PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: GreggPath on April 21, 2017, 11:21:08 AM
-
I just noticed that the TDA does not address hand-for-hand play. Is this intentional to allow the house to make a rule that best suits their tournament?
-
Are you thinking the process of hand to hand or/and the "rules" around elimination of players during a hand to hand?
-
Are you thinking the process of hand to hand or/and the "rules" around elimination of players during a hand to hand?
Both actually.
-
Gregg,
That sounds like something that should be addressed. The hand for hand I'm referring to is when multiple tables are playing simultaneously and the dealing for the next hand does not begin until instructed.
Definitely should have some rules. Sounds like a good topic for discussion at the 2017 Summit.
-
Gregg,
That sounds like something that should be addressed. The hand for hand I'm referring to is when multiple tables are playing simultaneously and the dealing for the next hand does not begin until instructed.
Definitely should have some rules. Sounds like a good topic for discussion at the 2017 Summit.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to. There was discussion in CardPlayer a while back about what situations, if any, card for card should be in effect and if it's allowed that a player wait to make a decision when action is on them because he wants to see what happens at other tables first.
My opinion is that hand-for-hand should be used whenever there is a pay jump. Not sure what I'd do about players purposely tanking to take advantage of the hand-for-hand status.
-
I believe that some strict time restraints should be enforced when using hand for hand. Nothing more boring than dealing a quick hand, only to sit and and wait for the long pokey progress of the hand being played at the next table.
Consider the ridiculous rule that already exists for most tournaments when it comes to time allowed to act before a clock can be called. One minute and then a count down 10, 9, 8, 7,.... If every player took the allotted time to react on each betting round it would take hours to complete one hand! ::) Even online poker has a stricter rule...you don't respond on your turn to act, your lucky if you have 15 seconds to react before your hand is dead.
So, to follow up on Gregg's great question: I say we enforce a strict timeframe on action in order to prevent too much stalling. I'm sure there are many other concerns to address. This is all I have for now. :)
-
What good does stalling do?
-
Dave,
If you've ever participated in a tournament with players in the money or on the bubble, you'd know why players stall until they see who gets knocked out at the next table.
Hand for hand seems to make sense on paper but honestly it detracts from the flow of the tournament. Perhaps the TDA should not allow hand for hand. Just thinking out loud.
-
Yeah, it's been a while since I cashed in a tourney that was big enough to have a cash bubble before the final table, but from what I do remember, it seemed rather simple, and with no advantage to slow play.
When it got near the bubble, every table would play one hand, then wait for all other tables to finish. If nobody busts out, play another hand, etc.
If more than one person busted out so that one (or more) would be the bubble and another (or several) would cash, prizes were awarded based upon the player's starting stack. Should two players have the same starting stack, then the prize goes to the player with the better hand. I suppose in the unlikely event that two players bust out with the same hand and same starting stack, the prize would be divided.
Are you running tournaments differently, where an incentive to slow play exists?
Then again, this is how we do it in the league where I deal and am the Rules Guru, so maybe my memory is faulty.
-
I've never seen it happen, but CardPlayer gave an example (I'm going by memory here for the example might not be perfect) where, during hand-for-hand action, Player A is facing an all-in. He sees Player B at the table next to him also facing an all-in. Player B has less chips than Player A. So, Player A stalls while he waits to see if Player B calls (and might even stall long enough to see who wins). If Player B calls (or wins), Player A will also call since, if they both bust, Player A still cashes. But if Player B folds (or loses), Player A will also fold because he doesn't want to lose the hand and bust on the bubble.
-
Are you running tournaments differently, where an incentive to slow play exists?
Gregg -
Your example makes me want to retract my question. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
-
Nice job Gregg, and well written.
-
Gregg,
Unfortunately, in your example both Player A and Player B are splitting the min cash.
Players knocked out at different tables during a hand for hand are to be considered knocked out on the same hand.
Players knocked out at the same table during a hand for hand, would go in order of who had the most chips.
-
Ralph,
Please read Gregg's example over again. He explained it perfectly. Both players are not eliminated at the same time.
-
Nick C,
It doesn't matter if they are knocked out at the "same time". What matters is that they're knocked out on the "same hand" during a hand for hand scenario and are at different tables. Chip counts are irrelevant unless they're at the same table.
