The Appearance of Poker Impropriety

Last week I had a work conference in Poker Mecca, which meant I had a free ticket to Vegas. In between seminar sessions and fabulous dinners, I managed a few sessions of poker. As a firm believer in dancing with the one that brung ya, I played mostly at Wynn and Mirage, and both poker rooms rewarded me with fun and profit. However, I couldn't resist the siren song of a session of $4/$8 Omaha8 at Venetian, so I headed over for a Friday night marathon session of degeneracy with a half kill.

The session was entertaining, as only a Vegas poker table can be. I met a young guy from Virginia who had graduated from Grinnell College in Iowa "because of the hippies"; he's currently playing poker for a living in Vegas, and talked openly of getting baked later that night (standard for a Grinnell alum). There were a couple of crusty old gents, and a couple of funny younger gals. Generally speaking, it was a pretty fun and profitable table.

Then, the drunk yahoo sat down. His red face indicated he either had golfed too long in the Vegas sun, or imbibed a dozen too many Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters. Yahoo sat down with with three racks of white ($300), but immediately began spewing them to the table as he ordered additional beverages. Yahoo was most certainly not a good loser, channeling his inner whiner as his questionable play never seemed to come up a winner. The inevitable race between broke and belligerent was well underway. Yahoo's night almost certainly would not end well.

Leticia rotated in to deal our game, and proved to be both friendly and competent (consistent with many other sessions she has dealt to me on prior trips). As something of a specialty game, limit Omaha8 tends to draw a lot of regular players—even in a tourist poker room like the Venetian—and our table was no exception. By chance, most of the regulars were on the opposite end of the table from where Yahoo and I were sitting; the two of us were in Seats 2 and 3, respectively, while the regulars were all in Seats 7 through 10. Leticia obviously knew the regular players and engaged in some friendly chatter with a couple of them. It was all innocuous stuff—updates on family, recent poker sessions, weekend plans, etc. Just another friendly dealer keeping a game moving and entertaining.

That's when Yahoo threw a monkey wrench into the game. Leticia and Seat 10 were chatting as she dealt a new game. Seat 10 was the big blind, and the action went as follows:

• Yahoo was UTG, called $4.
• I called $4.
• Folds to the Button, who raises to $8.
• Small blind folded.
• Action paused on Seat 10 (the big blind).
• Yahoo, not paying attention, calls $8.
• Me, not paying attention and seeing Yahoo's call, calls $8 myself.

At this point, Leticia firmly but politely said, "Time. Action is back here, guys," and gestured to Seat 10. Just another standard amateur hour moment at the poker table.

That's when Yahoo went into total meltdown mode. "What the hell? How can he [Seat 10] have cards? His hand is dead. Kill his hand and let's play!" Leticia patiently tried to explain that the action had paused at Seat 10, and that Yahoo and I had acted out of turn. Yahoo was having none of that explanation: "The rest of us are at $8, so his [Seat 10's] hand is dead. He can't be at $4! That's just wrong." Leticia tried again to explain the action, but Yahoo was crossing from contentious well into belligerent. Leticia discretely pressed the Bravo system button to call a floor, and said, "Let's get a floor ruling." Yahoo angrily muttered, "Yeah, let's get this fixed now!"

The floor arrived in just a few seconds. She listened to Leticia explain the action and listened patiently to Yahoo explain his theory as to why Seat 10's hand should be killed. Yahoo finished his rambling by blurting out, "She [the dealer] is just helping out her friend. She's been talking to him all night, and now she's lying for him." The floor calmly explained that the action was on Seat 10. Yahoo continued to mutter his disagreement with the ruling, repeatedly claiming that Leticia was somehow colluding with Seat 10. Seat 10 finally folded, at which point Yahoo raised to $12. Predictably, Yahoo lost that pot, and busted out and left the table still angrily muttering about Leticia within the next few hands.

