https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...ighlight=mucks

Not the point under discussion but I really don't get any hero in that hand tanks for so long on the river. Probably only ATh that beats him. Should be a pretty standard call. They should have shot clocks in streamed games!

The dealer should have issued an immediate warning when V was touching the back of his opponent's cards doing the eeny meeny miny moe sh*t.

Fun 'home game' spot here ..

1) The announcer talking his way thru this is brutal .. rookie mistake
2) IMO the Hero turned the card over without the Floor's permission and the Floor sort-of relented with 'if that was the deal' verbiage. H just didn't want to wait any longer ..

3) While the Dealer could've been a bit more proactive, if this kind of deal making is normally allowed then why would we expect him to intervene? IMO the deal hadn't been closed yet so from that perspective the Dealer could've put the stop sign up to be sure a deal had been cut when the V moved his hand towards the H cards.

4) Nobody's hand is dead here, action is on H .. we just need to decide if he has more than call/fold options

5) As a Floor I'm going to ask the Dealer (Player opinion's are skewed at this point) if the deal was made? Yes, No or I don't know. IF HU deals are allowed in the room and 'Yes', then I'm allowing Hero to pick a V card to expose. If 'No' or 'I don't know' then Hero can call or fold with no card being exposed. While I kind-of like the option of backing things up and taking a Showdown I don't want to open that door in the room for future issues going that way as well. We have chips in the middle, it's pretty difficult to take them back out. Hero can use all of this 'free' information to make the decision. Sure he might be caught up in the moment but it's pretty obvious that V doesn't want either of his cards turned over.

6) V is done for the day or longer depending on history and how 'the talk' goes. IMO in today's BB Ante tournament formats the sitting out a round is somewhat lessened but still has more impact than a cash game's 'lost opportunity'. Structure and pace would certainly play a role in how severe a Player's standing may be interrupted .. it might save him from busting too!

7) I think the Floor tried to keep things on track but either/both he and the Dealer should've stopped Hero from touching V's cards until a firm ruling/resolution was made. At that point in time I still want to consult with the Dealer and then possibly revert to Showdown with no River action depending on the Yes/No/IDK response.

8) Not sure the 'deep accent' Player at the table, but he seemed to realize that a 'gray area' had been entered and needed to be worked through, but Hero very shortly after turned over V card and all is lost at that point. GL

If the dealer should verify and enforce “show me yours and I’ll show you mine”, do they also enforce “will you show if I fold” or “I’ll fold if you go all in” or “if you bet I call”, etc?

Yes, very similar, but in this case here we have a Player reaching over to touch another live hand and that probably warrants some extra caution. I can see that Hero does nothing to stop V from moving/touching his live hand so why would we expect the Dealer to step in? IMO as a facilitator of the game that would be an appropriate time to interject some caution to both Players in an attempt to avoid a spot where the Floor is needed and make sure that both of them are going down the same path.

Not all spots are exactly the same. There is an active Thread where a Player agrees to show and then doesn't .. Lie (perhaps) .. Cheat (No) .. Bad Form (yes)

IMO there's 1.5 issues here .. One, even with a deal you shouldn't be turning over someone else's cards unless given explicit permission/confirmation. And half, was the deal really confirmed by both parties before the first card was turned over. GL

Am I the only one that thinks J Dogg comes off way worse here than Josh? Obviously you should never touch another person's cards and Josh needs some kind of punishment but J Dogg seems like he manufactured this outcome without any risk to himself. He practically invited his opponent to turn over one of his cards, knowing it was irrelevant information, with the idea that he could get to see one of his opponent's, which would be extremely valuable.

I don't know about worse but I definitely think JDogg induced the situation with a goal in mind

i just watched the video and read through this thread and can't believe you are the first person to say this. it's impossible to know without hearing the dialogue but its very unlikely that Josh just flipped over J Dogg's cards without being prodded to do so first. Josh plays eenie meenie miney mo with J Dogg's cards for a good 5 seconds and J Dogg does NOTHING to protect his hand or move Josh's hands aways from his cards. it's only once the card is flipped over that J Dogg act like he is "appalled" and comes in for the angle by asking to see one of Josh's cards, knowing that he is the only one who benefits from both players having a card flipped over. from reading the thread i was expecting Josh to be the one who came off looking bad - after watching the video J Dogg is the one who comes off as a scumbag angleshooter.

