TDA Summit Discussion of DeWolfe - Reinkemeier Showdown

[MikeB]

For me, one of the most interesting issues at the 2011 Summit was the discussion on the DeWolfe - Reinkemeier showdown at the 2009 EPT tournament  in Barcelona.

A link to the video on this case is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2agX80ZyE    The introduction is in German, but you'll be able to follow the action without a problem, the showdown itself starts around 1:10 on the video.

This was reviewed during the Situations and Procedures section on Day Two... It's quite revealing that of the 10 small roundtable groups that discussed this incident, 5 ended up ruling for Reinkemeier and 5 for DeWolfe....  To me what this proves is that TDs really look at details and a situation that might at first glance appear very cut and dry isn't always so clear.

This still has my vote for the "most complicated 20 seconds in poker"... it touches on so many issues: showdown management, showing cards to win, asking to see a hand, betting lines / folding lines, killing a winning hand, "3rd party interference", must show winning hand ?, when is a hand dead at showdown, bet / muck procedure, etc. etc....  it's got it all in 20 seconds.

[Nick C]

Hey Mike,
 How about the most assinine call in the history of poker! A novice player off the street would have enough sense to either fold or raise with no pair! How in the world could any poker player call a 12,000 bet with no pair?

 How about the placement of the muck? The flop was even backwards! That was a great, "What not to do" video, for the players and the dealer

[Luca P.]

This vid shows in my opinion a big error from De Wolfe and the dealer:
I agree that rules says to show both cards to win the pot at SHOWDOWN (different from a non showd. situation), but dealer, in the moment De Wolfe showed K only, should have taken situation in his hands and turned also the 8 of diamonds.
But...De Wolfe is not a novice, he must know the basic rules.
So when his cards touched the muck, I definitively would assign pot to Reinkeimer who turned both cards.
I see these 2 errors from a pro and a dealer.
____________
#EDIT
>>Betting-folding line troubles

I generally take in consideration the folding line, but here, we are at showdown, first to act must show his hand, and dealer in this situation again should have warned De Wolfe to turn both cards.

[MikeB]

This vid shows in my opinion a big error from De Wolfe and the dealer:
I agree that rules says to show both cards to win the pot at SHOWDOWN (different from a non showd. situation), but dealer, in the moment De Wolfe showed K only, should have taken situation in his hands and turned also the 8 of diamonds.

and dealer in this situation again should have warned De Wolfe to turn both cards.

I'm with you to the extent that I feel there was inadequate control of the showdown here. I wouldn't go so far as saying the dealer should have turned over RDW's 2nd card, but the dealer IMO certainly should have "taken the situation in his hands" and "warned De Wolfe to turn both cards".  Whether DeWolfe is a pro or not, I think it's appropriate to ask to see the 2nd card when a player has declared and showed one and continues to do so for 20 seconds before pushing the cards towards the muck... the dealer should say 'I will need to see both cards to read the hand"...

Instead the dealer is passive and allows the two contestants to continue their gamesmanship into the showdown... this is what can result. In full disclosure there is a very experienced contingent of TDs who feel that it's up to the player to table his entire hand. He doesn't do it, too bad, hand is dead. We will be talking about this case for the rest of our careers I think.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

I agree with most of you and would have declared the hand of De Wolf dead.

But one of your arguments stopped me: "if the cards touched the muck ..." ... ?

Wait a moment:

I agree that at showdown the fact that your card touched or not the muck (are retrievable or not) is important in the case YOU change your mind and suddenly pretend to win the pot ... BUT IN THE CASE THE DEALER OR ANYBODY ELSE (folded player, spectator etc ...) wrongly decide to return your hand faces up: THE HAND IS DEAD (in the best interest of the game)!

For me, and as long as nothing is clearly written about it, I use the traditonnal calls to make decision in the following cases:

If a player throw his hand forward faces down in the middle (but away from the muck) at showdown and:
- The owner of the hand himself changes his mind and returns it: HAND ALIVE
- The wind or any uncontrolled element returns the hand: HAND ALIVE
- Another player actually winning the pot return it: HAND ALIVE
- Another player actually loosing the pot returns it: HAND DEAD
- A spectator or any other person returns it: HAND DEAD
- The dealer returns it: HAND DEAD

The 3 last cases in the BEST INTEREST OF THE GAME!

[MikeB]

Here's the Hendon Mob YTTD on the incident:

http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director4/who_wins_the_pot_and_why

6 TD's offer their rulings and detailed reasoning on the case.

[barts185]

Hey Mike,
 How about the most assinine call in the history of poker! A novice player off the street would have enough sense to either fold or raise with no pair! How in the world could any poker player call a 12,000 bet with no pair?

 How about the placement of the muck? The flop was even backwards! That was a great, "What not to do" video, for the players and the dealer

How bad the call is depends on how well Tobias knows the tendencies of Roland.  I'm not saying I'm a fan of it, and I don't know Roland well enough to know if it would apply.  But there are players, who when called, will muck their hand without showing it if they think it is a losing hand.  It allows you to win without risking more chips.



In terms of the ruling, everything I say below is based on there not being any house rules which would change this decision.

I would rule Roland's hand dead.  Rule 11 (well, current rule 11, it seems like some people know the new rules already - I haven't seen them yet) states:  "At the end of last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first."


AT WHAT POINT DID ROLAND SHOW HIS COMPLETE HAND?


At 1:17 I see him show ONE card, not his hand.  I don't think there is a "show one, show both" rule, which would mean that you need to turn over both cards if either is turned over, so I don't think the dealer should intervene and turn over the other card.  It is up to the player to show both cards.

At 1:23 it seems like he is confirming that the dealer told him to show 2 cards (he holds up 2 fingers, and I can't think of anything other than this being him asking "2 cards?", unless he is giving the finger to the dealer).

