Opinión de las reglas de la TDA por Daniel Negreanu
VERSION ORIGINAL
DANIEL - POKER JOURNAL
The Table Talk Rule
01 Aug 2011During this years WSOP main event the floor man was heavily enforcing a TDA rule that essentially says you are not allowed to disclose the contents of your hand. The TDA rule has been in place for 7 years, but I'd never actually seen it enforced. It is such a flawed rule that no TD would dare enforce it in any marginal situation.
The problem with this rule, is that the TDA cannot agree as a group as to what constitutes breaking this rule. There is far too much wiggle room for a floor person to rule one way or the other, which actually puts even more stress on the floor staff, and makes there job that much harder.
To prove my point, I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum of money on the following: Matt Savage can pick any 10 tournament directors in the world to do a simple quiz. I'll come up with 10 scenarios, and if all the floor staff agree on what constitutes an infraction of the rule, I lose. If the tournament directors are given the SAME information, but don't all enforce the rule the same way, then Houston... we have a problem.
I asked Linda Johnson if she wanted a piece of this bet and she smartly declined. So the problem here is this: if the TDs cannot agree on how to implement this rule, how can a player ever understand what is OK to say and what is not? They play in one tournament and Matt Savage says, "That's fine you can say that" then a week later play in David Lamb's event and he says, "That's a penalty." The goal of the TDA has been to standardize rules, but they have made a grave error with this rule because it cannot be standardized the way it's currently written, because every floor person will rule identical situations differently.
That point alone demands that the rule should be changed, but don't worry, I have plenty more. On a recent radio show Matt Savage and I discussed this rule and I quizzed him on various situations. He contradicted himself repeatedly and backtracked on original responses to situations. For example, I sent him the following question: Is it OK if I say this on the river when a player is thinking of calling, "You really thinking about calling with Ace high? Good Luck with that." Matt's answer "Penalty." He later flip flopped and said it's fine.
That same day he was asked if the following was OK: A player moves all in and a player is thinking of calling, "I'll take it here man I don't want to race." In this case he says that's fine. The problem is, if you enforce the rule the way it's written, this should NOT be OK because you've revealed information about your hand. If you had Aces, you wouldn't be racing, so now your opponent knows (if you are telling the truth) that you don't have aces.
On question after question, the answers become more and more confusing which leaves a player with only one option: Do not say ANYTHING during a hand or you could receive a penalty.
Facing a river bet you say one of the following:
"I can only beat a bluff."
"Gosh, I've had like 10 big pairs today and get screwed every time."
"I can't beat a flush but you might be betting top pair here."
"I can't beat a set, but I have a pair of deuces crushed."
"I had the best hand before the flop for sure."
"I have the same pair I started with."
In these cases, the player never reveals the exact hand that they have, but they do give information away about their range of hands. Which one of those statements warrant a penalty?
A player is thinking about calling you and you say:
"I either have a set of Kings or Queen high. It's 50/50 you should flip a coin."
"You don't seriously think I'd bet ace high in this spot do you? Ha, I know you have like deuces and are trying to be a hero. You silly boy."
"Don't be silly son, you can live to fight another day. Muck that piece of trash."
Slightly different scenario, where a player may be coaxing his opponent into either a call or a fold. Which one of these statements warrant a penalty?
This rule is supposed to protect players, but I gave Matt another scenario where I was shocked by his answer. It's so obviously unjust: 65 year old man, tournament newbie has pocket aces. River comes a flush card and his opponent goes all in. The man mumbles to himself, "Oh man every time I get these stupid aces I always lose!" Now he thinks for a bit, then makes the call. I asked Matt Savage if he would penalize this guy and Matt's response? "Absolutely, he deserves a penalty." I can't believe Matt, or anyone really feels this guy genuinely deserves a penalty. He's clearly not colluding, and his comment, out of frustration, is clearly innocent. I can't believe Matt would actually penalize this guy, but this rule would rightfully allow him to do so.
******
Is revealing your range of hands considered revealing the contents of your hand? If so, is that OK? If it's OK, then how narrow can you reveal your range to be? Is it OK to say, "I can beat bottom pair but I really think you have top set." Is it OK to say "I can beat JJ but I can't beat AA." In the first case my exposed range is between bottom pair and top set. In the second example I am exposing the fact that I have QQ or KK.
Matt seems to be OK with some of this stuff, but not all. If I bet the river and say, "I either have a set of Kings or Queen high" Matt says that's a penalty, however, all I've done is revealed my RANGE of hands. Of course, I could be lying.
In not one of the example mentioned is collusion ever an issue. Over 99% of table talk is completely unrelated to collusion, which appears to be the one and only reason that the TDA added this rule. The biggest lie that's being told is that if you get rid of this rule, you make collusion legal. That is just not true. Collusion and soft play is illegal. It was before this rule was implemented, and I imagine it always will be.
If the players at the table and/or the floor staff suspect two players are colluding either with signals, verbally, or by blatantly soft playing each other, they should absolutely be penalized.
The other point they try to make is that if you allow table talk, everyone is all of a sudden going to start colluding with each other. Huh? I never colluded before this rule was implemented, and taking away this rule isn't going to make everyone feel like they have a liscense to cheat. Verbal collusion is illegal. Table talk, and revealing information about your hole cards doesn't equal collusion. In fact, verbal collusion is by far the least likely way two legitimate cheaters would ever cheat because it brings more attention to what they are doing.
The proper procedure for dealing with collusion was in place long before the existence of this rule. If two players are suspected of collusion, either the players at the table, the dealer, or the floor over seeing it, would investigate. The tournament director would take a look at both hands and either issue a warning, or if it's blatantly obvious, and a repeated offense, penalize the players involved in the collusion.
An example of blatant collusion would look something like this: Blinds 1000-2000 (300 ante) everyone folds to the small blind who has 200,000 in chips. The big blind has another 400 in chips after paying the 2000 big blind. The small blind folds! In this case, the players at the table should be VERY suspicious. The floor should be called. The floor then should take a look at the small blind's cards. It hardly matters in this case as he should put him all in even if he has 7-2 off suit. If the floor now sees a hand like A-10 he can remove any doubt whatsoever. This is pure collusion. If it's a more marginal case, the floor issues a stern warning and lets both players know that if anything like this happens again, they will be penalized. The rest of the players at the table will now have their eyes on any future suspicious behavior between these two players.
