FWIW, I would also love to see further discussion about the origins of the phrase "called a halt" to the betting.

I'm thankful for the video link, but I'm not sure that Esfandiari and Laak needling each other is the best of examples. They've got a pretty tight history, they share rooms together on tour, they made a TV show together, you name it. They're buffoons...

...which is why I posted the video and the time that it happens, so people could watch it.

Why? I called. I want to see your hand. ...because that's the rule of poker.

I can only research this so fast. I've got a day job.

And, Bob saying what the rules are in the 50's aren't nearly as important as what he says today. Can you name a greater authority in poker rules than him?

Well you hear DN off camera too saying how bad it would be etiquettewise to ask to see a losing hand. Also, Esfandiari was defending himself saying he never asked to see one of Laak's losing hands, as if he was being accused of poor etiquette. It's pretty clear in that video that those 3 players agree it's in bad taste to ask to see a losing hand.

Can you elaborate?

EDIT: Oh, I see now.

The language around betting and calling in the turn of the century books is fairly flowery.

If you're genuinely interested, I can scan and post some of the betting procedure sections.

I understand, and conceded without reservation that some people find it to be in poor etiquette.

...but a more "pristine" example, one that doesn't involve to players who tried to make a buck being the next Kenny vs. Spenny on a high-number cable show, would be helpful in illustrating this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Bet_You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_vs._Spenny

Palimax that's a bit of a cop out to ask for an example of IWTSTH gone wrong then get a perfect example and reject it because the two players were on a tv show together ? It's clear (to me anyway) that the reaction in the clip I posted was not because of their relationship but because of the IWTSTH request.

Good grief...

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T FIND IT OFFENSIVE OR THAT IT DOESN'T PISS SOME PEOPLE OFF.

...but a clean example that doesn't include the most incestuous of poker player relationships would be a much better one for academic purposes.

Laak and Esfandiari don't make a good example.

Oswald Jacoby wrote a book on poker in 1940 which got reprinted multiple times. That's probably the missing link between the late 1950s and the turn of the century rules. Palimax, the 1947 versions are available on Amazon resellers for about $8, including shipping.

The game described by Jacoby is primarily home type games.

Do you have a link? I only see Oswand Jacoby on Poker - 1981. I'd gladly add a copy to my order. I let my Prime lapse, some of the sellers use Amazon fulfillment and I need to pad another order anyway for free shipping

Ordered the 80's reprint. I"ll follow-up here next week.

Hmmm, 3 possibilities.

1) the book supports the notion that turning your hand over each and everytime, regardless of the circumstances is the proper way to play poker.

If this one is true, we will hear about it in detail.

2) The book refutes any notion that players should HAVE to show their hands, even if they admit they are beaten. Or at least it dimminishes the theory Palimax is trying to prove.

Wonder what will be said then? Maybe something like:

"It's an obscure book that no one has ever heard of and therefore it's point of view is unworthy of comment."

3) The book does not address the issue at all.

I'm not trolling here, I'm making a prediction. Look at what happened when a video documenting a dust up over IWTSTH is linked. A video such as one Palimax requested be found. Suddenly, it's not good enough of a video because yada, yada, yada...

Its just another tell, its part of the metagame.

When a player who Hellmuth snap-calls, insta flips AA and proceeds to scoop a huge pot asks to see the loser's hand at which he is staring at in disgust, I make a mental note that they probably arent very experienced or very good.

Saw a 1940 copy on alibris.com

http://www.alibris.com/search/books/...y%20on%20Poker

Wikipedia has him playing poker at 15 in the US Army during WWI. He would certainly bridge the gap from the 1900 to 1940.

A review of the book is here by Foucault.

http://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/10...coby-on-poker/

There's also a 1941 US Playing Card rule book for games including poker.