anyway, and just told him this, "Be careful with your fingers. I can easily call that a check if I want to." He thanked me for the advice.
He also folded out of turn, bet out of turn, it was habitual. He was a really nice guy, we talked most of the day, and HE apologized to ME after that hand about flipping his hand up early. I told him, no big deal, just be careful with stuff like that.
The whole thing is the epitome of making a mountain out of a molehill.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-...t=#post16016441
all of that doesnt answer why he waited until the guy wanted to raise, rather than calling the floor when the guy exposed his hand.
Join some conversations once in a while rather than just posting links, it's fun!
Join some conversations once in a while rather than just posting links, it's fun!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.