Matt also asserted that it's impossible to know the relationships between the various players in a tournament, but in fact, that is completely irrelevant. In the previous example, their relationship doesn't make a difference. They were colluding. Which brings me to my next important point: it is NOT OK for a player to collude with another by telling him he has AA, and then his opponent folds KK preflop. Fixing this awful rule would not change this fact.
If this happens, "Let it go man I have AA for real. Throw it away." Then his opponent folds, the players at the table should call the floor immediately. The floor should take a look at both hands. If it appears as those these two players may be colluding verbally, either a stern warning or a penalty should be given. Once again, these two players would be put on notice, and any future banter would be heavily scrutinized.
**********************************************************************
Years ago I tried to explain the various scenarios where this rule crosses the line, but Matt doesn't want to understand it. There are times where certain table talk could be collusion, however, there are other times where revealing the strength of one's cards is clearly, and undeniably unrelated to collusion. For example:
Phil Hellmuth moves in on the river and it's up to me. Hellmuth isn't saying a word. Then I start yapping, "All in Philly boy? Why so much? Can you beat two jacks? Feels like you are getting greedy here man. I would have called 8000 with jacks in a heart beat but now you have me confused."
So I've revealed that I have jacks. Please TDA, please someone on the TDA please explain to me how this disclosure could in any way, shape or, form, be considered collusion? Can we not see the difference between the innocent table talk here that reveals my hole cards, and a guy on the money bubble saying, "Fold your hand I have aces and I'll show you. I just want to make the money." Can we really not see the distinction here? Surely you can.
**********************************************************************
What We Lose as Players
Part of what makes poker interesting is the ability to look at your opponent and gauge whether or not they look like they are bluffing or not. It is undoubtedly a poker skill. This rule infringes upon a skill that's been used since poker's inception and is one of the sexier aspects to the game, not to mention the viewing public. I'd like to share three examples from my past:
In the WPT Championship years ago Russell Rosenblum raised under the gun and I called on the button with AQ. I was worried he had a strong hand since he raises from early position, but felt like I should at least see a flop. The flop came A-A-6. He made a small bet on the flop and I called. The turn was a 3 and he moved all in.
Immediately, I said, "Ugh I'm so stupid! That's why you aren't supposed to call raises with this stupid hand!" I looked over at Russell and he was giddy, almost giggling at me while I tortured myself. Then I pondered further, and said aloud, "I guess he could have AJ..." I looked over at Russell and he clammed up! He stopped breathing! It finally dawned on him that I had AQ and he was in trouble. He went from giddy thinking he had me beat, to instant panic mode and I could see it. I called and he showed A-T. He hit a 10 on the river but that's besides the point LOL. For those assuming I was going to call anyway, they don't know what poker was like 7 years ago. I had a good stack and didn't have to call here at all. I called solely based on the physical tell that my "shtick" provoked.
Was I colluding? Was I cheating? Was I harming anyone else in the tournament? Of course not, unless you believe in the merits of this TDA rule. Next example:
I've played with Sammy Farha a million times and he talks a lot. In a typical hand, he may look me straight in the face, after betting $40,000 and say, "I've got you beat, throw your hand away." I'd ask, "What do you have Sammy?" and he'd reply, "I have the nuts of course, you know I only play the nuts." It's up to me to decide if Sammy is telling the truth. Are we colluding? Of course not! If he was soft playing me he certainly wouldn't have bet $40,000!
Verbal collusion in a heads up pot NEVER EVER EVER happens on the river after a bet has been made. If two players were colluding, they wouldn't bet all in and then say, "Fold your hand man I have the nuts." If the two players were colluding, they just wouldn't bet.
The most controversial example is a hand I played in the NBC Heads Up vs Jerry Buss. In this event, you are allowed to show your opponent, one card, or both cards any time you want during a hand. Jerry Buss bet the rest of his stack against me and I found myself sitting with two pair. I confirmed with the floor staff that I could show my hand, and then I turned my cards over and looked over at Jerry. He didn't flinch, looked completely comfortable, and even smirked a bit. It wasn't a huge river bet, I had a good lead, but I folded my Queens and Nines because I knew Jerry had it based on how he reacted to seeing my hand. He was at ease. He showed Queens and Tens.
I'm not going to bother advocating for being able to show your cards in tournament poker or Matt will throw a hissy fit, but the point of this example was to show, and explain to people that these river decisions, and what you do to elicit information about your opponents hand is a poker SKILL that's been stripped from a players arsenal to protect against a completely unrelated issue: collusion.
The Compromise
I think it's clear that players have no way of feeling safe saying anything during a hand, so the way the current rule is written, it is precisely a NO TALKING rule. The only way to ensure that a floor man won't enforce this rule based on what you say, is complete silence. Anything you say could possibly be construed as revealing the contents of your hand. A simple. "I didn't like that card," could warrant you a penalty if an argument is made that it reveals to your opponent that you don't have the nuts.
So, while I'd like to see this rule abolished, as it should be, Matt has publicly stated that, "There is nothing Daniel or Phil Hellmuth can say to get this rule changed." The TDA's goals are to standardize rules and protect players, yet in this particular case they are completely ignoring the concerns of the overwhelming majority of poker players.
The best option is to completely eliminate this rule, but I'd accept a compromise that would still make it a penalty to disclose the contents of your hand in some cases, but not in others. I offer an amendment to the rule that would actually give it some clarity, and allow players the freedom to clearly understand what is OK to say and what is not:
"When a player is facing a bet in a heads up pot, he is free to say anything about the contents of his, or his opponents hand."
If you add that amendment to the already existing rule, it would make crystal clear to the players playing in TDA sanctioned events, that verbal collusion will NOT be tolerated, but they will have the freedom to use table talk to help them make important decisions throughout a tournament. Deal?
**********************************************************************
I'd like to point out that I genuinely like and respect Matt Savage. He is a good guy and I agree with him about 92% of the time. I think he created the best tournament structures in the world, and being a structure geek, that's saying a lot. Those sctrucutes are a model for tournaments around the world to copy.
On the radio show I absolutely lost it! I've been trying to explain this to Matt for 5+ years and he has some kind of mental block on this issue, and that frustrated me to the point where I got heated. I genuinely apologize to Matt for the delivery of my points. I certainly didn't handle myself well during that discussion, but that doesn't negate the fact that I'm clearly on the right side of this debate.
The vast majortiy of the poker world agrees with me, both fans and players, and thanks to mediums like twitter, and poker forums, more voices can be heard to support changing this rule and the way it's currently being implemented.
