Online Poker

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/09/where-is-the-gamesmanship-a-controversial-hand-7196.htm

The article basically says that Tobias Reinkemeier is a bad sportsman because Roland De Wolfe (shown right) of Full Tilt Poker mucked his winning hand rather than showing both his cards. The opinion of the article is that Reinkemeier was angle shooting, but I certainly don't agree with it. I don't see how Reinkemeier's actions are bad sportsmanship any more than the practice of only showing your winning card and keeping the kicker to yourself. If you get called, you show all your cards. If you decide to muck your hand rather than doing that, and lose a big pot because of it, then you made a tactical error.

I understand that there are often unwritten rules to any game, but the problem with unwritten rules is that they are not as universal as people think. An added problem is that poker is a game of bluffing, which Reinkemeier did superbly. How often is it said that you play the person, not the cards? Both players were attempting to do just that. Reinkemeier chose the right opportunity to do so.

This part of the article irked me in particular:

"Why be 'that guy' who tries to manipulate the rules in your favor? Why not 'man up,' see that you are beaten and do the right thing? I understand that there will be plenty of people who disagree with me, but I believe that as long as one plays within the rules then all is fair. But we shouldn't let stereotypes of poker players being greedy, selfish people who will do any and everything to win a hand of poker be true. Such behavior does nothing but harm our game and the players who play it."

What is the point being made? The writer, Matthew Parvis, is first saying that everything is fair within the rules. He admits earlier that Reinkemeier was playing within the rules, but apparently he wasn't playing within the special unwritten rule of... What? That you should fold or muck when you know you've lost? Isn't the entire point of poker to convince your opponent that you have better cards than you have? Bluffing is a long term game, and De Wolfe was trying to keep his own bluffing game strong by denying knowledge of his kicker, so there seems to be no good reason that Reinkemeier should not be able to continue to bluff as well. In this case, it also seems pretty obvious that mucking would simply confirm De Wolfe's guess of Reinkemeier's hand, so of course Reinkemeier would at least want to see both of De Wolfe's cards before confirming those suspicions.

If anyone was greedy here, it was De Wolfe, who wanted the pot and an added advantage in the rest of the game by not showing his kicker. Reinkemeier was after the pot OR information that could help him win hands in the future, information he was entitled to if De Wolfe wanted to claim the pot.

- Shad