The dealer and the floor handled this rather bizarre situation professionally, calmly, and quickly. And, as our esteemed President might say, "Let me be clear, I don't think the dealer acted improperly, nor did she show favoritism toward any of the players she knew. She was just being friendly." However, a situation like this illustrates the slippery slope poker dealers must tread between being friendly toward players they know, and going too far and creating the appearance of favoritism toward those players.

Two years ago, I was playing at Aria when I was involved in a situation where a dealer's apparent friendship made me doubt her objectivity. As I described the situation on All Vegas Poker:

A female dealer was having a very animated and lengthy conversation with a player at the table who was also a dealer and at least a casual friend. I get AK in EP, raise, and get called by the button and also her buddy in the big blind. Flop is Ace high with a couple os small suited cards. Buddy checks, and I take some chips and begin cutting them next to the rail as I debated the amount of the raise. Next thing I know, dealer says, "checks around" and begins to burn and turn. I immediately say, "wait, I haven't acted." Dealer says, " you checked" and makes a gesture with all five fingers in a claw shape tapping the table. Now, my only hand on the table always had chips, was by the rail, and never tapped anything. I said, "I was cutting chips." Dealer's buddy piped up, "that was an obvious check," but other guy in the hand said he didn't know, and nobody else at table saw a check. Buddy pipes up again, "you checked" and dealer backed her buddy. I was as furious as I can remember being at a poker table, but I knew it was pointless to ask for a floor.

Poker dealers are going to get to know regular players; it's inevitable. Poker dealers, particularly the more outgoing ones, are even likely to get to know regular players socially. Heck, back when I played at the Meadows ATM four nights a week, I got to know many of the dealers well, and played in dealer home games, performed some pro bono legal work for a few of them, and even was invited to a couple of graduation parties for dealers' kids. So no player should be surprised that dealers may know and even be friends with players.

Problems obviously can arise when a dealer is called on to make a ruling involving a friend. Even if the dealer acts with utmost professionalism in making a ruling, the appearance of favoritism can taint the entire process from the perspective of other players. In many situations, calling a floor is of limited value in defusing the situation, as the dealer's rendition of events will often be the determining factor in how the floor rules. The problem of the appearance of impropriety can extend to situations where a floor or supervisor gives preferential treatment to a friend with respect to getting seated ahead of the list, or getting a table change to a juicy game. Or, what about situations where a poker tournament director has dinner or a couple of drinks with several elite poker players the night before a major tournament where the director is called on to rule on a situation involving one of those players?

Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line. Despite poker's widespread popularity, live action poker actually operates within a series of rather small, insular communities, even in tourist resorts like Vegas. Requiring dealers or floors to never interact professionally with players they know socially would be nearly impossible to enforce, and frankly would be overly restrictive and detrimental to the game. On the other hand, if dealers or floors regularly socialize with players away from the poker tables, then reasonable questions can be raised as to whether those dealers and floors are able to be objective when dealing with their friends on a professional level. Even if the dealers or floors go out of their way to be objective, players who feel they were on the wrong end of a biased ruling will leave the poker room with a bad taste in their mouth and a story of how they were jobbed by collusion to share with any friend or poker player they might encounter.

I really don't have any insightful solutions to offer. All I can say is that the appearance of impropriety is a recurrent problem that poker rooms need to find a way to address.

D'Bag O' the Day (v. 3.1)—Splashing Zee Pot at Aria

"In my club, I will splash the pot whenever the fuck I please."

~Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), in Rounders

As my faithful readers are aware, I enjoy playing a little Pot Limit Gamboool (PLG) from time to time. In Vegas, the poker rooms at Aria and Venetian have been spreading fairly regular low stakes PLG games the past year and half or so, while the Pokerati half-n-half NLHE/PLG game has been rotating around several Vegas locales for at least three years (home base has been at the Palms for the past year or so). [FN1] During that time, I've managed some big scores (e.g., hitting both ends of a straight flush draw while running it twice for a monsterpotten at Venetian during IMOP-VI), and some memorable flameouts (e.g., getting felted by Orel Hersheiser's quad ducks at Aria during WPBT 2011). The PLG deities giveth, the PLG deities taketh away, praise be the PLG deities.