My next blog will cover my two month trip overseas... I'll write that in a few days. I leave you with this video of hands I've played, with table talk, and wonder if ANY of it was "legal" based on this rule: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8k47_lP0M
The problem with this rule, is that the TDA cannot agree as a group as to what constitutes breaking this rule. There is far too much wiggle room for a floor person to rule one way or the other, which actually puts even more stress on the floor staff, and makes there job that much harder.
To prove my point, I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum of money on the following: Matt Savage can pick any 10 tournament directors in the world to do a simple quiz. I'll come up with 10 scenarios, and if all the floor staff agree on what constitutes an infraction of the rule, I lose. If the tournament directors are given the SAME information, but don't all enforce the rule the same way, then Houston... we have a problem.
I asked Linda Johnson if she wanted a piece of this bet and she smartly declined. So the problem here is this: if the TDs cannot agree on how to implement this rule, how can a player ever understand what is OK to say and what is not? They play in one tournament and Matt Savage says, "That's fine you can say that" then a week later play in David Lamb's event and he says, "That's a penalty." The goal of the TDA has been to standardize rules, but they have made a grave error with this rule because it cannot be standardized the way it's currently written, because every floor person will rule identical situations differently.
That point alone demands that the rule should be changed, but don't worry, I have plenty more. On a recent radio show Matt Savage and I discussed this rule and I quizzed him on various situations. He contradicted himself repeatedly and backtracked on original responses to situations. For example, I sent him the following question: Is it OK if I say this on the river when a player is thinking of calling, "You really thinking about calling with Ace high? Good Luck with that." Matt's answer "Penalty." He later flip flopped and said it's fine.
That same day he was asked if the following was OK: A player moves all in and a player is thinking of calling, "I'll take it here man I don't want to race." In this case he says that's fine. The problem is, if you enforce the rule the way it's written, this should NOT be OK because you've revealed information about your hand. If you had Aces, you wouldn't be racing, so now your opponent knows (if you are telling the truth) that you don't have aces.
On question after question, the answers become more and more confusing which leaves a player with only one option: Do not say ANYTHING during a hand or you could receive a penalty.
Facing a river bet you say one of the following:
"I can only beat a bluff."
"Gosh, I've had like 10 big pairs today and get screwed every time."
"I can't beat a flush but you might be betting top pair here."
"I can't beat a set, but I have a pair of deuces crushed."
"I had the best hand before the flop for sure."
"I have the same pair I started with."
In these cases, the player never reveals the exact hand that they have, but they do give information away about their range of hands. Which one of those statements warrant a penalty?
A player is thinking about calling you and you say:
"I either have a set of Kings or Queen high. It's 50/50 you should flip a coin."
"You don't seriously think I'd bet ace high in this spot do you? Ha, I know you have like deuces and are trying to be a hero. You silly boy."
"Don't be silly son, you can live to fight another day. Muck that piece of trash."
Slightly different scenario, where a player may be coaxing his opponent into either a call or a fold. Which one of these statements warrant a penalty?
This rule is supposed to protect players, but I gave Matt another scenario where I was shocked by his answer. It's so obviously unjust: 65 year old man, tournament newbie has pocket aces. River comes a flush card and his opponent goes all in. The man mumbles to himself, "Oh man every time I get these stupid aces I always lose!" Now he thinks for a bit, then makes the call. I asked Matt Savage if he would penalize this guy and Matt's response? "Absolutely, he deserves a penalty." I can't believe Matt, or anyone really feels this guy genuinely deserves a penalty. He's clearly not colluding, and his comment, out of frustration, is clearly innocent. I can't believe Matt would actually penalize this guy, but this rule would rightfully allow him to do so.
******
Is revealing your range of hands considered revealing the contents of your hand? If so, is that OK? If it's OK, then how narrow can you reveal your range to be? Is it OK to say, "I can beat bottom pair but I really think you have top set." Is it OK to say "I can beat JJ but I can't beat AA." In the first case my exposed range is between bottom pair and top set. In the second example I am exposing the fact that I have QQ or KK.
Matt seems to be OK with some of this stuff, but not all. If I bet the river and say, "I either have a set of Kings or Queen high" Matt says that's a penalty, however, all I've done is revealed my RANGE of hands. Of course, I could be lying.
In not one of the example mentioned is collusion ever an issue. Over 99% of table talk is completely unrelated to collusion, which appears to be the one and only reason that the TDA added this rule. The biggest lie that's being told is that if you get rid of this rule, you make collusion legal. That is just not true. Collusion and soft play is illegal. It was before this rule was implemented, and I imagine it always will be.
If the players at the table and/or the floor staff suspect two players are colluding either with signals, verbally, or by blatantly soft playing each other, they should absolutely be penalized.
The other point they try to make is that if you allow table talk, everyone is all of a sudden going to start colluding with each other. Huh? I never colluded before this rule was implemented, and taking away this rule isn't going to make everyone feel like they have a liscense to cheat. Verbal collusion is illegal. Table talk, and revealing information about your hole cards doesn't equal collusion. In fact, verbal collusion is by far the least likely way two legitimate cheaters would ever cheat because it brings more attention to what they are doing.
The proper procedure for dealing with collusion was in place long before the existence of this rule. If two players are suspected of collusion, either the players at the table, the dealer, or the floor over seeing it, would investigate. The tournament director would take a look at both hands and either issue a warning, or if it's blatantly obvious, and a repeated offense, penalize the players involved in the collusion.
An example of blatant collusion would look something like this: Blinds 1000-2000 (300 ante) everyone folds to the small blind who has 200,000 in chips. The big blind has another 400 in chips after paying the 2000 big blind. The small blind folds! In this case, the players at the table should be VERY suspicious. The floor should be called. The floor then should take a look at the small blind's cards. It hardly matters in this case as he should put him all in even if he has 7-2 off suit. If the floor now sees a hand like A-10 he can remove any doubt whatsoever. This is pure collusion. If it's a more marginal case, the floor issues a stern warning and lets both players know that if anything like this happens again, they will be penalized. The rest of the players at the table will now have their eyes on any future suspicious behavior between these two players.
Matt also asserted that it's impossible to know the relationships between the various players in a tournament, but in fact, that is completely irrelevant. In the previous example, their relationship doesn't make a difference. They were colluding. Which brings me to my next important point: it is NOT OK for a player to collude with another by telling him he has AA, and then his opponent folds KK preflop. Fixing this awful rule would not change this fact.
