PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: GreggPath on March 13, 2017, 06:46:06 AM
-
This is a question I could probably easily answer by checking the rulebook, but since the board has been so quiet lately, I thought I'd just post it instead.
SB and BB are both 25 (probably a unnecessary factoid). SB and BB are both away from table. Everyone folds. SB and BB cards were killed following the deal. Does the button win the pot, even if he mucked his cards (not realizing the pot was his)?
-
Good morning Gregg,
IMO, yes the last player with a live hand wins. In this case, the Button wins. Here again, IMO, if in this scenario the button had folded out-of-turn (OOT), it would be a binding fold and the player in the cut-off position would win.
Regards,
B~
-
Totally agree with Bill!
-
I don't know about giving the pot to the button. I'd rather leave it in the center for the next hand. Somehow giving the pot to a player that voluntarily folded (the button), seems worse than playing it out between the two absent blinds! In the original question, the Button folded. He did not even call the blind...how can he get the pot? :o Sorry, I don't agree.
If the Button called...then I can justify awarding him the pot. Anyway, that's how I see it.
-
I don't know about giving the pot to the button. I'd rather leave it in the center for the next hand. Somehow giving the pot to a player that voluntarily folded (the button), seems worse than playing it out between the two absent blinds! In the original question, the Button folded. He did not even call the blind...how can he get the pot? :o Sorry, I don't agree.
If the Button called...then I can justify awarding him the pot. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Actually I can justify it... and I think I answer my original question definitively (imo) in doing so...
The big blind button does not have the option to fold in this situation (assuming he hadn't folded OOT). All other hands are dead (BB and SB are dead when the last card is dealt). He wins the hand when action arrives to him uncontested. He does not have an obligation to show his cards so the pot is his. His fold was moot.
My only question would be does this logic also follow that (in a completely different scenario, all players present) if the action is on the BB and there has been no raise and the BB (forgetting he is BB with chips in the pot) says "Fold" but doesn't muck his hand, he does not need to fold? Since fold wasn't an option to him.
-
Gregg,
Sorry, you're losing me. I thought the question pertained to the Button? I can understand awarding the pot to the BB because he at least had chips in the pot. I must be missing something. We can't possibly disagree on everything...could we?
-
Absolutely, it goes to the button. After all, the button is the last player holding live cards. That's the key. He's got live cards. The big blind's hand was mucked, so he doesn't have a live hand.
The button folding out of turn is a consideration, and in that event, it goes to the cut off.
For what it's worth, this happened to me, back in the day before I started to learn about the rules. About 10 years ago, I was at the Showboat, and after break, I was the button and both blinds were missing and everyone folded to me. As I did a quick look to see if anyone called, so I can jokingly announce all in, the dealer beat me to it, pushing the pot to me.
-
Dave,
Your action at the Showboat confirmed what I said about the Button playing the hand. I say the Button must at least call the blind before being awarded the pot.
-
Dave,
Your action at the Showboat confirmed what I said about the Button playing the hand. I say the Button must at least call the blind before being awarded the pot.
I apologize, I meant the button in my last post, not BB... I'll edit it to make sense. If no one but the button has cards, then the button wins the hand at the exact moment that the player before him folds. He isn't even allowed to call. The hand is over before he can even do so. Does the BB have to check to win a hand that is folded to him pre-flop? Of course not. He wins the hand when SB folds.
-
Gregg,
Sorry, you're losing me. I thought the question pertained to the Button? I can understand awarding the pot to the BB because he at least had chips in the pot. I must be missing something. We can't possibly disagree on everything...could we?
I don't think having chips in the pot is the relevant point. Having live cards is what matters. The button is the only player with live cards. You can't win a hand without live cards so you can't award it to the BB.
-
Have nothing more to add to my earlier posts. I doubt that we'll have to worry about a situation where both blinds would be absent and everyone folds to the Button...but, who knows? If it happens at my table , in your casino, at least I know how you'll handle it. :D
-
The topic went from unclear to really clear in that discussion, it makes sense and I will know how to handle this going forward. I could see this happen when people comea back from a break and not everybody is back...
-
Have nothing more to add to my earlier posts. I doubt that we'll have to worry about a situation where both blinds would be absent and everyone folds to the Button...but, who knows? If it happens at my table , in your casino, at least I know how you'll handle it. :D
Do you not agree that the pot goes to the button? Even though the blinds no longer have cards and the button can not fold since the hand is over when the action reaches him?
-
Max.
My theory is based on the old rule that can still be found in Robert's Rules:
In tournament play, there are two ways the hand of an absent player may be treated. Our rule #11 in “Section 15 - Tournaments,” is: “If you are not present when it becomes your turn to act, your hand is dead. This includes situations in which a live blind is not present to act, since an absent player cannot exercise the option to raise.” This speeds up play, and also prevents a player from facing situations like thinking he is moving all-in heads-up against a short stack and an absent player comes back to the table to enter the pot. The alternative is: “If a player is absent, the hand shall not be killed until that seat faces a wager. An absent player’s hand is dead at the showdown.” This rule gives the absent player the maximum amount of time to return and be able to play the hand.