This past December I was in Vegas for the WPBT (for those of you unfamiliar with the WPBT, my 2010 tournament summary and trip report, and my 2011 food porn report should give you some flavor). On my last evening, after most of the WPBT crew had departed, I was playing a session of PLG at Aria. The game was playing deep and aggressive, so I played pretty tight and walked away with a triple up after about a three hour session. But the most interesting dynamics at the table didn't involve me at all.

When I sat down at the game, it took less than an orbit to figure out that three young guns were engaged in a full-fledged cock-measuring war (and not in the entertaining gay porn way). Each of the guys had over a thousand dollars behind, and there was a lot of jawing, taunting, and generalized verbal warfare. One of the guys was a know-it-all expert who critiqued every hand, refused to run it twice, and never acknowledged drawing out while always bitching about losing to a draw. Another of the guys was an uber-aggressive hoodie-n-shades player, who loved to mix it up and jaw with his opponents. Expert had gone on a mini-rush to build his stack to over $2,500, while Hoodie had a healthy stack over $1,000. Expert and Hoodie sparred back and forth, but generally avoided each other and made money by bullying the weaker players at the table.

Until "The Hand". It was probably inevitable that Expert and Hoodie would have an epic clash, given their styles of play. Still, one has to acknowledge the PLG deities have a pretty sick sense of humor. The Hand started innocuously enough. Preflop, action limped to Hoodie who raised the pot. There was a caller to Expert on the button, who reraised the pot (to ~$75 total); only Hoodie called. At this point, I felt Hoodie had a good hand, maybe a rundown hand like J-T-9-8 double suited, or a decent pair with straight and flush cards, like Q-Q-J-T with a suit. Expert could easily have been on a position steal, but he likely had a decent fallback hand, with some kind of bigger pair with straight or flush cards.

The flop came out Ks-Jd-5s. Hoodie checked, Expert bet pot (~$225), Hoodie called. So far, pretty standard. Expert might have anything from a set to pure air, while Hoodie might have straight and/or flush draws, maybe with top pair.

The turn brought the Th. Hoodie checked, Expert bet $400, and Hoodie moved all-in for roughly $600 more. Expert thought, groaned, and called. Hoodie asked if Expert wanted to run it twice. Expert waved his hand dismissively and barked, "I only run it once." Hoodie nodded, picked two cards out of his hand, and tabled them:

AsQs ... giving Hoodie the nut straight and nut flush redraw. Expert started carping about how Hoodie had "gotten so f@#$ing lucky," showing his KdKhXdXh for top set. Hoodie pointed out he had a big draw, which Expert dismissed. Expert said to the dealer, "Come on, give me some justice! Pair the f@#$ing board!"

And so the dealer did:  Jh

"Justice!" shouted Expert.

"Quads," muttered Hoodie, rolling over his other two cards: JsJc

Expert stared at the board, looking like his puppy or his nuts had been kicked. The dealer counted down Hoodie's stack, and calmly stated, "$985 more." Expert muttered something profane under his breath, so the dealer began to reach forward to Expert's stacks to pull out the requisite chips. Expert snapped, "Don't touch my chips! I'll handle it!"

Then Expert deliberately counted out $85, breaking it down. He picked up the chips and flicked them forward into the pot, "splashing the pot". As the dealer scrambled to pull the chips out to verify the amount, Expert deliberately slid out a series of nine stacks of twenty $5 chips each. Instead of letting the dealer verify the stack size and slide the stacks to Hoodie, Expert deliberately picked up each stack and lobbed each of them forward into the pot, one at a time. Once Expert's tantrum was over, the dealer silently re-stacked the entire pot, re-worked all four streets of betting, verified the pot size, and slid the chips to Hoodie.

In a bit of poker justice, Expert went on super monkey tilt and burned through his remaining stack of about $1,000, plus another $3,000 in the next hour.

Moral of the story—Don't splash zee pot.



