Lee Jones or Daniel Negreanau

All,

The following is taken from Lee Jones's blog. A good discussion point and one I agree with Lee on. You decide.

Note: Daniel Negreanu is not only a great poker player, but he’s one of the nicest guys in the business – a true gentleman. PokerStars did really well to get him onto their Team. This is a professional disagreement that he and I are having, nothing more.
So, during the WCOOP main event last week, Daniel Negreanu was the guest host on the radio coverage that PokerStars does for the tournament. During that coverage, he made some comments about tournament rules. There was one particular comment he made that really rubbed me the wrong way. In essence, he said that if two players are in a tournament hand heads-up (even with other players still in the tournament), that one of the players should be allowed to show a single card during the play of the hand – that it’s part of the game’s strategy. What really bugged me was that he said that it was tournament directors (i.e. people like me) just overusing their authority and that was why this rule existed.
I took issue with that in the final table chat, saying that there’s sound mathematical grounding for such a rule. I even offered to bet Daniel $5,000 that I was right and he was wrong. He saw the chat and said “I call your $5,000 and raise you $10,000.”
Well, the radio discussion turned elsewhere, and obviously we were both giving most of our attention to the WCOOP final table. But I want to come back to this topic, (1) because it’s important, and (2) Money won in a bet from Daniel Negreanu would have a much higher exchange rate than a normal American dollar. Winning $10,000 from Daniel in a prop bet would be almost like winning £10,000.
Just in case I misunderstood Daniel’s point, I’d like to set the context of our discussion. If I did misinterpret Daniel’s remark, well, I’m very sorry. Anyway, here’s what I think the argument is about:
It is down to the final three players of a no-limit hold’em tournament. The players are Daniel Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and me. [1] The remaining payoffs in this tournament are $1,300,000, $700,000, and $400,000 for first, second, and third. In one particular hand, Jennifer is on the button and folds. Daniel moves all-in from the small blind – it is up to me on the big blind. I’m not sure what to do, and go into the tank. Daniel, either hoping to get a call or a fold, would like to show me one of his cards, while I’m making my decision. [2]
Under current TDA rules (specifically rule #31) Daniel is not permitted to show me either of his cards. If he does, he will receive a penalty – probably a “time out” away from the table, during which he will be blinded off.
I claim that this rule is good – in fact, necessary – for the integrity of the tournament, and that there’s a sound mathematical basis for this rule. Daniel claims that it’s tournament directors overstepping their authority and removes an important aspect of poker strategy.
So, each of us could continue to proclaim that he’s right, or we could settle the matter as two gentlemen would, with a wager. I suggest $10,000.
Of course, we’ll need an arbiter. We want somebody who is objective and well respected in the poker community. Here’s my suggestion – take the following list of people:

1. Howard Lederer
2. Chris Ferguson
3. Andy Bloch
4. Greg Raymer
5. Bill Chen

Pick any three of them. In fact, Daniel can pick which three he wants. We each submit our argument to a public forum (here at Bigger Deal, Daniel’s blog, whatever). The three judges review the two arguments and each announces his verdict. Best two of three judges wins. Oh, and the loser has to stop claiming that he’s right, along with paying the winner $10,000.
Now, to make this fair, neither Daniel nor I can discuss this with anybody before we make the bet. We’ve made our positions known in public. I’ve gotten a couple of emails about the dispute already and have said I’m not discussing it further until Daniel and I seal the deal. In particular, neither of us can ask any of the judges or similar experts until we’ve got money down on the table. Let’s each of us just go into battle with what we already have.
Furthermore, please do not post your theories about this to this site. Let’s wait until the bet happens (or doesn’t).
So Daniel, c’mon out into the street and let’s see who’s right. The loser can pay up at the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure.

both of the have valid points
but for te sake of the game i would have to say lee is right
daniel would just prefer to show a card because it can make him more $$
and lose less when he sees a card he doesnt like

I agree with Lee too.. It takes away from the game if you show a hole card etc.

It may just be me, but it seems pretty clear that Lee is right. In the example quoted, SB showing a card, and hence giving BB free information, would clearly put the player on the button, who has already folded, at a disadvantage.

I think if u r heads up it should be as option for strategy because as of right now I do not get how that has a negative effect on the game, it seems like a form of bluffing, maybe showing on A with KQJ on the flop leaving them to guess if u have the 10...

I'm actually with daniel on this one. The cards in your hand are your own and you should have the right to do as you wish with them. Furthermore, I have never heard a pro player complain about someone being able to show a card, and when that rule came in to play people started complaining big time. It should be about what the players want, and the pros are the best people to represent all of the players in the world.

To me, it seems pretty clear that Lee is right, and Daniel is wrong. And I think whatever panel was chosen from the list would agree.

Before I offer up any thoughts I need one questions answered because I do not know the answer.

Setting; Casino ring game any stakes but playing the predominant casino rules.

Assume a full table. One large raise, everyone folds to the last player who can act

Is it legal to do that in a heads up situation at a ring table?

I understand that the current rules I think support Jones, but if I were to be able to change the rules of poker I'd change them so that you can show one. Seems like a valid strategy. Didn't Gold do a similar thing in the WSOP he won?

Has anyone else read Daniel's response further down the page?

What?? Lee Jones has not made ANY argument here, except to claim some secret "mathematical" reason for the rule that he does not reveal. The argument isn't about IF there is such a rule, it's about if there SHOULD be such a rule.