If this happens, "Let it go man I have AA for real. Throw it away." Then his opponent folds, the players at the table should call the floor immediately. The floor should take a look at both hands. If it appears as those these two players may be colluding verbally, either a stern warning or a penalty should be given. Once again, these two players would be put on notice, and any future banter would be heavily scrutinized.
**********************************************************************
Years ago I tried to explain the various scenarios where this rule crosses the line, but Matt doesn't want to understand it. There are times where certain table talk could be collusion, however, there are other times where revealing the strength of one's cards is clearly, and undeniably unrelated to collusion. For example:
Phil Hellmuth moves in on the river and it's up to me. Hellmuth isn't saying a word. Then I start yapping, "All in Philly boy? Why so much? Can you beat two jacks? Feels like you are getting greedy here man. I would have called 8000 with jacks in a heart beat but now you have me confused."
So I've revealed that I have jacks. Please TDA, please someone on the TDA please explain to me how this disclosure could in any way, shape or, form, be considered collusion? Can we not see the difference between the innocent table talk here that reveals my hole cards, and a guy on the money bubble saying, "Fold your hand I have aces and I'll show you. I just want to make the money." Can we really not see the distinction here? Surely you can.
**********************************************************************
What We Lose as Players
Part of what makes poker interesting is the ability to look at your opponent and gauge whether or not they look like they are bluffing or not. It is undoubtedly a poker skill. This rule infringes upon a skill that's been used since poker's inception and is one of the sexier aspects to the game, not to mention the viewing public. I'd like to share three examples from my past:
In the WPT Championship years ago Russell Rosenblum raised under the gun and I called on the button with AQ. I was worried he had a strong hand since he raises from early position, but felt like I should at least see a flop. The flop came A-A-6. He made a small bet on the flop and I called. The turn was a 3 and he moved all in.
Immediately, I said, "Ugh I'm so stupid! That's why you aren't supposed to call raises with this stupid hand!" I looked over at Russell and he was giddy, almost giggling at me while I tortured myself. Then I pondered further, and said aloud, "I guess he could have AJ..." I looked over at Russell and he clammed up! He stopped breathing! It finally dawned on him that I had AQ and he was in trouble. He went from giddy thinking he had me beat, to instant panic mode and I could see it. I called and he showed A-T. He hit a 10 on the river but that's besides the point LOL. For those assuming I was going to call anyway, they don't know what poker was like 7 years ago. I had a good stack and didn't have to call here at all. I called solely based on the physical tell that my "shtick" provoked.
Was I colluding? Was I cheating? Was I harming anyone else in the tournament? Of course not, unless you believe in the merits of this TDA rule. Next example:
I've played with Sammy Farha a million times and he talks a lot. In a typical hand, he may look me straight in the face, after betting $40,000 and say, "I've got you beat, throw your hand away." I'd ask, "What do you have Sammy?" and he'd reply, "I have the nuts of course, you know I only play the nuts." It's up to me to decide if Sammy is telling the truth. Are we colluding? Of course not! If he was soft playing me he certainly wouldn't have bet $40,000!
Verbal collusion in a heads up pot NEVER EVER EVER happens on the river after a bet has been made. If two players were colluding, they wouldn't bet all in and then say, "Fold your hand man I have the nuts." If the two players were colluding, they just wouldn't bet.
The most controversial example is a hand I played in the NBC Heads Up vs Jerry Buss. In this event, you are allowed to show your opponent, one card, or both cards any time you want during a hand. Jerry Buss bet the rest of his stack against me and I found myself sitting with two pair. I confirmed with the floor staff that I could show my hand, and then I turned my cards over and looked over at Jerry. He didn't flinch, looked completely comfortable, and even smirked a bit. It wasn't a huge river bet, I had a good lead, but I folded my Queens and Nines because I knew Jerry had it based on how he reacted to seeing my hand. He was at ease. He showed Queens and Tens.
I'm not going to bother advocating for being able to show your cards in tournament poker or Matt will throw a hissy fit, but the point of this example was to show, and explain to people that these river decisions, and what you do to elicit information about your opponents hand is a poker SKILL that's been stripped from a players arsenal to protect against a completely unrelated issue: collusion.
The Compromise
I think it's clear that players have no way of feeling safe saying anything during a hand, so the way the current rule is written, it is precisely a NO TALKING rule. The only way to ensure that a floor man won't enforce this rule based on what you say, is complete silence. Anything you say could possibly be construed as revealing the contents of your hand. A simple. "I didn't like that card," could warrant you a penalty if an argument is made that it reveals to your opponent that you don't have the nuts.
So, while I'd like to see this rule abolished, as it should be, Matt has publicly stated that, "There is nothing Daniel or Phil Hellmuth can say to get this rule changed." The TDA's goals are to standardize rules and protect players, yet in this particular case they are completely ignoring the concerns of the overwhelming majority of poker players.
The best option is to completely eliminate this rule, but I'd accept a compromise that would still make it a penalty to disclose the contents of your hand in some cases, but not in others. I offer an amendment to the rule that would actually give it some clarity, and allow players the freedom to clearly understand what is OK to say and what is not:
"When a player is facing a bet in a heads up pot, he is free to say anything about the contents of his, or his opponents hand."
If you add that amendment to the already existing rule, it would make crystal clear to the players playing in TDA sanctioned events, that verbal collusion will NOT be tolerated, but they will have the freedom to use table talk to help them make important decisions throughout a tournament. Deal?
**********************************************************************
I'd like to point out that I genuinely like and respect Matt Savage. He is a good guy and I agree with him about 92% of the time. I think he created the best tournament structures in the world, and being a structure geek, that's saying a lot. Those sctrucutes are a model for tournaments around the world to copy.
On the radio show I absolutely lost it! I've been trying to explain this to Matt for 5+ years and he has some kind of mental block on this issue, and that frustrated me to the point where I got heated. I genuinely apologize to Matt for the delivery of my points. I certainly didn't handle myself well during that discussion, but that doesn't negate the fact that I'm clearly on the right side of this debate.
The vast majortiy of the poker world agrees with me, both fans and players, and thanks to mediums like twitter, and poker forums, more voices can be heard to support changing this rule and the way it's currently being implemented.