This alternate would force the Button to act before awarding him the pot. That's it...and I prefer it.
-
Max.
My theory is based on the old rule that can still be found in Robert's Rules:
In tournament play, there are two ways the hand of an absent player may be treated. Our rule #11 in “Section 15 - Tournaments,” is: “If you are not present when it becomes your turn to act, your hand is dead. This includes situations in which a live blind is not present to act, since an absent player cannot exercise the option to raise.” This speeds up play, and also prevents a player from facing situations like thinking he is moving all-in heads-up against a short stack and an absent player comes back to the table to enter the pot. The alternative is: “If a player is absent, the hand shall not be killed until that seat faces a wager. An absent player’s hand is dead at the showdown.” This rule gives the absent player the maximum amount of time to return and be able to play the hand.
This alternate would force the Button to act before awarding him the pot. That's it...and I prefer it.
That may be true, but that's not the rulebook in question. My question is in regards to the TDA rulebook. Do you agree with awarding the pot to the button as it pertains to the rulebook we're referring to?
-
Honestly, I don't like TDA rules that pertain to this situation. TDA #30 At the Table With Action Pending contradicts #29 At Your Seat. #30 Players with live hands must remain at the table! In your example both blinds were absent. #29 says "within reach of your chair." Is he at his seat? As a dealer, could you really reach out and kill his hand, if he's standing there?
It's a once in a thousand hand occurrence that needs more clarification. You want to give the pot to the Button... I can live with your ruling, but I still don't like it! ;D
-
My only question would be does this logic also follow that (in a completely different scenario, all players present) if the action is on the BB and there has been no raise and the BB (forgetting he is BB with chips in the pot) says "Fold" but doesn't muck his hand, he does not need to fold? Since fold wasn't an option to him.
Hi Gregg: As to your original scenario, IMO the button gets the blinds because the SB and BB hands are dead because they weren't there for LCOTD on the initial deal (correct?). If in the unlikely event they were both there for LCOTD but then both got up and left immediately after as the blind bet was going around, then they would both technically have live cards.... and if neither returned, ultimately the SB would first be out leaving the blinds to the BB IMO.
But to your question on the second scenario quoted above, if there's no raise to the BB and when action returns to the BB and he/she says fold, that's a binding fold per TDA 2015 Rule 53 "Non Standard Folds". While fold isn't a reasonable option, players can always inexplicably decide to toss their cards or otherwise abandon their hand. The history of Rule 53 actually dates to exactly the situation you speak of, where a player facing a check inexplicably says "Fold". Dave Lamb had alot of input on writing this and IMO he's just the genius of functional tournament poker rules. Of course Rule 53 and all others will be reviewed at the 2017 Summit, hope to see you there!
-
Hi Gregg: As to your original scenario, IMO the button gets the blinds because the SB and BB hands are dead because they weren't there for LCOTD on the initial deal (correct?). If in the unlikely event they were both there for LCOTD but then both got up and left immediately after as the blind bet was going around, then they would both technically have live cards.... and if neither returned, ultimately the SB would first be out leaving the blinds to the BB IMO.
Yes, I believe we're on the same page here. Pot goes to the last person with live cards. In your first scenario, button has the only live cards when action reaches him. In the second scenario, BB and SB are not killed at the conclusion of the deal so BB has the only live cards and receives the pot.
But to your question on the second scenario quoted above, if there's no raise to the BB and when action returns to the BB and he/she says fold, that's a binding fold per TDA 2015 Rule 53 "Non Standard Folds". While fold isn't a reasonable option, players can always inexplicably decide to toss their cards or otherwise abandon their hand. The history of Rule 53 actually dates to exactly the situation you speak of, where a player facing a check inexplicably says "Fold". Dave Lamb had alot of input on writing this and IMO he's just the genius of functional tournament poker rules. Of course Rule 53 and all others will be reviewed at the 2017 Summit, hope to see you there!
This makes sense. I forgot about Rule 53.
I won't be able to attend the 2017 Summit (unless, of course, the TDA would like to pay my way ;D) but I'm fine with Rule 53.
-
As far as rule #53 goes. The only part I agree with is the enforcement of a penalty...a severe penalty! Could never accept any reason for players to "fold" when not facing a bet. :o The only logical reasoning raises suspicion of chip dumping and/or collusion. Head to head action would be the acceptable exception.
-
Interesting. Based on Robert's Rules, if there are only limpers, and no raises or post-flop bets, the BB can show up at the showdown and win the hand.
Unfortunately, under TDA rules, an absent player's cards are mucked before the action begins with the UTG.
Therefore, unless the button folds out of turn, he will be the last player holding live cards, and should be awarded the pot.