Bump:

...with information for the OP.

I found myself watching a WPT broadcast on Fox Sports last night while flipping channels. It was much more interesting than the Extreme Poodles (I kid you not...) that my wife wanted to see.

Around the 40-minute point in the WPT broadcast, an IWTSTH request was not only made and honored, but nobody was shot. The mucking player even went to so far as to say, "You can ask to see the hand if you want..." No angry people. Just a table full of players and a dealer who understand the rule and complied without any argument.

You can see the exchange here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXgOMEzeK4Y ...at the 9-minute mark.

It is particularly interesting in that the mucking players has bottom pair. It's pretty obvious he's beat (especially for us - hole card cams and all), but it's still an interesting decision to muck the unbet river.

The request to see the hands is called by a 3rd party at the table. [Hands not live...]

This is the WPT Season 8 event at the Bay-101, where McLean Karr busts out a kinder, gentler Phil Hellmuth with AJ>QQ - in case anyone remembers the event.

I've only seen one dealer ever block my attempt.

It annoys me when someone who wasn't even marginally involved in the hand asks. I show when significant player in the hand asks which is almost never.

Excellent argument. You win the prize.

Is 2OutsNoProb just straight up denying the clearest history of the rule anyone has ever assembled? I don't get how people can be like, "Nope, uh uh," with absolutely nothing to back it up.

That's not what a false dilemma is. If you don't obey all of the rules, then you fall into the category of those who don't obey the rules.

A false dilemma would be something slightly different such as: "You can follow all of the rules or none of them at all."

As another example, Republicans used the false dilemma heavily during the 2008 Presidential Election campaign when they insisted that Obama was a terrorist-loving Muslim (the only kind), so he had to explicitly state over and over that he was not a Muslim.

It's a scenario that is presented as one-or-the-other but is actually not binary.

Someone (in hindsight I believe innocently so) invoked this rule on me at the WSOP, and I was not happy. I don't think I was out of line.

I'm too lazy to read the entire thread, but I really could care less about rules that went on the books in 1849 that aren't relevant now. The standard virtually everywhere is thatrequesting is a privelege, not a right, and shouldn't be abused, and that the rule is in place to prevent collusion, not to allow donks to confirm that HE HAD DA ACE KING YO WE WAZ RACIN' one out of every fourteen times they guess it. People requesting almost always slows the game down a ton and is performed in situations where the info is useless anyway.

I posted before even attempting to read what he did. I'll stand by my point that virutally everyone everywhere plays under the assumption that the rule exists to prevent collusion and not so that people at the table not even paying attention to the hand can ask just to illustrate that they know about poker because they happened to listen to Norman Chad last week. IWTSTH is ridiculous and virtually never has any benefit, but has every detriment in the world, all it accomplishes is slowing the game down and starting arguments

On this we'll agree.

What people assume has little to do with what's true. And people like you repeating what you know to be false doesn't help anyone. People still believe Richard Gere had a gerbil removed from his ass, for god's sake, but it too was never true.

Now, it's true that the rule exists to (a) prevent collusion, but you can't conveniently leave off: (b) for information -- because you don't like it.

This is history.
-and-
This is today.

Stop intentionally misinforming people.

....post a video of people reacting correctly in an IWTSTH situation and watch all the but I ain't gonna do it, screw the rules types come out of the woodwork again

Does being not happy change the results? Does it help you play better?

No, but it convinced the other player to rescind his request and my cards were not revealed.

This is an amazing video. The game wasn't slowed. Nobody cared. Play like THIS is how the rule should be in-forced. I appreciate all your research on the subject. Many thanks

To the player saying IWTSTH tilted you at the WSOP...Oh god. It's like people who try to tilt Hellmuth, they know they can and they know it's easy. Why in gods name would you ever tell somebody what tilts you? It's the equivalent to:

"Hey guys...I get really tilted when someone calls me Alex. K. If you call me Alex I go on crazy life tilt and will spew chips. So nobody call me Alex or I'll be really really upset."

i didnt say it tilted me

i just put up an argument so my hand wouldnt be revealed. the info was very valuable. he didnt get it. the rule also wasnt being used in the spirit it was created in.

*shrug*

Oh? What spirit was it created in?

...because that's a little something I can tell you about.

See, first and foremost, before collusion, players are entitled to information.



That's a turn-of-the-century quote (and I'm not walking downstairs right now to the bookshelf to get the exact book and page) explaining how the showdown works. This is unique among my TotC rulebooks, in that it's the only one that explains both collusion and information as reasons.

Players are ENTITLED to see showdown hands.

This is backed up 100% by Bob, "Robert's Rules of Poker" Ciaffone today.

But, sure, there's a missing link in this puzzle. Nobody seems to know when all-show became IWTSTH. Sometime before 1950 and after 1910.

We also don't see the change from normal to offensive.

And if it really were for collusion...why wouldn't one just fold? Why would anyone ever call a river bet if they were cheating?

your post proves my point lol

at least the photocopy in it does. read closer.

also, because an ancient rulebook says it doesnt mean that's the way it is today. things have evolevd and changed. clearly IWTSTH is much different now, and your post itself admits this fully. you are backing me up on every facet here. thanks? i guess?