It seems not everyone should be following the BIZARRO EPT Barcelona T. Kremsner rules.

There's a showdown in a tournament and cards should speak. Even if the dealer gives the pot to a the wrong guy (if both show cards) and you would be eliminated, this rule would apply. Cards speak at tournaments at showdown. If you suggest different rules, play cash, or try to defense chip dumping in Men The Master style ( I mean, it's not like your friendly, it's not like you had the worse stack & hand and you can make something with chimps dumped to you, it's not like staking deals would be unpopular there - similiar to all criterias for a MenTheMasterDumping - of course not you - but there needs to be a technical constraint in rules and their application to stop it ).

Your plan failed: "Villain will insta-muck K-high" and then you angle shooted even against the rules of tournaments. (the same play in cash games is genious beside you should your knowledge of beating a better for yourself, but nobody complains about that). But anyway, u decided not to to talk the cards at showdown and this is a collusion vs all the other dozens of players still left in the tournament.

Kremser did 2 mistakes in the hand. 1st of all, hands did not speak at the showdown (o.k., mucking a hand is one thing, but if at least one player at the player wants to see the cards of players in showdown, they are seen and plays in tournaments, and at least one player at your table wanted to see the cards == you), and of course the 1st pumping action should have give you a 10min outsitting of course or so (prob RDW also)

You didn't lose to a 1 card hand, you lost to a 2 card hand forced to showdown because of your words that you wanted it to see and your action to show your cards before your villain's card were dead (why otherwise would dealer prevent RdW's hand from mucking physically).
Of course, that doesn't make RdW not a douchebag.

But keep going so.

I don't think EPT uses TDA rules but a rule like this should exist in every major tournament

TDA RULE 31

There is something, basically everyone seems to be missing here.

If pokernoob mucks after he sees the king high, he loses every right to see DeWolfe's second card since the rule "show winning hand" did not apply in this tournament.

So why is it bad ethics to ask to see both cards? It's just trying to get information you have every right to.

The fact pokernoob could pull this move, forcing De Wolfe to muck and therefore winning with the worst hand is De Wolfe's and De Wolfe's only fault.

Even if pokernoob had a better hand, the second he shows that, he also loses the right to see De Wolfe's hand who could then easily muck only having revealed 1 card.

You know what I think is bad ethics? When pokernoob asked to see De Wolfe's 2nd card, which he had every right to. De Wolfe looked really annoyed, repeated Khi a few times, probably hoping pokernoob would muck and he could claim the pot without having to show his second card.

But over the years, for some reason I'll probably never understand, it became ok to claim the pot by showing only one card even though you're withholding information from your opponent

Why is everyone missing this? Can anyone explain to me why it is ok to try and claim the pot with only one card? Or why it is wrong to ask for both cards when you have every right to see them and the second you muck, you nog longer have that right?

It basically happend like this:

SHOWDOWN
De wolfe: "hey lets only show one card and try to win the pot, then I dont have to show both, yeey!"
Pokernoob: "Show both cards, else you can not win this pot"
De wolfe: Moves his hand towards the muck -> Hand is mucked
Dealer: "Hey De wolfe must show both his cards" (which is not correct). Dealer flips over De Wolfe's his cards. Hand is still mucked.

Everything which happens after that does not change the fact in any way, that De Wolfe mucked, his hand is dead, so pokernoob automatically wins the pot.

My question still remains, how can asking to see both cards, when you have every right to and it is the only way to see De Wolfe's second card, be bad ethics?

Sure it made De Wolfe muck and therefore gave pokernoob the pot, but how is that pokernoob's fault?

LOL, I found that hand very funny, even if absolutely unethically......

However, "pokernoob" explains his though process in the interview pointing out a few important things:
-he was confident RdW was on a bluff due to previous action;
-he called with the CLEAR intent that he will be able to have RdW muck his (bluff) hand WITHOUT even showing it
-he turned his hand over ONLY because RdW's hand was dead in the muck otherwise (with RdW turning over both cards) he would have NEVER turned over his hand

PS: An Italian player claims that RdW told him that he had asked pokernoob if he's holding the Ace upon which pokernoob allegedly answered with "yes".

I think this is a very extreme example of how to angleshoot the rules (RdW mucks his hand which is then dead so pokernoob wins the pot in ANY CASE turning over his hand or not) even with a very unsportsmanlike conduct.

Ok so let's say pokernoob should never lie about his hand.

De Wolfe shows one card
De Wolfe: Do you have a better hand?

Situation 1
Pokernoob: no
De Wolfe shows both cards and claims the pot

Situation 2
Pokernoob: yes
De Wolfe can muck and doesn't have to show his second card, withholidng information.

Showing one card to claim the pot when you have to show both: accepted
Asking to see both when you have the right to: bad ethics

Still not getting it

Well, to be fair he doesn't have to answer with 'Yes' or 'No'. He could just say he wants to see the cards.

RDW does ask him something before showing the K, and he seems to say 'Yes'. Or at least he says something and nods his head a little, which looks like he is saying 'Yes'. If the question really was 'You have an ace?' and he really has said 'Yes', then I'm back to thinking it's an angle shoot. RDW has left himself open to it by not simply showing his cards, but if that question was asked and answered, I'm back to thinking it was an angle shoot.

That's if it was, though.

Same disclaimer as before: I'm not a live player.

You do have a point.
Yet I believe De Wolfe started the angleshooting by just showing one card.
This shouldn't be considered fair play as well.

Indeed.... RdW, after showing 1 card allegedly asked pokernoob if he held an Ace to which the answer apparently was "yes" which makes RdW decide to muck his hand face down.

Could also be seen as pokernoob bluff talking RdW into folding the best hand and if RdW decides to muck his hand then he can not claim the pot afterwards upon reckoning that pokernoob had fooled/angleshooted him when he started the whole thing with tangling.

Why can RdW not just turn over his hand after pokernoob's call like 99% of the players do thus avoiding to get messed around with??
It appears to me like RdW's thinking is/was:
- giving away free information > winning a pot at showdown
- better mucking my trash hand > winning a pot with the best hand

Couldn't agree more. Pokernoob abusing this doesn't seem wrong to me at all.

This is bull**** and I doubt de Wolfe had said this. If he did, he was lying.
I NEVER SAID THAT I HAD KING HIGH BEAT. Not at any point during the whole hand.

This.

only read first two pages...

but at 1:15 when the call on the river was made it seemed like roland told the guy he had king high and he kind of nodded as to acknowledge it was the best hand. i believe that is why roland only flipped the king because the other player had already told him it was good.

Lol. Are you dense?

If he was told king high was good, he still has to show the other card to win the pot.

"is king high good?"
"yes"
"here is the king, now im gonna muck so you win, expert strategy ftw"
"the internet forums will love this"