How could I not include the "splash zee pot" scene from Rounders?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FN1]  The Venetian PLG game has $1/$2 blinds, which are counted as $5 for pot-calculation purposes, with a $5 bring-in (if you call preflop, it's $5; first raise without a limp is to $15). The Aria PLG game has $1/$3 blinds, which are counted as $3 for preflop action, with post-flop action in $5 increments (first raise without a limp is to $12). The Aria game plays a bit smaller if there is a lot of preflop action, otherwise the games play pretty much the same. Buy-ins are $200-$500 at Aria, $200-$1,000 at Venetian. Overall, the skill level is a bit tougher at Venetian, but there are plenty of relatively novice players at both games. Dealers at both rooms generally are pretty knowledgeable and skilled at handling a pot limit game.

Both rooms also spread $2/$5 PLG on a fairly regular basis. However, the skill level and pot sizes in those games are not for the faint of heart or low of bankroll. As a rule of thumb, PLG plays twice as big as a NLHE game of the same blind structure. So, to play $1/$3 PLG, you should have a bankroll at least big enough to play $2/$5 NLHE. To play $2/$5 PLG, you should have a bankroll big enough to handle the swings at $5/$10 NLHE.

Always Use Protection

A few months ago, I stumbled on a relatively new poker blog: Rob's Vegas & Poker Blog. Rob, who lives in Southern California but often travels to Vegas to play poker [FN1], has recently been transitioning from playing predominately low limit Hold 'Em to jumping on the roller coaster of no limit Hold 'Em. Rob's posts are a fun and interesting window on the Vegas poker scene, and definitely worth adding to your feed reader of choice.

Rob recently posted about the importance of protecting your cards during play, to prevent them from being accidentally mucked by the dealer or fouled by another player's mucked cards. [FN2]  The basic premise of his post—be smart and keep a chip or other trinket on top of your cards—is sound advice. We've all seen live hands accidentally mucked by a dealer in the course of play (usually in the two seats next to the dealer, but occasionally in the middle seats facing the dealer, particularly when a player with a large stack holds his cards closer to the middle of the table than is usual). Of course a good dealer is going to try to prevent this problem from happening, but players need to do what they can to protect their hand.

I digress for a moment to share my favorite story in this genre. This hilarity ensued several years ago at Prairie Meadows Racetrack, Casino, & ATM, back in the dark ages when only limit hold 'em was spread. I was sitting in the "big game"—$4/$8—where the stacks were deep and the action was juicy. One obnoxious guy was in Seat 10, playing a very loose and aggressive style. On this hand, he was in the big blind, and called a raise preflop, along with most of the table. Seat 10 then called a bet and a raise on a draw-heavy flop, along with several other players. The turn filled both straight and flush draws (and a straight flush draw as well). Seat 10 checked, there were a bet and a raise, and Seat 10 three-bet. By the time action got back to Seat 10, there had been another raise. Seat 9 had been in the action to this point, but folded to the extra raises. The dealer swept in Seat 9's cards, Seat 10 capped the betting, and was called by two players across the table. The river paired the board, and the three remaining players quickly capped the betting. The other two players each had full houses, but Seat 10 loudly proclaimed, "I have a straight flush!" and reached down to turn over ... nothing. Seat 10's cards were gone, accidentally mucked by the dealer on the turn when he swept in Seat 9's cards while watching the betting action on the opposite side of the table. Seat 10 went ballistic. The floor ruled his hand was dead. Seat 10 dug his cards out of the muck, but the ruling stood. Seat 10 then went on super monkey tilt and burned through over $1000 in the next couple of hours (which is a pretty incredible accomplishment in a $4/$8 limit game).

In Rob's post, he relates a story of a dealer who kept trying to persuade a player to protect his cards with a chip, but the player wouldn't listen and in fact seemed annoyed by the dealer's comments. This reaction seemed to bother the dealer. My advice to the dealer—warn the player once, then move along to dealing the game. If the player doesn't want to listen, then the player has assumed the risk of having his hand killed accidentally. Trust me, this is one of those poker rules many poker players learn the hard way, but they should only have to learn it once.

Rob also fesses up to thinking about teaching the yahoo player a lesson by intentionally mucking his cards into the yahoo's unprotected hand. Rob resisted the temptation, but shared a story where another player wasn't so kind. To sum up, an obnoxious player went all-in preflop without looking at his cards, and without protecting his cards. Then, someone decided to teach the yahoo a lesson:

A player from the corner folded, and “accidentally” aimed very badly with his mucked cards, and instead of heading toward the dealer, they landed right on top of the preflop raiser’s cards, which he hadn’t looked at yet! Since they were unprotected and now mixed in the folded cards from the player on the corner, Brent had no choice but to pick up his cards and declare his hand dead. But the bet was still there and part of the pot. I don’t remember if someone had already called his shove or someone did subsequently to claim an easy big pot (assuming he had the idiot covered), but the guy’s entire stack was part of a pot that he couldn’t possibly win.

What the mucking player did in this case is probably a violation of poker etiquette; as noted in Robert's Rules of Poker (by Bob Ciaffone), players mucking their cards have responsibilities to the rest of the table:

SECTION 1—PROPER BEHAVIOR

POKER ETIQUETTE

The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

....

Deliberately discarding hands away from the muck. Cards should be released in a low line of flight, at a moderate rate of speed (not at the dealer's hands or chip-rack).

But even if the mucking player didn't technically violate any rule of poker, he did violate a rather basic principle of general etiquette—never be a jerk. Look, we all run into players we find to be obnoxious yahoos. But it is not our responsibility as players to be vigilantes enforcing our own ideas of poker justice. Sure, the yahoo pushing all-in without protecting his hand probably deserved to be taught a lesson. But it is not appropriate for another player to intentionally foul his hand just to make a point. If we wink and smile at the mucking player's actions here, where do we draw the line? Would it be acceptable to grab another player's cards and muck them just because they slow-rolled you earlier? Would it be OK to mix your cards into another player's cards, killing his hand simply because he always takes a long time to make decisions? Call me crazy, but I think there is an implicit corollary to the the various rules governing how players handle their own cards—"Players may not intentionally mess with another player's hand."

As poker players, we owe it to each other to play not only within the technical letter of the rules, but also within the spirit of the rules. Players who try to take unfair advantage of a rule technicality are rightly derided as angleshooters. Players who intentionally do something to attempt to kill an otherwise live hand are angleshooters of the lowest order. In this case, if the table yahoo was out of line, there are rules and procedures that can keep him in line. If the yahoo doesn't want to protect his cards, it's only a matter of time before fate intervenes and teaches him an expensive lesson. There's simply no good reason for a player to intentionally cause a fouled hand. Doing so is more of a jerk move than anything the table yahoo might have done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1]  CORRECTION (2 April 2012):  Originally posted stating Rob was a Vegas resident, corrected per Rob's comment below.

[FN2] Robert's Rules of Poker (by Bob Ciaffone) states the generally accepted rule as:

SECTION 3—GENERAL POKER RULES

IRREGULARITIES
....
2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.

Another Silly Rule at the Horseshoe

"There are some remedies worse than the disease."

~Publius Syrus, "Maxim 301"

Last week, I had to travel to Omaha to take an examination under oath (basically a deposition in an insurance claim investigation, usually when fraud is suspected). When the insured failed to show (not uncommon, as it is easier to drop a bogus claim than risk legal trouble from lying under oath), I found myself with a couple of hours to kill. As often happens, my car dropped me off at the Horseshoe.

It was mid-afternoon on a Monday, so there were only two $1/$3 NLHE games running, with a long list. After a 30-minute wait, they finally opened a new game, giving me a little less than two hours of playing time. I managed to make the most of it, racking up for $525 profit, mostly from a young gun running two all-in bluffs into my made straights. Thank you, come again!

Although my card-playing was pretty boring, the Horseshoe's idiosyncratic rules once again caused some commotion. I've previously written (see HERE and HERE) about the Shoe's silly betting line and all-in rules; to their credit, the Shoe's managers have now abandoned those rules. The Shoe no longer requires all-in hands to be shown in cash games, which brings the room in line with every other poker room I've played in, and encourages looser all-in bets and calls (always good for the game). The Shoe also now disregards the betting line on the table, which is now merely advisory (though that rule change leads to its own set of problems, particularly when chips are cut in front of cards but behind the line.).

The Shoe's poker room management jealously guards its place in the wacky poker rule pantheon, and only dropped those two quirky rules because they adopted an even more mischief-inducing rule, to wit:

At showdown, a player must table both cards face up. If a player attempting to table his cards has one or both cards land on the table face down, the player's hand is dead, even if the player's intent was to table his hand, and even if the cards do not touch the muck pile.

Of course, this rule isn't posted anywhere, so I am paraphrasing the rule as explained to me by several dealers and regular players throughout my session. But during the course of play, the rule was enforced several times, usually at the insistence of the obvious regulars in the game. In two instances, the rule nearly caused a serious problem.

In the first instance, a large pot developed between three players, with a river Jack putting two Jacks on a rather draw-heavy board. After the river went check-check-check, a lady rolled over a Jack and said, "All I've got is trip Jacks." The next player mucked, but the last player loudly insisted the lady's hand was dead because both cards were not tabled face up. The dealer told the player to roll his hand, which was a busted draw, and the dealer then awarded the pot to the lady, but with a stern warning that any future infractions would result in her hand being ruled dead.

In the second hand, the player in the 8 seat (immediately to my right), was in late position. The flop was 5-5-7 with two of a suit. It checked to the 8 seat, who bet and was called in two spots. The turn brought a 6. Again the action checked to the 8 seat, who again bet and was again called in two spots. The river brought the Ace of the flush draw suit. An early position player bet big, next player folded, and the 8 seat thought and then called. The early position player showed AK for two pair. The 8 seat went to table his cards in front of him (well clear of the muck), and the cards somehow caught on his fingers, over-rotated, landed on their edges, then flipped over face down. The other player immediately declared, "That's a dead hand!" The 8 seat reached out and rolled over K5 for flopped trips, which would have been the winning hand. The dealer declared the hand dead, but the 8 seat protested. The dealer called the floor, and the dealer described what had occurred. The 8 seat stated he had been trying to table his hand, and that since he had bet his trips on two streets and called the river, there was no way he had been trying to fold. The floor asked the dealer if the 8 seat had been trying to table his cards; the dealer (to his credit) stated it looked like the 8 seat had been trying to table his hand. The floor then ruled that the hand was live, but cautioned the 8 seat that his ruling was an exception to the usual rule, and that his hand normally would have been ruled dead.

When I asked the table about the rule, several regulars and two dealers told me that the rule had been implemented "to prevent angle-shooting". Now I'm clearly in favor of encouraging players to follow proper showdown protocols, but this rule seems to cause more problems than it solves. First, this rule appears to be unique to the Shoe, and involves a rather important part of play (the showdown). Players who are not regulars in the room can be taken advantage of by regular players familiar with the rule. Second, and to my mind more important, the rule is excessively punitive, resulting in what is generally a winning hand being declared dead. Poker rooms should be in the business of awarding pots to players who hold the strongest hand on hands that go to a showdown, not looking for reasons to rule a hand dead on a technicality. Finally, there are already plenty of rules regarding various showdown angle shots. If a player somehow causes a problem by only tabling one card at showdown, or by fake-mucking then showing a hand, enforce the rules already on the books and handle the situation accordingly.

The Shoe's new showdown rule is like curing a hangnail by amputating the finger. It's effective, but makes it tough to do chip tricks.

Rube Goldberg Showdowns

Dr. Evil:  All right guard, begin the unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism.

[guard starts dipping mechanism]

Dr. Evil:  Close the tank!

Scott Evil:  Wait, aren't you even going to watch them? They could get away!

Dr. Evil:  No no no, I'm going to leave them alone and not actually witness them dying. I'm just gonna assume it all went to plan. What?

Scott Evil:   I have a gun, in my room, you give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!

Dr. Evil:  Scott, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't.

~Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

Forgive me while I channel a little Poker Grump.

Showdowns in poker should be quick and orderly. The last aggressor (bettor or raiser) to act is called by one or more players. The last aggressor turns his hand face up on the table, showing both cards (unless he chooses to muck). If there was no betting on the river, the player in earliest position tables his hand (unless by house rule the last aggressor in the prior round of betting is required to show first). The remaining callers then table their hands going in clockwise order from the first player required to show his hand (again unless they choose to muck). The dealer reads the tabled hands and pushes the pot to the winner. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Based on my recent trip to Vegas, as well as recent sessions at the Horseshoe in Council Bluffs and at Harrah's in Kansas City, showdowns have devolved into an overly complicated, poorly choreographed dance routine. I'll bet at least once every couple of hours I have been involved in a showdown that goes something like this:

• Yahoo bets.
• I call.
• Yahoo stares at me.
• I stare back.
• Yahoo says, "I have a ten," which, if true, gives him second pair on the board.
• I gesture, making a couple of small circles with my forefinger, indicating he should show his cards.
• Yahoo holds up one card in the air, showing he does in fact have a ten.
• I gesture again, making a couple of slower, larger circles with my finger, hoping he catches on.
• Yahoo stares at me.
• I stare back.
• Yahoo tables his hand, either showing only the ten, or placing his cards carefully so the ten is on top of his other card, hiding it.
• I gesture again.
• Yahoo shoots me a death glare, finally tables his hand with both cards visible.
• I either table or muck my hand.

The whole routine is incredibly annoying and needlessly slows the game. The "hold one card up in the air in lieu of an actual showdown" dance seems to be almost endemic, occurring at least once or twice per orbit. What part of showdown is giving players trouble? Show your damn cards, and put them down on the table. Trust me, it's easy.

Now I'm not getting petulant about showdowns because I'm a rules nit. In many situations, I don't care enough to get picky about showdown order. For example, a bunch of players limp preflop, and then there is no betting on later streets. Usually, a small pair or even Ace-high is good, so when everyone is sitting around waiting for someone to show, I'll jump start the process by just tabling my hand. Or, if I happen to make a pretty big hand for the board, I'll just declare and table my hand, again to jump start the action.

However, if I'm in a decent-sized pot, and there has been betting action on all streets, I am very interested in seeing my opponent's hand, even if I lose the pot. I want to know both cards in order to see how his hand matches up with the betting action. Was he floating or check-raising with air and caught a pair? Was he semi-bluffing with a pair and a draw, or betting naked draws for pot control? In these situations, I am entitled to see my opponent's hand first; as some players are fond of saying, I paid for that privilege. I'm not looking to cause a scene, but I don't think it's too much to ask that my opponent table his hand without delay when I call his bet or raise on the river.

As you might expect, Poker Grump has written on showdown etiquette on several occasions; see HERE and HERE for his posts dealing with the "showing one card" issue, as well as HERE and HERE for some related (and entirely meritorious) showdown grumpiness. Grump's theory was that the "showing one card" routine originated in home games. I suspect there is some home game influence to the phenomenon, but I personally think the issue is also somewhat generational. Most of the flagrant and recurrent offenders seem generally to be in their early-to-mid-20s, a group that also seems far more likely to commit other poker etiquette faux pas, like talking about their hand during action, calling the clock too quickly, hollywooding during routine decisions, or slow rolling at showdown. These players likely cut their poker teeth online, where many live game etiquette matters are either handled automatically by the software, or simply have no online analogue. Be that as it may, if a player sits down at a live poker game, that player has an obligation to know and follow not only the rules but also the generally accepted etiquette for live action poker.

To be blunt:  Just turn your cards over and put them on the table already.

A Rube Goldberg machine (image source: Penn St. College of Engineering).