Las Vegas in the really early days.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NVE...=poker&f=false

Foster's Hoyle in 1922 still has the "must show rule"

http://books.google.com/books?id=82n...=poker&f=false

Yes. You are. At least be honest about it.
Go ahead and finish the sentence. It's a bad reference video because ...

...Esfandiari and Laak are buffoons who have a deep history. I'm asking for and looking for a pristine video so I can put it along side the "polite" video and have a fair comparison without the "impolite" video being tainted by "I bet you." That way the "impolite" video has just as much weight as the "polite video."

See, you're so busy arguing against something that you don't see that I'm trying to HELP build a case against it. That's what a nice pristine video does.

To suggest that I've got a bias about the rule itself that would cause me to withhold information is absurd. I happen to prefer the rule because I'm a traditionalist. Given a choice between two identical casinos, I'll play at the one with IWTSTH. Given a choice, however, between two casinos - one with IWTSTH and lousy drink service, and another without IWTSTH and good drink service, I'll take the one with the drink service. That's about where IWTSTH ranks for me. Somewhere between self-service diet-Coke and self-service diet-Pepsi.

I think people getting tilted by the rule are, in short, stupid. If you let something so fundamental to the game of poker as turning your cards over after the betting is done bother you, then you need to pick a new game. You're not cut out for poker.

Frankly, it pisses me off that people think I've got some sort of personal stake in this -- that I stop in used book stores and order rare treats from Amazon so I can "be right on the internet" or something. I'm not interested in being anything but INFORMED. I find the history of the rules of poker fascinating. I knew a few other people "get it" too, so I keep posting for them.

When I get the book, if it's got something useful in it - no matter what theory it supports - I'll post it. Sometime after June 26th when I get my book, feel free to come back and take a look.

I think that is a little unfair. Not to put words in his mouth, but he acknowledges that the rules have changed. I think at this point he's more interested in knowing when they changed.

Doing some searching on-line, a couple of things came out.

1. There were no uniform rules. Many gambling halls didn't even acknowledge they allowed poker to be played due to the massive reputation of cheating. They refused to put out rules for a game that didn't technically exist.

2. From 1922 until about 1938, there was little published on the rules of poker. After that, Foster's Hoyle and a couple of others published rules up to WWII.

3. Lost the link, but there was a mention that Oswald Jacoby modified the rules in his book on poker. Other articles mention that he often promoted games to soften the impact of poker on the players and trying to keep it friendly. Given his status in bridge, backgammon and gin, he probably had the ego capable of deciding to change the Hoyle rules of "must show" to IWTSTH to not embarrass another player. Whether he did or not remains to be seen.

There's much myth and little recorded about a game that we all love. Anything to enhance our understanding of how it changed should be encouraged.

I believe I've got that one in hardback.

To be honest, I think it's in every Hoyle I've ever seen. On my to-do list is find where it stops being in a Hoyle.

...but the timeline forks somewhere between when Hoyle books (yes, Hoyle's 200 years dead) documented what people were playing at home and in clubs and when it got spread in casinos and throughout the road games common in the 50's(?).

Then we had "casino" poker, and in an ironic twist, people moved to emulate "casino" poker in their homes.

"Keno is a woman's game."

It also has about the only photograph of Faro that I've ever seen.

Okay, so I'm a troll since I mentioned the video you asked for, got, and then rejected.

Why do you need it on video. Have you never beeen at a table or in card room when an argument broke out over someone askling to see another persons hand?

How about a list of the people who might be in such a "pristine video" that you would reject because they have a "history"f some type.

Let me assume Phil Hellmuth and Sam Grizzard. How about Phil Hellmth and say...anyone?

I'm willing to bet Doyle and Daniel would be acceptible because they are mature gentlemen at the table.

But that's the rub, the mature, polite players will not get upset so your "pristine video" cannot exist.

It was niot my intention to offend you Palimax but I was put off by the request for a video and then the rejection of the video because the players involved are "buffoons". Then you say anyne who gets upset about having to show their cards is stuipid.

Explain, if you would, why two buffoons won't work but two random stupid players will?

Why did you put conditions on the players in such a video AFTER a video was discovered?

Sorry, maybe I am trolling but I have a hard time believing an acceptible video is going to be located simply because the problem does not lay with the calm, reasonable players but the segment that cannot accept being beat AND having to show their hand.

BTW, from all appearances Laak and Esfandiari are close friends. If they cannot handle the situation, why should we expect straangers to put up with the insult of having to show a hand they would rather not show after beng beaten?

I agree with you that, for the most part, the players who get upset are not the sharpest knives in the drawer but that is not true of everyone.

Look at this from my view, I have to put up with the arguments and hard feelings that come from such situations. They do not prove anything. i think the rule is a waste of time, it can be modified to offer protection from collusion.

The fact is, poker has changed, it is still changing, it will be changing years from now. The "traditional" rules have to be adapted to those changes.

Just out of couriosity and admittedly off the subject slightly, but is there a rule about check raising in any of the older books you own?

Been playing a decent amount of low stakes limit hold em around the gulf coast, and am usually the most aggressive/creative player at the table. I was getting asked to show a lot (like 2-3x per hour), or rather dealers were getting asked to show my hand a lot. At first it really threw me for a loop, but eventually figured out nobody thought I was cheating, they just were just confused. So I started auto-showing as soon as the action finishes, and now they're even more confused

When I played at Borgata, don't think I ever got asked or even anyone at my table asked, except I did twice when two "buddies" were squeezing often then checking it down, but that was NL, and definitely fell under the "collusion" section.

Regional differences, I think.

