Rule 17b: The hand he paid to see...since when?

[ersta]

Rule 17b:If there was a river bet, any caller has an inalienable right to see the last aggressor’s hand on request (“THE HAND HE PAID TO SEE”) provided the caller retains or has tabled his cards. TDs discretion governs all other requests such as to see the hand of another caller, or if there was no river bet.

Since when does a player pays to see a hand (a bad player probably would) but don't players pay to win the pot?

I strongly disagree with this point if view.

[Dave Miller]

 I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot.

 Both good and bad players might "pay to see" if the price is right.

 Where the rule comes into play is this: On the river, player A bets, player B calls to see, player C calls with the winning hand. If player C shows his hand immediately, player A may want to muck, but player B may want to see what player A was betting with.

[Nick C]

Welcome to the Forum, ersta.

 I'm not quite sure I fully understand your question, but I will say that I do not agree with Rule 17b, either. I also do not agree with the Addendum added in 2015. I believe that any player has the right to see a called hand. I also don't agree that a player , in for all prior bets, whether the final round is checked or not, is allowed to muck when first to show.

 I'm not going to argue or debate this issue again. I can only hope that some day the TDA will recognize how vital it is to have all players table their cards at showdown...there is no better way to assure that the proper player is awarded his due payout! It protects the interest of all tournament players by guaranteeing there are no mistakes in awarding the pot. Also, a check on a final betting round should not negate the fact that players have paid throughout the hand giving them the right to see any hand.

[Dave Miller]

... I can only hope that some day the TDA will recognize how vital it is to have all players table their cards at showdown...there is no better way to assure that the proper player is awarded his due payout! It protects the interest of all tournament players by guaranteeing there are no mistakes in awarding the pot.

I still disagree. Just as people have a right to be stupid, their opponents have a right to benefit from that stupidity/mistake.

When talking to players about various aspects of the rules, I often use the line "Phil Ivey folded a flush." While your insistence that all players table their hands would have prevented Phil's mistake, I wonder if Phil would agree to your rules.

[Nick C]

Dave,

 I'm glad you brought that one up. What makes you think that Phil folding a winner was the right end result for that tournament? How would you like to be eliminated by the player that got the extra chips that belonged to Ivey? And besides, what makes you so sure he didn't intentionally dump those chips?

 

[Dave Miller]

Sorry, but as you can probably tell, I believe that mistakes, whether caused by stupidity, ignorance, or mere inattention, are part of the game.

I don't know if Phil was chip dumping. Given his well publicized alleged Baccarat cheating cases, it's hard to argue. Assuming he was dumping, your rule would have given him that pot, and prevented dumping. But there are simple ways to dump that would circumvent your rule.

But I gotta ask one more question: would you rule differently if it was a cash game rather than a tourney?

[ersta]

First, thanks all for your effords to reply to my post. I disagree with the rule because not showing your cards is part of the game too. I understand that we have to be aware of players chipdumping, but there are other ways then to have all players showing there cards. About folding the winning hand.....I also believe that mistakes caused by stupidity, ignorance or mere inattention are part of the game, so folding a winning hand is the player's own resposibility.

But when I read rule 17b (and maybe it is because my lack of understanding the English language, I am Dutch) I read that the reason the better/raiser has to show, is because  the other player "paid to see".

[Dave Miller]

ersta -

Note that in other rule books, the rule states that if the player being awarded the pot asks to see a folded hand, that folded hand becomes live and can win the pot should it be a superior hand. If any other player asks, the hand remains dead. Also, ANY player who was dealt in can ask.

It also states that asking to see is a privelege that will be taken away if abused / overused.

[BillM16]

Since when does a player pays to see a hand (a bad player probably would) but don't players pay to win the pot?

I strongly disagree with this point if view.

Welcome to the discussion forum!

It isn't unusual for a good or even a great player to make a call knowing that he may be beat. Sometimes the call as a dog is partially justified in order to see the opponents hand.  This gives the good player additional information about the range of hands that his opponent will play in a given situation.  The additional information might be used later to win a much bigger pot that nets an overall profit.

[MikeB]

Hi Ersta and thanks for raising these questions. In answer to your points....

First, thanks all for your effords to reply to my post. I disagree with the rule because not showing your cards is part of the game too.

