Lee Jones or Daniel Negreanau
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 heís one of the nicest guys in the business Ė a true gentleman. Team. This is a professional disagreement that he and I are having, nothing more.
So, during the WCOOP
(http://www.pokerstars.com/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 Ė that itís part of the gameís 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 thereís 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 ďI call your $5,000 and raise you $10,000.Ē
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 itís 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 Danielís point, Iíd like to set the context of our discussion. If I did misinterpret Danielís remark, well, Iím very sorry. Anyway, hereís what I think the argument is about
It is down to the final three players of a no-limit holdíem tournament. The players are Daniel Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and me.  (http://www.biggerdeal.com/2007/10/05/daniel%e2%80%99s-wrong-i%e2%80%99m-10000-sure/#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 Ė it is up to me on the big blind. Iím 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 Iím making my decision.  (http://www.biggerdeal.com/2007/10/05/daniel%e2%80%99s-wrong-i%e2%80%99m-10000-sure/#1)
Under current TDA rules
(http://www.pokertda.com/rules.htm) (specifically rule #31) Daniel is not permitted to show me either of his cards. If he does, he will receive a penalty Ė probably a ďtime outĒ away from the table, during which he will be blinded off.
I claim that this rule is good Ė in fact, necessary Ė for the integrity of the tournament, and that thereís a sound mathematical basis for this rule. Daniel claims that itís tournament directors overstepping their authority and removes an important aspect of poker strategy
So, each of us could continue to proclaim that heís right, or we could settle the matter as two gentlemen would, with a wager. I suggest $10,000.
Of course, weíll need an arbiter. We want somebody who is objective and well respected in the poker community. Hereís my suggestion Ė take the following list of people:
- Howard Lederer
- Chris Ferguson
- Andy Bloch
- Greg Raymer
- 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
(http://www.biggerdeal.com/), Danielís 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 heís 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. Weíve made our positions known in public. Iíve gotten a couple of emails about the dispute already and have said Iím 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 weíve got money down on the table. Letís each of us just go into battle with what we already have.
Furthermore, please do not post your theories about this to this site. Letís wait until the bet happens (or doesnít).
So Daniel, címon out into the street and letís see whoís right. The loser can pay up at the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure