Recently, I've played in three separate televised events that allow you to show your opponent your cards if you are in a heads-up pot:
High Stakes Poker, Poker After Dark, and the
NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Unfortunately, tournament directors across this country took it upon themselves to change the rules of poker without there being any push from the players to do so.
The rule became a standard thanks to another rule, "Show One Show All," that prohibited players from showing a neighbor their cards without showing the rest of the table what they had. That is a good rule with a solid purpose, and I think all players would agree with that.
Somehow, it seems that this rule was confused by tournament directors (TDs) and translated into showing one of your holecards to the table, meaning that you must show both holecards if a player at the table asks. I guess this is supposed to stop players from taunting or needling each other. Since when did providing totally free information become a disadvantage to the player receiving the information? Someday, maybe one of these TDs can explain that one to me.
Under Jack McClelland's rule during Bellagio tournaments, he's taken this rule to the extreme. Now, in a Jack McClelland-run tournament, if you show one card to the table after winning a pot, the dealer must turn over both cards. Aside from discouraging players to give away free information and slowing down the game, I don't see why this rule needs to be in place.
This rule is an example of over-officiating when the need for it just isn't there. Whom exactly does this rule protect? It's not a TD's responsibility to make sure that a player's feelings don't get hurt if he folds to a big bet and his opponent shows him the 2
!
Showing cards is a psychological weapon that should be at the disposal of every poker player in a heads-up pot, whether it's a tournament or a cash game. Recently, I thoroughly enjoyed taking part in the psychological game of showing a card for a desired purpose. Sometimes it worked, and other times it backfired, like the following hand against Gus Hansen on
Poker After Dark:
I limped in from the button with A-A. Gus called from the small blind and we took the flop threehanded after Tuan Le checked from the big blind. The flop came 8
7
2
and both players checked to me. I bet, and Gus check-raised me. After Tuan folded, I went all in and Gus started thinking through the hand. At this point, I had him beat and wanted him to call, but was worried that he may fold. I told him, "I'll tell you what, I'll show you one card, you can pick it."
Gus picked the card on the right (it wouldn't have mattered, obviously, as both of my cards were the same). I turned up my ace and Gus said, "Wow, that was one of the hands I was worried about." Gus then showed me an ace! At this point, I realized that I had goofed up by showing the card, as he must have either A-8 or A-7. Gus finally made an excellent laydown and the rest of the players were a little shocked and discussed it at length.
Howard Lederer was also at the table, and we talked about poker past versus poker present in regard to this rule. He emphatically agreed with my stance, as have Phil Hellmuth and, frankly, just about every other poker player I've ever spoken to.
Howard said something to the effect of, "Poker is a game of deception and misinformation, and showing cards has always been a tool that a player could use to try to trick his opponents into making bad decisions. How can you take a player's right to show his cards away from him?"
This rule upsets me, obviously, but probably the biggest reason that it upsets me is that I have never - and I mean never - heard a tournament director give me even one solid reason for this rule being a necessity. Personally, I think they are being very shortsighted on this issue.
Poker has become a form of entertainment, and it's important to keep it fresh and entertaining for the viewers. Eventually, they really will get bored of watching a highlight show of a final table with all-in race after all-in race. Is there anyone out there who thinks showing holecards in the middle or even the end of a hand in a heads-up pot is uninteresting? Before you answer that, let me give you another example of a hand I played against Phil Hellmuth on
Poker After Dark:
Phil raised my blind from the button and I defended with 10
X. The flop came J
7
5
♣. I bet and Phil called. The turn card was the 3♦ and I bet out again. Phil started thinking about what I might have, and the longer he thought, the more I believed his hand wasn't too strong. I decided to show him the 10
! Now, that means the best hand I could have was J-10, or maybe I had a hand like the A
10
. Either way, Phil now knew that I couldn't have a very strong hand, but would he have the guts to raise me? If I had the J-10, would I have the guts to call him? What do you think I had?
Not sold yet on the potential for entertaining televised poker if you allow players to show holecards? OK, here's one last one from High Stakes Poker season four. Three players called a $1,200 straddle and I called, as well. From the small blind, Sammy Farha made it $7,000 more, and I was the only caller.
The flop came 9
9
2
and Sammy bet $15,000. I said, "Hold on a minute, let me check my holecards; I think I might have the 10
9
." Then, I went to squeeze my cards and flipped over the 10
. Sammy thought I was folding until I raised him $15,000 more! He finally folded and I raked in the pot. Again, what do you think I had? 10-10? 10
9
? Or, was it a stone-cold bluff?
It's time to take another look at some of the tournament rules that have become standard in the U.S. today and ask ourselves the following questions: What is the purpose of this rule and is it necessary? Does it take anything away from the skill factor?
(Answers to what I had: Against Hellmuth, I had the J
10
, and against Farha, I had the Q
10
).