My next blog will cover my two month trip overseas... I'll write that in a few days. I leave you with this video of hands I've played, with table talk, and wonder if ANY of it was "legal" based on this rule: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8k47_lP0M
VERSION TRADUCIDA
DANIEL - DIARIO POKER
La Regla De Table Talk
01 de agosto 2011Durante este evento de las WSOP años el hombre piso principal fue en gran medida la aplicación de una regla TDA que básicamente dice que no están autorizados a revelar el contenido de su mano. La regla TDA ha estado en vigor durante siete años, pero en realidad nunca lo había visto forzada. Es una regla errónea de que no se atrevería a hacer cumplir TD en una situación marginal.El problema con esta regla, es que el TDA no se ponen de acuerdo un grupo de lo que constituye romper esta regla. Hay mucho margen de maniobra demasiado para una persona del piso de gobernar de un modo u otro, que en realidad pone aún más presión sobre el personal de la planta, y hace que no trabajo mucho más difícil. Para probar mi punto, yo estaría dispuesto a apostar una fuerte suma de dinero en lo siguiente: Matt Savage puede escoger cualquier directores del torneo 10 en el mundo para hacer un simple cuestionario. Voy a llegar con 10 escenarios, y si todo el personal de planta de acuerdo en lo que constituye una infracción de la regla, yo pierdo. Si los directores del torneo se les da la misma información, pero no todas en vigor la regla de la misma manera, entonces Houston ... tenemos un problema. Le pregunté a Linda Johnson si quería un pedazo de esta apuesta y se negó elegantemente. Así que el problema aquí es la siguiente: si el TD no se ponen de acuerdo sobre cómo implementar esta regla, ¿cómo puede un jugador de la historia entender lo que está bien decir y qué no es? Ellos juegan en un torneo y dice Matt Savage, "Eso está bien se puede decir que" una semana después jugar en el evento de David Cordero y dice: "Eso es una pena." El objetivo de la TDA ha sido la de estandarizar las reglas, pero han cometido un grave error con esta regla, ya que no se puede estandarizar la forma en que está escrito actualmente, debido a que cada persona del piso regirá la misma situación de manera diferente. Ese punto solo exige que la regla debe ser cambiado, pero no te preocupes, tengo mucho más. En un radio de recientes muestran Matt Savage y yo hablamos de esta regla, y le interrogó en varias situaciones. Se contradijo varias veces y dio marcha atrás en las respuestas a las situaciones originales. Por ejemplo, le envié la siguiente pregunta: ¿Está bien si lo digo en el río cuando un jugador está pensando en llamar, "Usted realmente pensando en llamar con As alto Buena suerte con eso?".Respuesta de Matt "Penalty". Más tarde se dejó voltear y dijo que está bien. Ese mismo día se le preguntó si estaba bien lo siguiente: Un jugador se mueve all-in y un jugador está pensando en llamar, "voy a tomar aquí el hombre que no quiero a la raza. " En este caso, dice que está bien. El problema es que si usted aplica la regla de la forma en que está escrito, esto no debe estar bien porque se ha revelado información sobre su mano. Si usted tenía ases, no sería de carreras, así que ahora tu oponente sabe (si está diciendo la verdad) que no tiene ases. En una pregunta tras otra, las respuestas se vuelven más y más confuso que deja a un jugador con una sola opción: no dicen nada en una mano o usted podría recibir una pena. Frente a una apuesta en el river le dicen que uno de los siguientes: "Sólo puedo vencer a un farol." "Dios, he tenido como 10 parejas de hoy en día grandes y follar todo el tiempo. " "No puedo vencer a un color, sino que podría estar apostando pareja más alta aquí." "Yo no puede vencer a un conjunto, pero tengo un par de dos aplastados." "Yo tenía la mejor mano antes del flop con seguridad. " "Yo tengo la misma pareja que comenzó con." En estos casos, el jugador nunca revela la mano exacta que tienen, pero dan la información de distancia de su rango de manos. ¿Cuál de estas declaraciones justifica una pena?Un jugador está pensando en llamar a usted y usted dice: ".. yo tampoco tienen un conjunto de reyes o de alta Queen es 50/50 debe tirar una moneda", "No pensar en serio Yo apostaría un as en este lugar ¿no? Ha, sé que usted tiene como pareja de doses y están tratando de ser un héroe. Usted muchacho tonto. " "No hijo tonto, usted puede vivir para luchar otro día. Muck que pedazo de basura ". escenario ligeramente diferente, donde un jugador puede persuadir a su oponente ya sea en un call o fold uno. ¿Cuál de estas declaraciones justifica una pena? Esta regla se supone que debe proteger a los jugadores, pero me dio mate a otro escenario en el que me sorprendió su respuesta.Es tan evidentemente injusto: 65 años viejo, novato torneo de ases. Río viene una tarjeta de color y su oponente va all-in El hombre murmura para sí: "¡Oh hombre cada vez que tengo estos ases estúpido que siempre pierden!" Ahora piensa un poco, después hace la llamada. Le pregunté a Matt Savage si se penalizan este tipo y la respuesta de Matt? "Por supuesto, merece la pena." No puedo creer que Matt, o alguien que realmente siente este hombre realmente merece la pena. Está claro que no connivencia, y su comentario, debido a la frustración, es claramente inocente. No puedo creer que Matt realmente sancionar este tipo, pero esta regla por derecho le permitiría hacerlo. ******es revelador de su rango de manos que considera revela el contenido de tu mano? Si es así, está bien? Si está bien, entonces ¿cómo se puede reducir revela su rango a ser? ¿Es correcto decir: "Puedo vencer a la pareja más baja, pero realmente creo que haya configurado la parte superior."