J Dogg isn’t upset Josh flipped his card. He’s upset Josh didn’t flip over a card in return. The exact same scenario would’ve happened if J Dogg flipped the card Josh had chosen.

As I already said, I boot both but josh for longer. You just don’t do what he did without obvious and explicit permission. But consider this if josh is correct that the deal was consummated, why did he wish to break the deal and not show one of his? You believe Jdogg agreed to give josh a free roll?

Also from what I can tell no other player comes to Josh’s defense? They could here what was going on. They did not have to deal with announcer talking. If jdogg gave permission why did no one else say that?

The whole thing is a cluster. If we were talking about a 200/400 NL game where the player pool is small and player reputation is critical, letting players police the game might work. But this is a 2/5 game. IMO that it is even being streamed is just silly.

Are we sure the floor actually gave permission for J Dogg to turn over the card? I could hear him demanding that he be allowed to do it but couldn't make out the response.

Assuming it was allowed, simply caving to demands of a player whether it makes sense or not is never a good policy. The original ruling of a 1 round penalty was weak but going to a crazy extreme makes no sense to me especially when seeing a card is this valuable.

I would probably say the hand plays out then Josh gets booted from the room for an extended period.

I thought from the start that H asking to see a card while he still had a decision pending was an angle. I cant believe a floor would actually make V expose a card.

I think the card was turned over without permission, but the Floor relented to 'the agreement' once the horse was out of the barn. IMO he didn't think he was going to be able to turn one over and just did it.

I'm not saying I wouldn't have given calling some thought as well, but he's certainly in a freerolling position once the bargaining starts .. and certainly more so once it starts to go sideways. Is that an angle? Since he's not the one who started the deal discussion in the first place, maybe not so much. But he definitely embellished the opportunity once it presented itself. GL

Bart Hanson just posted a video on this hand for CrushLivePoker, starts at 9:30: https://youtu.be/LaL0IylZSvQ

Does this additional information change anyone's view? Especially everyone saying to throw the player exposing the opponent's card out of the casino if the opponent gave him permission to do so?

I never heard JD give permission. I don’t even think Hanson says JD gave permission. What Hanson does say is JD ALLOWED Josh to turn over a card. Permission and allowing are different.

If we KNOW permission was given, then maybe I change my position.

Note, my position already was give both a rack with some time off. If floor did not give JD permission to flip Josh card, JD is at least as culpable since he in effect does same thing but definitely gains more info.

I also agree if there is an angle, and I believe there is, JD angled Josh. But an angle is within the rules but turning over another players card is not.

JDogg will be calling into the CrushLiveCall-ins Live Stream at 5:30PM ET tomorrow. We will turn that around quickly to make it a video most likely but if you want to watch it live it will go up here because after its over its posted unlisted: https://youtu.be/Z9IFrL_P53E

I think permission was ambiguous, Josh said I might turn over one of mine in return (he can’t turn over a non-flush card so we know he never intended to) JDogg said no, I show, you show, okay, then Josh never responded affirmatively after a pause JDogg then allowed Josh to pick and didn’t mind him turning his card over….

Personally I would have allowed the hand to complete (since the hand exposed didn’t affect action) and then hand Josh a rack for a week (more if he had a history of angling)…be interesting to see how Jdogg defends himself to Bart and explains the massive tank with the flush.

This will be interesting. JDogg will get slaughtered by Chat IMO if he comes in vehemently defending his actions. He's probably a Reg and was definitely thinking about folding until this all broke open. He saw an opportunity for free information and 'made sure' it happened.

The Floor only agreed to enforce 'the agreement' after the 2nd card was exposed. Horse out of barn by a long shot. I don't think JDogg could do enough in an interview to convince me that the Floor gave him permission. The verbal statement of the Floor after the card was turned over was not one that would be made if he'd given permission.

There's definitely confusing body language by Josh at times but for the most part it's of a beat man and I agree with Bart that he needed to try and defend his holding more so than he did. He backed off from the table 2-3 times when he should've been holding/protecting his holding until the Floor made a decision. He even split his cards and then backed off from the table.