This is very true. But in the case where on the river you bet and I call your bet I'm doing so with the understanding that at the very least I will be able to see your cards since I called you.. Hence the phrase / idioma / or saying "I paid to see that hand". But it's not that I literally elected to "pay" to see the hand, I just called the bettor on the river and I have an inalienable right to see the hand if I so request.

About folding the winning hand.....I also believe that mistakes caused by stupidity, ignorance or mere inattention are part of the game, so folding a winning hand is the player's own responsibility.

Absolutely it is, that's why the TDA membership never adopted either "winning hand must always be shown" or "all cards must always be shown". The only exception recognized being the case where there is aggressive action on the river... callers of that last aggressor have a right to see his hand on request because they paid (called) the bet amount.

But when I read rule 17b (and maybe it is because my lack of understanding the English language, I am Dutch) I read that the reason the better/raiser has to show, is because  the other player "paid to see".

Again, this is a "saying", the reality is "the other player called the aggressor's bet". We just shorten that up with the saying "I paid to see that hand".

This rule was actually adopted at the 2013 TDA Summit but was only formally written into the rules in 2015 after some other related language was cleared up. Perhaps someone can find the footage from the 2013 Summit videos on this topic, it's very interesting discussion.

Thanks again for your post!

[Nick C]

Dave,

 Sorry it took a while to respond to your question, you asked: "But I gotta ask one more question: would you rule differently if it was a cash game rather than a tourney?" My answer is yes, of course. I'd love to have all of my opponents muck their hands when I'm in a pot...especially winners.

 That's the issue here...tournament poker involves the interest of other players. Mistakes are a part of the cash game that MUST be corrected in tournament play...That's how I feel and I'm sticking too it!

 I'm glad you asked that question.

[BillM16]

 That's the issue here...tournament poker involves the interest of other players. Mistakes are a part of the cash game that MUST be corrected in tournament play...That's how I feel and I'm sticking too it!

While I recognize and respect Nick's right to his opinion, I am very glad that the majority of the TDA and poker players disagree with this position.  Poker, whether it is cash or tournament, is a game of skill and observation.  Playing poker in a way that dimensions these skills, which allows the best hand to always win, would ruin the game.  It is interesting that only tournament poker would be at risk should Nick's perspective rule.  Nick is very persistent and states this minority position at every opportunity, often by widening and redirecting the point of the OP.  I hope it doesn't distract or divert forum members from discussing more important and realistic aspects of the tournament poker rules.   

[Dave Miller]

Bill -
Thanks. Because of Nick's seemingly authoritative argument, and sizable post count, as well as my own relative newness to TDA, I was starting to wonder if it was me. Thanks for pointing out that his is a minority opinion.

It is interesting that only tournament poker would be at risk should Nick's perspective rule.

I am also scratching my head over this. I would think that cash games be far more vulnerable to collusion.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen,

 If you want to discuss cash poker I suggest you post in the proper section. This is for tournament poker...TDA. There is a difference. If collusion or chip dumping takes place in a cash game, the issue can be settled in the parking lot!

 There is no room for it in tournament poker.

 If you have an issue with the number of posts I have, perhaps you can look in the archives and read them all...you might learn something.

 I'll stay away for a while and you'll see how boring the forum can be without me.  You won't have anyone to debate...or maybe you can sit there and wait for one of the members on the board of directors to answer your questions. Good luck with that one. Some of our 5 star members have never posted a single reply.  Goodbye for now...may the flops be with you.

[Dave Miller]

This post could be used to start several other discussions. For now, I'll just copy/quote the entire thing for posterity's sake, without further comment.

Gentlemen,

 If you want to discuss cash poker I suggest you post in the proper section. This is for tournament poker...TDA. There is a difference. If collusion or chip dumping takes place in a cash game, the issue can be settled in the parking lot!

 There is no room for it in tournament poker.

 If you have an issue with the number of posts I have, perhaps you can look in the archives and read them all...you might learn something.

 I'll stay away for a while and you'll see how boring the forum can be without me.  You won't have anyone to debate...or maybe you can sit there and wait for one of the members on the board of directors to answer your questions. Good luck with that one. Some of our 5 star members have never posted a single reply.  Goodbye for now...may the flops be with you.