¿Es correcto decir: "Puedo vencer a JJ, pero no puede vencer a AA." En el primer caso expuesto es mi rango de entre el par de abajo y set top. En el segundo ejemplo lo que estoy exponiendo el hecho de que he QQ o KK. Matt parece estar de acuerdo con algunas de estas cosas, pero no todos. Si apuesto a que el río y decir, "ya sea con un conjunto de Reyes o Reina de alta", Matt dice que es una pena, sin embargo, todo lo que he hecho se pone de manifiesto mi rango de manos. Por supuesto, yo podría estar mintiendo. En ninguno de los ejemplos mencionados es la colusión nunca un problema. Más del 99% de la conversación en la mesa es totalmente ajeno a la colusión, lo que parece ser la única razón de que el TDA añade esta regla. La mentira más grande que está siendo dicho es que si te deshaces de esta norma, que hacen que la colusión legal. Eso no es verdad.Colusión y el juego suave es ilegal. Fue antes de que esta regla se llevó a cabo, y me imagino que siempre lo será. Si los jugadores en la mesa y / o el personal de la planta sospechosa dos jugadores están en connivencia con cualquiera de las señales, de forma verbal o por descaradamente suave jugando entre sí, absolutamente debe ser sancionado. El otro punto que tratar de hacer es que si se permite hablar de mesa, todo el mundo está de pronto va a empezar a conspirar con los demás. ¿Eh? Nunca se coludieron antes de esta regla se llevó a cabo, y se llevaron esta regla no se va a hacer que todos sientan que tienen un liscense hacer trampa.Colusión verbal es ilegal. Información sobremesa, y revelador de sus cartas ocultas tiene colusión no es igual. De hecho, la colusión verbal es en gran medida la forma menos probable que dos tramposos harían trampa legítimos nunca, ya que atrae más atención a lo que están haciendo. El procedimiento adecuado para hacer frente a la colusión estaba en su lugar mucho antes de la existencia de esta norma. Si dos jugadores son sospechosos de complicidad, ya sea a los jugadores en la mesa, el vendedor, o el suelo más de verla, iba a investigar. El director del torneo que echar un vistazo a las dos manos y, o bien emitir una advertencia, o si es claramente evidente, y la reincidencia, castigar a los actores involucrados en la colusión. Un ejemplo de colusión flagrante sería algo como esto: Persianas 1000-2000 (300 ante) a todos los pliegues de la ciega pequeña, que cuenta con 200.000 en fichas. La ciega grande tiene otros 400 en fichas después de pagar la ciega grande 2000. Los pliegues ciega pequeña! En este caso, los jugadores de la mesa debe ser muy sospechoso. El suelo debe ser llamado. El piso se debe echar un vistazo a las cartas de la ciega pequeña. Poco importa en este caso, como debería ponerlo todo en incluso si tiene 7-2 de distinto palo. Si la palabra ahora ve una mano como A-10 que puede eliminar cualquier duda. Esto es pura complicidad. Si se trata de un caso más marginal, el suelo emite una severa advertencia y permite a ambos jugadores saben que si algo como esto vuelva a suceder, serán penalizados. El resto de los jugadores en la mesa ahora tienen sus ojos puestos en cualquier comportamiento futuro sospechosos entre estos dos jugadores. Matt también afirmó que es imposible conocer las relaciones entre los diferentes actores en un torneo, pero en realidad, que es completamente irrelevante. En el ejemplo anterior, su relación no hace la diferencia. Fueron cómplices. Lo que me lleva a mi siguiente punto importante: NO se está bien para un jugador en connivencia con otra, diciéndole que tiene AA, y luego su oponente pliegues KK preflop. La fijación de esta regla horrible no cambiará este hecho. Si esto sucede, "Let It Go hombre que tiene AA en la realidad. Tire a la basura." Entonces, su oponente se retira, los jugadores en la mesa debe llamar inmediatamente la palabra. El piso debe echar un vistazo a las dos manos. Si parece que los jugadores de los dos puede estar en connivencia verbalmente, ya sea una severa advertencia o una sanción debe ser determinada. Una vez más, estos dos jugadores se pondría sobre aviso, y cualquier bromas futuro sea examinado en gran medida. ***************************** *****************************************Hace años traté de explicar los diferentes escenarios donde esta regla cruza la línea, pero Matt no quiere entenderlo. Hay veces que ciertas conversaciones de sobremesa podría haber colusión, sin embargo, hay otros momentos en los que revela la fuerza de una de las tarjetas es evidente que, sin lugar a dudas no relacionadas con la colusión. Por ejemplo: Phil Hellmuth se mueve en el río y que depende de mí. Hellmuth no dice una palabra. Entonces empiezo a ladrar, "Todos en Filadelfia niño ¿Por qué tanto? ¿Se puede vencer dos tomas? Se siente como si se estuviera aquí el hombre codicioso. Habría llamado 8000 con los gatos en un latido del corazón, pero ahora me has confundido." Así que He revelado que tengo gatos. Por favor, TDA, por favor, que alguien de la TDA por favor que me explique cómo esta revelación podría de alguna manera, forma o forma, se considera la colusión? ¿No podemos ver la diferencia entre las conversaciones de sobremesa inocentes aquí que revela mis cartas, y un chico de la burbuja del dinero diciendo: "doblar la mano que tengo ases y yo te mostraré. Yo sólo quiero ganar dinero." ¿Podemos realmente no ver la diferencia aquí? Seguro que puedes. ********************************************** ************************ lo que perdemos como jugadores Parte de lo que hace al poker interesante es la capacidad de mirar a su oponente y evaluar si o no se ven como si estuvieran mintiendo o no.Sin duda, es una habilidad del póker. Esta regla se infringe una habilidad que se ha utilizado desde el inicio de poker y es uno de los aspectos más atractivos del juego, por no hablar de los espectadores. Me gustaría compartir tres ejemplos de mi pasado: En el Campeonato WPT años atrás Russell Rosenblum planteadas en el marco de la pistola y me llamó en el botón con AQ. Yo estaba preocupado de que tenía una mano fuerte ya que plantea desde las primeras posiciones, pero sentí que debería por lo menos ver el flop. El flop fue AA-6. Él hizo una pequeña apuesta en el flop y yo. El turn fue un 3 y fue all in Inmediatamente, me dijo: "¡Uf que soy tan tonto! Es por eso que se supone que no subidas con esta mano estúpido!" Miré a Russell y fue vertiginoso, casi riéndose de mí mientras me torturaban. Entonces pensé en más allá, y dijo en voz alta: "Supongo que podría haber AJ ..." Miré a Russell y le negó a hablar! Dejó de respirar! Por último, dio cuenta de que tenía AQ y que estaba en problemas. Pasó de pensar que me había mareado ritmo, a modo de pánico instantáneo y lo pude ver. Me llamó y le mostró AT. Bateó un 10 en el río, pero que, aparte de los LOL punto. Para aquellos que asumen que iba a llamar de todos modos, no sé qué de póquer era como hace 7 años. Tuve una buena pila y no tiene que llamar aquí en absoluto. Llamé exclusivamente sobre la base de la física dicen que mi "numerito" provocado. Estaba en connivencia? Se me engaño? Se me daño a nadie más en el torneo? Por supuesto que no, a menos que usted cree en los méritos de esta regla TDA. Siguiente ejemplo: he jugado con Sammy Farha un millón de veces y él habla mucho. En una mano típica, puede mirarme a la cara, después de apostar $ 40,000 y dicen: "Tengo que vencer, tirar tu mano." Me preguntan: "¿Qué tienes que Sammy?" y él respondió: "Tengo las nueces, por supuesto, usted sabe que sólo juegan las tuercas". Le toca a mí decidir si Sammy está diciendo la verdad. ¿Somos cómplices? Por supuesto que no! Si