There were paths that JDogg could've taken in this spot that were much less emotional. Like simply asking 'why don't you want to turn one of your cards over, isn't that what we agreed too?' and react to the response.

The suggestion that the hand was dead is crazy. I posted somewhere that as a Floor if I hadn't given permission to JDogg to reveal a card that I would've allowed Josh to take his bet back and we go to Showdown with no River action.

I would've loved for Josh to have Xh, but still be a bluff. Then the spot is pretty moot and he probably folds or burns up 5 more minutes of time ranting away about what should've been an easy call based on his opponent's demeanor. GL

@Answer, why do think allowing the hand to oroceed all in OTT is good? Isn’t that basically giving Josh a free roll? Once JD card is turned, Josh knows JD had at least a flush draw and Josh us dead in this hand. He would love to be all in OTT.

Just like I am never giving JD the free roll by killing Josh’s hand and I am not turning a card or letting JD turn a card of Josh’s hand. I am not giving JD that advantage.

This is a real cluster but both players are the primary reason for this. the house who I suspect encourage this heads up banter or at least tells dealers to largely stay out of it, has blame also. But ultimately Josh’s actions were the trigger. Why he did it I dont understand. He should know he can’t gain anything. The only thing he could do is precipitate this mess and pray somehow it is all rolled back.

After the hand is over both players are being pulled aside. Josh is done for the day at least. But JD is not getting off scot free either. Since exposing JD card provides no informational advantage to Josh, I can’t justify rolling anything back.

Never meant to imply it was 'good' .. never said they would be all-in either. And I don't believe I even mention the Turn anywhere. What I meant (and I believe I'm piggy backing on another post) is that we just go to Showdown with no River action. Josh pulls his all-in back and JD has no action .. Showdown and JD wins via flush (and wins zero more chips).

Josh messed up not confirming that the deal was understood. He also didn't fight for his holding very well either, moving away from the table at least once and also spread his cards 'in defeat' as well.

JD did say 'I show, you show' a couple of times, but it was never confirmed nor did he stop Josh from turning his card over to get confirmation. This is where Players think JD is pulling his angle .. by trapping Josh into a turning a card over so he can see one of his with action pending.

JD admits that he didn't expect (nor get) permission from the Floor and should have never turned over Josh's card via the Bart Hansen interview on Monday.

If I'm the Floor I just say 'You're both in the wrong, this is a mess with cards exposed and action pending .. so no River action .. Showdown'

JD kept going back to 'the agreement' every time Bart wanted to discuss that exposing one of Josh's cards was way more relevant than turning over one of JD's cards.

JD also said he would try to make things 'right' with Josh and they had already chatted briefly. Not sure what that means or if we will ever find out. But it appears that Josh is currently allowed to play in the room so perhaps there was no significant action taken against him by the room. GL

In what started as some table banter .. which I thoroughly enjoy .. turned into a royal mess by Josh, JD, the (rookie) announcer and the Floor IMO. Although for most table talk is a waste of time this particular spot could've produced some entertaining moments if handled differently. In this spot all four of these 'participants' messed up their roles, so to speak.

JD admits that since he was blocking 89 that he truly thought Josh could have Axhh or 45h for the under OE based on their history together. So since JD was blocking 89 this wasn't a 'slam dunk' call as most have suggested. While probably still being a call getting (3 to 1)-ish I can see some hesitation when you have history with an opponent. The body language after the incident started should've been enough for JD to make a call without a card, but he openly admits that he got caught up in the situation and went beyond what he expects of himself as a Reg. GL

“Never meant to imply it was 'good' .. never said they would be all-in either. And I don't believe I even mention the Turn anywhere. What I meant (and I believe I'm piggy backing on another post) is that we just go to Showdown with no River action. Josh pulls his all-in back and JD has no action .. Showdown and JD wins via flush (and wins zero more chips“

That is what is called being all in in stud as described by Dinesh. Basically everything bet prior to the last card stands but the all in player doesn’t have to commit anymore chips. Been long long time since I played stud but as recall this is used when a players last card is dealt up in error. Player has option to declare all in meaning he doesn’t have to risk additional chips. If hand is multi-way other players can bet in a side pot. Of course that part not applicable here.