At 1:33 Roland puts his cards into the muck.  IMO, his hand is dead at that point.

At 1:35 (maybe 1:36), THE DEALER turns over Rolands cards.


This does not fall under rule 10 as it was not obviously the winning hand, and both cards had not been tabled.  This does not fall under rule 9 as this was not an all-in, so cards did not need to be exposed.


The Hendon Mob Verdict says, in part: "The dealer acted correctly to enforce the rule that the cards should be shown"

If this is a rule, then I would like to see it.  I don't see any such rule in the current TDA rules.  If there is a rule that says that the cards must be shown in this situation, then I would change my mind and rule that the hand is live.  But unless there is such a rule, I think the hand is dead and would rule that way.



Added the following after my initial post (and also modified some of the above to hopefully clarify some things)  :

I see some discussion in the Henderson Mob thread that Tobias asked to see the hand.  This brings up another issue, but it would depend on how this was asked.  Did he tell the dealer that he wanted to see the hand, or did he ask Roland to show him the hand?  Very different.  Saying "I'd like to see your hand" to a player is different than saying "I'd like that hand to be shown" to the dealer.

[Nick C]

barts185:

 I agree with you on everything you wrote. I don't agree with the majority of the Hendon Mob either, not when they say the dealer did the right thing by turning over the card. I question whether Tobias was calling in hopes that DeWolfe would toss his hand, that's really stretching it, and I doubt that he's that clever. Other than that, I think it is one of the best posts that I've seen in a long time.

[JasperToo]

barts185, that was an excellent post on this situation.  My exact views.

Tobias' call on the end could only mean one thing, that he put roland on exactly the kind of hand that he had and Tobias was repping a small pair or even Ace high and was fairly confident that Roland would simply muck.  Otherwise he is a complete donkey.  I am inclined to think he had a bit of a read on Roland.  (and really, he was right wasn't he?)

I listened to what Tobias was saying (and I thought somebody somewhere had a transcript) and he was simply holding Roland to the Rules; Show or Muck.  I sort of think that the only reason he slammed his hand over was because he believed that Roland mucked and he had read him right and he was showing that off.  I wonder if he would have shown if Roland had simply mucked without showing even one card....

[barts185]

While I don't feel this is what this forum is for, I feel I need to follow-up regarding why the call at the end may not be THAT bad a call since I had mentioned it (might be sorry I did   )


I'd rather stick with the merits of why I feel the ruling should be that Roland has a dead hand (and appreciate that others have agreed with me on that).


But, to discuss SOME of what does into the call on the end.

The probability that queen high is good (queen high is going to be good some percentage of the time)
+
The probability that Roland will muck the winning hand

is what needs to be considered when compared to the pot size and how much he needs to call to decide whether or not the call is worthwhile.

I'll again point out that I don't know either player, so I don't know if Roland is known for mucking in this situation, I just know that some players are known for doing it.  Based solely on this (and basing anything on a sample size of 1 hand is silly - even though TDs are constantly judged on a sample size of 1 hand - no one ever said life was fair ), I would say it's more likely than not that Roland could be known for mucking since in this case he would rather muck than show his second card.

Once the king is shown, Tobias knows that the queen high being good part of the equation is now zero, but it doesn't change the fact that it was part of the equation at the time the call was made.

[RobinK]

Hi all,

This is indeed very interesting post. From what I have seen I would rule the hand dead, because it was placed in the muck by player itself and dealer should not retrieve it.

   I have heard that there has been a change in rules in WSOP about showdown situations. According to my source ALL HANDS, WHICH WERE CALLED MUST BE TABLED AT THE SHOWDOWN, so players can not really muck their hands. I think this rule was created to avoid collusion and chip dumping, but I have not too many information about it.
   I work in the poker room in Europe and here the players can muck their hands in the tournament, if they do not want to reveal any information to their opponents.
I would like to know more about the above mentioned changes and I am interested in how they handle these situations. What if the player places his cards into the muck to avoid showing them, is the dealer gonna retrieve it and table it and is it still live?

 Thank you for your answers.

Regards       R.K.

[Nick C]

Okay guys,
 For those of you that want to support the genius of these players: If Roland was so smart, why didn't he just turn over his damn hand like he was suppossed to. And  don't you think a raise from Tobias would have secured his victory?

[JasperToo]

The only player of the two that I am attributing any brilliance to is Tobias.  And even that is a bit thin.  Roland, frankly, was being a donkey by not doing as you say, simply turning his called hand over.  But he obviously couldn't decide that he was good even with all the antics.  I almost always throw over my cards on a call, even when I know I am beat.  I've been surprised enough times to make it worth the little information I would be giving up. 

Roland's actions with the one card flash and the muck only confirm his inclination to blind muck a hand when called in a bluff..  Tobias didnt have to even consider the rare chance that his queen high was good if he had that read on Roland.

[Spence]

The only player of the two that I am attributing any brilliance to is Tobias.  And even that is a bit thin.  Roland, frankly, was being a donkey by not doing as you say, simply turning his called hand over.  But he obviously couldn't decide that he was good even with all the antics.  I almost always throw over my cards on a call, even when I know I am beat.  I've been surprised enough times to make it worth the little information I would be giving up. 

Roland's actions with the one card flash and the muck only confirm his inclination to blind muck a hand when called in a bluff..  Tobias didnt have to even consider the rare chance that his queen high was good if he had that read on Roland.

That may be true but then why not raise? A call just seems so odd to me.

[JasperToo]

as someone else mentioned it may just be a limiting thing, risking the least amount of chips to get the job done.  And if he truly did have that particular read, a call there looks like a bottom pair crying call which is enough to put ace or king high bluff bet to fold if the bluffer is that type of guy (which is the assumption with Roland at this point).