estaba jugando suave desde luego, no me hubiera apostado 40.000 dólares! colusión verbal en un mano a mano olla NUNCA NUNCA NUNCA sucede en el río después de una apuesta ha sido realizada. Si dos jugadores fueron cómplices, no se apuesta all-in y luego decir: "Doble su mano al hombre que tienen la mejor mano." Si los dos jugadores que fueron cómplices, simplemente no se apuesta. El ejemplo más controvertido es una mano que jugué en la NBC hasta Jefes vs Jerry Buss. En este caso, se le permite mostrar su oponente, la tarjeta de una o ambas tarjetas en cualquier momento que desee durante una mano. Jerry Buss apuesta el resto de su stack contra mí y me encontré con dos pares.He confirmado con el personal de planta que pudiera mostrar mi mano, y luego volví cartas y miró a Jerry. Él no se inmutó, parecía completamente a gusto, e incluso sonrió un poco. No fue una apuesta enorme río, que tenía una buena ventaja, pero yo crucé Queens y Nines, porque sabía que Jerry había basado en la forma en que reaccionó a ver a mi lado. Estaba a gusto. Mostró Queens y Diez. Yo no me voy a molestar la defensa de la posibilidad de mostrar sus cartas en torneos de póquer o Matt lanzará un berrinche, pero el objetivo de este ejemplo es mostrar y explicar a la gente que estas decisiones río , y lo que haces para obtener información acerca de tu mano oponentes es una habilidad de póquer que ha sido despojada de un arsenal de jugadores para protegerse contra un problema totalmente ajeno:. connivencia El Compromiso Creo que es claro que los jugadores no tienen manera de sentirse seguro decir nada durante una mano, por lo que la forma en que está escrito el estado actual, es precisamente una regla de no hablar. La única manera de asegurarse de que un hombre piso no cumplir esta norma sobre la base de lo que usted dice, es un completo silencio. Cualquier cosa que diga podría ser interpretado como revela el contenido de tu mano. Una simple. "No me gusta esa carta," podría justificar una sanción si un argumento es que esta declaración revela a su oponente que usted no tiene los frutos secos. Así, mientras que me gustaría ver a esta regla abolida, ya que debe ser, Matt ha declarado públicamente que, "No hay nada Daniel o Phil Hellmuth se puede decir que se esta regla cambió." Los objetivos del TDA son para estandarizar las reglas y proteger a los jugadores, sin embargo, en este caso en particular se ignoran completamente las preocupaciones de la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores de póquer. La mejor opción es eliminar por completo esta regla, pero me gustaría aceptar un compromiso que todavía lo convierten en un castigo a revelar el contenido de su mano, en algunos casos, pero no en otros. Ofrezco una enmienda a la regla de que en realidad le daría un poco de claridad, y permitirá a los jugadores la libertad de entender claramente lo que está bien decir y qué no lo es: "Cuando un jugador se enfrenta a una apuesta en un mano a mano olla, es libre a decir nada sobre el contenido de su o su mano oponentes. " Si se agrega que la modificación a la norma ya existente, tendría muy claro a los jugadores que juegan en los eventos de TDA sancionado, que la colusión verbal no será tolerado, sino que tendrá la libertad de usar sobremesa para ayudarles a tomar decisiones importantes a lo largo de un torneo. Trato? ************************************************ ********************** Me gustaría señalar que yo realmente les gusta y respetan Matt Savage. Él es un buen tipo y estoy de acuerdo con él sobre el 92% del tiempo. Creo que él creó las estructuras mejor torneo del mundo, y ser un friki de la estructura, que es mucho decir. Los sctrucutes son un modelo para los torneos en todo el mundo a copiar. En el programa de radio que absolutamente lo pierdas! He estado tratando de explicar esto a Matt durante 5 años o más y que tiene algún tipo de bloqueo mental en este tema, y eso me frustró hasta el punto que me calienta. Creo sinceramente disculpas a Matt para la entrega de mis puntos. Yo ciertamente no me maneja bien en ese debate, pero eso no niega el hecho de que estoy claramente en el lado derecho de este debate. majortiy La mayoría del mundo del poker está de acuerdo conmigo, tanto aficionados y jugadores, y gracias a medios como Twitter y foros de poker, más se escuchan voces de apoyo a cambio de esta norma y la forma en que está actualmente en ejecución. Mi próximo blog cubrirá mi viaje de dos meses en el extranjero ... Voy a escribir que en pocos días. Os dejo con este video de las manos que he jugado, con sobremesa, y pregunto si alguno de que era "legal" sobre la base de esta regla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8k47_lP0M El ejemplo más controvertido es una mano que jugué en la NBC hasta Jefes vs Jerry Buss. En este caso, se le permite mostrar su oponente, la tarjeta de una o ambas tarjetas en cualquier momento que desee durante una mano. Jerry Buss apuesta el resto de su stack contra mí y me encontré con dos pares. He confirmado con el personal de planta que pudiera mostrar mi mano, y luego volví cartas y miró a Jerry. Él no se inmutó, parecía completamente a gusto, e incluso sonrió un poco. No fue una apuesta enorme río, que tenía una buena ventaja, pero yo crucé Queens y Nines, porque sabía que Jerry había basado en la forma en que reaccionó a ver a mi lado. Estaba a gusto. Mostró Queens y Diez. Yo no me voy a molestar la defensa de la posibilidad de mostrar sus cartas en torneos de póquer o Matt lanzará un berrinche, pero el objetivo de este ejemplo es mostrar y explicar a la gente que estas decisiones río , y lo que haces para obtener información acerca de tu mano oponentes es una habilidad de póquer que ha sido despojada de un arsenal de jugadores para protegerse contra un problema totalmente ajeno:. connivencia El Compromiso Creo que es claro que los jugadores no tienen manera de sentirse seguro decir nada durante una mano, por lo que la forma en que está escrito el estado actual, es precisamente una regla de no hablar. La única manera de asegurarse de que un hombre piso no cumplir esta norma sobre la base de lo que usted dice, es un completo silencio. Cualquier cosa que diga podría ser interpretado como revela el contenido de tu mano. Una simple. "No me gusta esa carta," podría justificar una sanción si un argumento es que esta declaración revela a su oponente que usted no tiene los frutos secos. Así, mientras que me gustaría ver a esta regla abolida, ya que debe ser, Matt ha declarado públicamente que, "No hay nada Daniel o Phil Hellmuth se puede decir que se esta regla cambió." Los objetivos del TDA son para estandarizar las reglas y proteger