Personally think people get upset because the guy who's asking is the one who treats his own hand like a state secret. The people who freely give out their own hands without the "dueling douches" dialog are allowed to ask, and get shown pretty quickly, IME. It just doesn't stick in people's memories as much.

These two particular buffoons have a history. They are friends, roommates on tour, business partners, and have perhaps the most incestuous relationship that any two non-married poker players have with each other.

I'm not suggesting we get another because it doesn't satisfy me. I concede without reservation that it angers some people. I'm suggesting we get another clip so that it's free of any sort of back-story so that when you present the entire body of work to neutral parties, nobody goes, "Yeah, but that's Phil and Antonio...". Get PH saying it to some random kid or Random Tour Pro saying to Other Random Tour Pro. ...or whip out an iPod and film the next fistfight at Commerce (or wherever the rule is on the books and people react especially badly to it).

I'm collecting data. The better data, the more complete the picture.

...

I don't recall a check-raising passage, but I'll look for one.

I cannot name a greater authority on poker rules. That's a given....
I can, however, say that given the context of our discussion, the relevance of the rules in that game is definitely questionable. Bob's authority notwithstanding, what is his opinion on IWTSTH and the collusion argument? Obviously from the rule manual you posted, collusion played a part in the creation of the rule...

My theory (or belief) is that when a game is created, basic rules are established. The rules develop over time to prevent unsavory characters from exploiting a weaknes in the rules and gaining an unfair advantage. This has happened in everything from football( see "flying wedge") to poker (LV Hilton rule book). These rules also develop to encompass changes in technology and social norms. I think the real question is "When did our social norms change (within the game of poker) to make IWTSTH offensive?"

Excellent. That's a start. Now, provide some data to support your theory. That's how this works.

Explain how IWTSTH provides an unfair advantage for unsavory characters and provide data to support those explanations.

That's what I've been doing. I started with people mulling the question around here -- and we didn't know some of the fundamentals... ...so I researched them a tiny, tiny bit. I bought a few books and emailed a few people.
I think you're over-simplifying, but yes, that's the question for this thread. I argue, however, that "IWTSTH is offensive" is an over-generalization and that it varies by region, even room. I believe there's a vast majority in the middle who couldn't care much one way or another, and vocal outliers on the "care" graph skew things. I submit that most poker players don't even know the rule exists -- let alone have a well formed opinion of it.

To the rest of your post, there's a link in the other threads where Bob says - in short - that it doesn't do a good job against collusion and that he's not particular fond of the rule (I'm paraphrasing, forgive me). [Further guesses as to "What Bob Thinks" -- a fantastic betting game -- I'll pass on, as he's not too, uh, voluntarily forthcoming in his emails.]

...but that doesn't mean the rule needs changed.

I don't argue that Poker-2, a game like poker with updated rules where showdown hands aren't public information might be a better game, but right now, in Poker-Classic, showdown hands are public information.

I can't repeat that enough: In the game of poker, showdown hands are public information.

There's strategies: The wedge.
There's procedures: Instant replay in the 2:00 and TV time-outs.
There's constructs of the game: 4 downs and out.

In poker, strategies certainly change.
In poker, procedure certainly changes.
In poker, I strongly advocate that the constructs of the game don't change.

IWTSTH is procedural. It's how one of the constructs of the game (all showdown hands are public information) is handled. I have no problem with someone coming up with a better implementation for handling the CONSTRUCT OF THE GAME that showdown hands are public information.

IWTSTH is a change to how the game is played, how the procedure is now different, how we now have booth replays only in OT. ...but a flush still beats a straight and showdown hands are still public information in the game of poker.

Casinos that have completely banned IWTSTH are playing a game like poker. They might as well be playing baseball in the American League

It almost certainly occurred even before the rule changed from "must show" to "show when asked." Otherwise, the rule wouldn't have changed in the first place. People getting angry because they lost and have that demonstrated to them others dates back to pre-historic times.

One thing I think that is forgotten is that poker was never codified to the extent that the rules are the same everywhere. Up until poker was being played in Las Vegas legally in the 1930's, every room must have been like a home game today. The very basic rules were in place, but things like showing a hand at show down probably varied from room to room. It is easy to imagine in some room a guy going, "I don't want to show my loser" and somebody going, "Just let slide folks and let's get to the next hand."

Yes DG, you really are trolling here. You're very far off base, and it's completely unjustified. ThePalimax deserves some appreciation from this forum.

ThePalimax made the effort to go out and and actually do the research, and he's effectively dispelled the entire fog of mythology that had enveloped this topic here on 2+2. For those of us who are interested in the history of the rule, it's been fascinating and very much appreciated. He really needs to write up his findings and publish them; he may well be the best living authority at this point.

It's very annoying to see the mud slinging, and the personal attacks about his motivation - especially since there's no evidence that Palimax has does anything other than diligently uncover the facts. Although I personally hold no strong opinions on the current social aspects of IWTSTH, I have watched with interest as the practical aspects of the rule evolved during my 30 years of poker playing. It was refreshing to see ThePalimax dig in, reconstruct the history, and teach the readers of this forum.

So some of us, at least, appreciate a hard job well done. It would be nice if those who would rather stay in the dark could at least back off quietly, and refrain from hurling stones. If you must troll, please direct it elsewhere - to someone who deserves it.

Dealer guy is exactly right on this one.

Palimax posts a vid of something not directly related to the topic. His video showed IWTSTH of a WINNING hand, which is far different from asking to see a losing hand (the one that causes constroversy).

I posted a video which was exactly what he asked for (a video of IWTSTH gone wrong) and he dismissed it because Laak and Esfandiari were on a TV show together ? It makes no sense, but he dismisses it because it disagrees with his point.