Let me rephrase my question. Why do you believe letting Josh pull back his all in bet and going having no bets on the river?

Seems to be a way for Josh to get to showdown for free. Shove, flip opponents card, ooops, we’ll pull that back and do showdown. Josh messed up. JD might be angling him now, but if Josh never flipped a card, JD could not try this angle. So why does Josh get to pull back bet?

As to JD, turning the card up did not help Josh. Since all in was before card was turned, action on JD and we deal with Josh’s misstep after this hand.

I didn't know the Stud reference .. but I may have read it once before now that you bring it up.

Prior to JD turning a card over without permission I'm definitely inclined to let JD act .. but only after wading through the dispute first. JD took that away from me by turning a card over without permission. Now I've got two guys who may or may not have had an agreement along with two exposed cards .. both of which were turned over by someone other than the 'owner'. There is no 'fixing' this now. How can we move on 'normally'?

My ruling may have been that JD did get to turn a card over (doubtful), but now he's made that the only option. He admitted in the BH interview that he 'emotionally' turned the card over 'if I'm only going to get a round penalty'. That is so wrong IN FRONT OF A FLOOR .. and now we are going to let him act with this wrongfully gained intel? I don't think so.

While we can surly evaluate the 'Josh is angling' side of this discussion, IMO we really don't have good evidence 'in front of the Floor' that he's pulling an angle here. We certainly can assume that he's not making the 'me show, you show' agreement with this holding. IMO if Josh was angling he would be putting up a much stronger fight to protect his holding. He pushed back from the table twice and voluntarily separated his cards. That would be one hell of a high variance angle!!

1) Two wrongs don't make a right .. back up to where things were 'right' and end it there.

2) This could be a classic case of a NFL 15-yarder where the 2nd offender is the one who gets the flag. But it's not, Josh's flag has already been thrown by the Floor and then JD up and does the same thing right in front of the ref (and gets away with it). In the NFL these are offsetting .. back things up they do.

3) I'm surprised that Bart didn't take this approach with JD, but IMO at least 3 times while the Floor is standing there JD states 'he can't touch my cards' or 'he turned over one of my cards'. If JD truly felt that an agreement was made why is he vigorously stating/implying that Josh did something wrong when it would've been part of said agreement? He would be wording it much differently ..

I'm actually kind of on your side here .. I'm not happy about Josh 'losing less' when we back up the action. But I'm also not going to let a Player dictate the side of the ruling that best fits them either. This is not a chest thump here, I probably wouldn't have allowed a card to be turned over anyway. But if the room allows such deals then it's very possible that I could've been persuaded to allow it. The thing is that we can't make a ruling based on the holdings, only the actions of the Players involved .. it's very possible that Josh would 'win less' in the same spot. Shouldn't (and doesn't) matter .. back it up and let's go to Showdown. GL

I am solving this earlier in the sequence. When JD says I am not acting until Josh’s hand is killed or a card exposed I make it very clear 1) no hands is getting killed at this point, 2) Josh can expose one if he wants but JD better not do it while I am there because I will kill HIS hand because a) I am here and now making everything clear with forewarning and b) the information imbalance c) JD will not be getting a round penalty, he will be gone and for more than 7 days.

Note I would not have given Josh a round penalty. He would get time off also. Any where from the night to perma depending on factors but probably between the night and a week. Round penalties don’t make sense to me in a cash game.

If JD refuses to act, I give him a 10 countdown to call or fold. He does not get to dictate rulings. And we have already wasted way too much time on this hand.

If JD did proceed to expire Josh’s card, JD hand is dead, and JD gets a significant poker vacation at least here. There will be a cost for any player flouting my authority and trying to show me up. You just can’t let that happen or you will be a doormat for everyone.

So I guess if we wait til the second card is exposed, treating it as both all in OTT (iow no river action, proceed to showdown) but if I were the floor we never get there. I make it clear to JD his hand is dead if he tu4ns one of Josh’s. If he doesn’t like that or understand why 2 wrongs don’t make a right, we can have that discussion