a los jugadores, sin embargo, en este caso en particular se ignoran completamente las preocupaciones de la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores de póquer. La mejor opción es eliminar por completo esta regla, pero me gustaría aceptar un compromiso que todavía lo convierten en un castigo a revelar el contenido de su mano, en algunos casos, pero no en otros. Ofrezco una enmienda a la regla de que en realidad le daría un poco de claridad, y permitirá a los jugadores la libertad de entender claramente lo que está bien decir y qué no lo es: "Cuando un jugador se enfrenta a una apuesta en un mano a mano olla, es libre a decir nada sobre el contenido de su o su mano oponentes. " Si se agrega que la modificación a la norma ya existente, tendría muy claro a los jugadores que juegan en los eventos de TDA sancionado, que la colusión verbal no será tolerado, sino que tendrá la libertad de usar sobremesa para ayudarles a tomar decisiones importantes a lo largo de un torneo. Trato? ************************************************ ********************** Me gustaría señalar que yo realmente les gusta y respetan a Matt Savage. Él es un buen tipo y estoy de acuerdo con él sobre el 92% del tiempo. Creo que él creó las estructuras mejor torneo del mundo, y ser un friki de la estructura, que es mucho decir. Los sctrucutes son un modelo para los torneos en todo el mundo a copiar. En el programa de radio que absolutamente lo pierdas! He estado tratando de explicar esto a Matt durante 5 años o más y que tiene algún tipo de bloqueo mental en este tema, y eso me frustró hasta el punto que me calienta. Creo sinceramente disculpas a Matt para la entrega de mis puntos. Yo ciertamente no me maneja bien en ese debate, pero eso no niega el hecho de que estoy claramente en el lado derecho de este debate. majortiy La mayoría del mundo del poker está de acuerdo conmigo, tanto aficionados y jugadores, y gracias a medios como Twitter y foros de poker, más se escuchan voces de apoyo a cambio de esta norma y la forma en que está actualmente en ejecución. Mi próximo blog cubrirá mi viaje de dos meses en el extranjero ... Voy a escribir que en pocos días. Os dejo con este video de las manos que he jugado, con sobremesa, y pregunto si alguno de que era "legal" sobre la base de esta regla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8k47_lP0M El ejemplo más controvertido es una mano que jugué en la NBC hasta Jefes vs Jerry Buss. En este caso, se le permite mostrar su oponente, la tarjeta de una o ambas tarjetas en cualquier momento que desee durante una mano. Jerry Buss apuesta el resto de su stack contra mí y me encontré con dos pares. He confirmado con el personal de planta que pudiera mostrar mi mano, y luego volví cartas y miró a Jerry. Él no se inmutó, parecía completamente a gusto, e incluso sonrió un poco. No fue una apuesta enorme río, que tenía una buena ventaja, pero yo crucé Queens y Nines, porque sabía que Jerry había basado en la forma en que reaccionó a ver a mi lado. Estaba a gusto. Mostró Queens y Diez. Yo no me voy a molestar la defensa de la posibilidad de mostrar sus cartas en torneos de póquer o Matt lanzará un berrinche, pero el objetivo de este ejemplo es mostrar y explicar a la gente que estas decisiones río , y lo que haces para obtener información acerca de tu mano oponentes es una habilidad de póquer que ha sido despojada de un arsenal de jugadores para protegerse contra un problema totalmente ajeno:. connivencia El Compromiso Creo que es claro que los jugadores no tienen manera de sentirse seguro decir nada durante una mano, por lo que la forma en que está escrito el estado actual, es precisamente una regla de no hablar. La única manera de asegurarse de que un hombre piso no cumplir esta norma sobre la base de lo que usted dice, es un completo silencio. Cualquier cosa que diga podría ser interpretado como revela el contenido de tu mano. Una simple. "No me gusta esa carta," podría justificar una sanción si un argumento es que esta declaración revela a su oponente que usted no tiene los frutos secos. Así, mientras que me gustaría ver a esta regla abolida, ya que debe ser, Matt ha declarado públicamente que, "No hay nada Daniel o Phil Hellmuth se puede decir que se esta regla cambió." Los objetivos del TDA son para estandarizar las reglas y proteger a los jugadores, sin embargo, en este caso en particular se ignoran completamente las preocupaciones de la inmensa mayoría de los jugadores de póquer. La mejor opción es eliminar por completo esta regla, pero me gustaría aceptar un compromiso que todavía lo convierten en un castigo a revelar el contenido de su mano, en algunos casos, pero no en otros. Ofrezco una enmienda a la regla de que en realidad le daría un poco de claridad, y permitirá a los jugadores la libertad de entender claramente lo que está bien decir y qué no lo es: "Cuando un jugador se enfrenta a una apuesta en un mano a mano olla, es libre a decir nada sobre el contenido de su o su mano oponentes. " Si se agrega que la modificación a la norma ya existente, tendría muy claro a los jugadores que juegan en los eventos de TDA sancionado, que la colusión verbal no será tolerado, sino que tendrá la libertad de usar sobremesa para ayudarles a tomar decisiones importantes a lo largo de un torneo. Trato?************************************************ ********************** Me gustaría señalar que yo realmente les gusta y respetan Matt Savage. Él es un buen tipo y estoy de acuerdo con él sobre el 92% del tiempo. Creo que él creó las estructuras mejor torneo del mundo, y ser un friki de la estructura, que es mucho decir. Los sctrucutes son un modelo para los torneos en todo el mundo a copiar. En el programa de radio que absolutamente lo pierdas! He estado tratando de explicar esto a Matt durante 5 años o más y que tiene algún tipo de bloqueo mental en este tema, y eso me frustró hasta el punto que me calienta. Creo sinceramente disculpas a Matt para la entrega de mis puntos.Yo ciertamente no me maneja bien en ese debate, pero eso no niega el hecho de que estoy claramente en el lado derecho de este debate. majortiy La mayoría del mundo del poker está de acuerdo conmigo, tanto aficionados y jugadores, y gracias a medios como Twitter y foros de poker, más se escuchan voces de apoyo a cambio de esta norma y la forma en que está actualmente en ejecución. Mi próximo blog cubrirá mi viaje de dos meses en el extranjero ... Voy a escribir que en pocos días. Os dejo con este video de las manos que he jugado, con sobremesa, y pregunto si alguno de que era "legal" sobre la base de esta regla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8k47_lP0M