Here is an interesting video with Daniel and Gus Hansen on Poker after Dark. I watched this show the other night and remembered Daniel had ranted about this subject in Poker Player Mag. not too long ago. If you want to skip most of the video (it's mostly Hansen going into the tank), then go to around the 4 minute mark.

YouTube - Poker After Dark - Negreanu Puts Hansen Thru The Wringer

When it's down to two people in any hand, I cannot see a problem with a player showing one of their cards at any point. Why WOULD it be a problem?

I can see both sides. If you show a card it brings a bit of old 5 stud into the play. 5 stud was the game I learned about bluffing.

As this is about a Holdem Tourney, I can see why Lee's position is good.

But overall this is poker, where the cards are often secondary or less even.

I can think of very few situations where it would be advantageous to do such a thing, and perhaps Danial is getting bored with the game, and should concentrate and beating Phil Ivy at golf.

The argument (I think) goes something like this: player A fold, player B shows his cards to player C (heads up), who then makes a decision with information that player A did not have at the time he made his decision.

Again, I don't see how people are "agreeing" with Lee Jones' points: he didn't make this argument, or any other, so how can you agree with non-existent points?? He simply gave his opinion without any backing, alluding to some "mathematical" reason that he keeps to himself.

Of course, I don't agree that the argument is valid. Lots of information becomes available later that earlier acting players don't have access to. What if player B folds, giving player C a walk? Player A can't then demand his cards back, claiming that if he had know B was folding he would have played. Or how about if player B has some really obvious tell, but doesn't look at his cards until player A folds; again A can't say he wants his cards back now that B has given out additional information that C has access to. Or what if player B simply says something that gives C information that A didn't have.

That being said, if they must keep the rule (although I am DN's side here, and think it should be abolished), I propose a compromise:
You are not allowed to show any cards on streets that did not start heads up. Obviously this would preclude any pre-flop card showing (unless the match is down to two, obvioulsy).

I don't get what Daniel, or anyone else who wants to "show", gets out of showing the card. Can someone give us an example of how Daniel benefits from showing his opponent one card? I understand his use of the "advertising" play after the hand is over, but this one escapes me.

In one of Doyle Brunson's books he tells a story about a hand he was about to fold, when his opponent said, "wait how about if i show you a card." But, the bottom line to that story was that Doyle was able to deduce that he had the guy beat (I forget what the game was), and quickly called and raised. The opponent was fit to be tied, "how can you raise, when a minute ago you were going to fold?"

But the bottom line was that the guy who saw the card benefited, and not the shower. It's not at all clear to me how showing a card helps you trick the other guy, which is what it seems like Daniel wants to accomplish.

Can someone post an example?

Take a look at the Poker After Dark example that Rob linked to above.

You mightn't see the point to it and wouldn't do it, I probably wouldn't do it, but I think what Daniel's saying is just that if he wants to do it, he should be allowed to.

The rule that I don't get is the one where you're not allowed to tell someone what your hand is, but you are allowed to lie about it. If you've got a flush, it's against the rules to say "I have a flush". But you can say "I have a straight" with impunity.

In that case, I think the rule only makes things worse. If someone says "I have a flush", within the rules you have to assume that they're lying. And that's dangerous if the other player is willing to go outside the rules and play that edge.

Take away the rule, and you don't have to make any such assumptions.

Ok, I got you. I missed that clip before.

Yeah, I tend to agree now. If he wants to do it, let him. If you think about it though, what he's saying is that he doesn't want Gus to call him. He's feeding out the fact that he has pocket aces. Why would he do that? Because he knows that if Gus calls him, he could lose to who knows what? He's more than happy to end it there. Remember that Daniel is a master of calling with 10 7 offsuit. He knows anytime he calls or gets called he might win or lose. He doesn't want anything more than taking the pot down right then and there.

Gus should have called him, for no other reason than Daniel didn't want him to.

I'm with Daniel. Poker at the highest levels isn't about having the cards, it's about making the other guy think you have the cards. It's gamesmanship.

Ahhhh, perhaps therein lies the rub!

That gamesmanship, making the other guy believe you have something other than you really have, is an advanced concept. Regardless of how big the buy in is, many players are nowhere near that advanced.

We want fishes, and we don't want them thinking we are out to cheat them out of their money, we don't need to, we can out play them, but we must consider adopting almost every safeguard possible to create the appearance of the most level playing field.

So, I think AG got it close to right. In the Gus vs Dannyboy argument, they know each other and are having fun, but suppose Gus was not Gus, but Oral Roberts ! (The mind boggles). Dan doesn't know Oral, nor visa versa, and in that case I think flipping a card would be wrong.

For discussion sake, what would happen in a game where the 'not allowed to tell the truth about your hand' rule was in effect, and a player did tell the truth (revealed at the showdown)? Would there be some kind of ruling by thte dealer?

I'm a bit unclear on that myself. Anybody have an answer?

That would be up to the pit boss, floor manager or tourney director. Typically if a rule is "in effect" then you would probably be timed out for a set amount of time or hands.

First of all that is probably the stupidest rule EVER in the history of bad rules, even stupider than the misinterpretation of "show one show all" to refer to all cards instead of all the players, and even stupider than the you can't show a card rule.

Why? Because by definition, if you restrict truth telling, everyone is forced to "tell the truth" anyway. Steve Zolotow put it nicely in a recent article:

"As long as we know that our opponent must be lying, we can assume the opposite is the truth. Unless players are allowed to use some mix of truth and lies, they effectively are telling the truth."