-
Ralph,
There's no need to argue. If you read Greggs scenario and you don't understand, I can't help you. take a little time and see if you can understand the advantage you might have if: a player that you are competing with gets eliminated and you're facing a wager that could put you all-in. If you fold, you're guaranteed to be in the money. If you call, you might be eliminated because your "bubble buddy" started with 100 in chips more than you.
So what should we do? Ask the TDA to introduce some rules for hand-for-hand...or stay as far away as possible?
-
Here's an old post that might interest some of our members: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=281.0
-
Nick C,
It doesn't matter if they are knocked out at the "same time". What matters is that they're knocked out on the "same hand" during a hand for hand scenario and are at different tables. Chip counts are irrelevant unless they're at the same table.
That's not true... at least in tournaments I've watched. Chip count always breaks the tie regardless of whether they are at the same table. The wikipedia article on Hand for Hand says so as well:
Hand-for-hand play eliminates ties, except for one exceptionally rare situation. If multiple players go all-in during one hand run hand-for-hand, assuming all players all-in are eliminated, the players are ranked according to chip count, the amount the player had in front of them at the beginning of the hand. Players are only awarded a tied rank if they have identical pre-hand chip counts, in which case the prizes are customarily split by both players. In some situations, pre-hand chip counts may not be available, in which case, all players eliminated on a given hand are considered to have tied for the same rank.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-for-hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-for-hand)
The only exception I've ever seen is the WSOP. But that has always been the exception to the rule as I've seen it.
-
Which ever rule you prefer to follow on hand-for-hand, waiting for another player to act (at another table) could have a huge advantage as to whether you continue to play or fold with chips remaining. I don't know how to say it any different. What I do know is: Hand-for-hand creates a slower game with less hands per down.
I will agree it's much easier to determine who had more chips when the hand begins when both eliminated players are at the same table. That's simple and fair. The WSOP ruling (which Ralph is referring to) can create some legitimate arguments when two players are awarded equal prize money just because they were both eliminated during the same hand but seated at different tables. One player could have thousands more than the other but, because they were both eliminated during the same deal, (at different tables) they are considered tied for equal prize money.
-
The WSOP ruling (which Ralph is referring to) can create some legitimate arguments when two players are awarded equal prize money just because they were both eliminated during the same hand but seated at different tables. One player could have thousands more than the other but, because they were both eliminated during the same deal, (at different tables) they are considered tied for equal prize money.
Both players started the tournament with the same number of chips. Both players ended the tournament with the same number of chips. This is the same as two thoroughbred in the Kentucky Derby leaving the gate at the same time and crossing the finish line at the same time. It doesn't matter who was ahead on the last stride. It only matters that their noses were both at the line when the camera flashed.
Regards,
B~
-
Okay Bill,
So which way do you favor? You have two choices and we've covered both. I believe the original question was to clear up any confusion and possibly ask the TDA Board of Directors if Hand-for-Hand should be discussed at the next Summit because we have nothing in our rules that covers this.
When a tournament enters a hand-for-hand format:
a.) In the event two or more players are eliminated during the same deal, whether at the same table or not, the prize money will be divided equally among those players.
OR
b.) In the event two or more players are eliminated during the same deal, whether at the same table or not, the prize money shall be awarded to the all-in player who started the deal with the highest denomination of chips.
OR
c.) Forget about it! :D By that I mean. Forget about introducing a TDA Rule and leave it up to the individual Casino to decide.
Any odd chips will be distributed clockwise from the dealer in the lowest denomination of chips in play/ or broken down to the lowest cash denomination possible/ or give it to the dealers ;D!
-
I just noticed that the TDA does not address hand-for-hand play. Is this intentional to allow the house to make a rule that best suits their tournament?
I believe this has come up in previous Summits but I cannot find it in the videos this morning. If memory serves, a consensus could not be reached.
-
When a tournament enters a hand-for-hand format:
a.) In the event two or more players are eliminated during the same deal, whether at the same table or not, the prize money will be divided equally among those players.
OR
b.) In the event two or more players are eliminated during the same deal, whether at the same table or not, the prize money shall be awarded to the all-in player who started the deal with the highest denomination of chips.
OR
c.) Forget about it! :D By that I mean. Forget about introducing a TDA Rule and leave it up to the individual Casino to decide.
Any odd chips will be distributed clockwise from the dealer in the lowest denomination of chips in play/ or broken down to the lowest cash denomination possible/ or give it to the dealers ;D!
I'd vote for B and would strongly oppose A. I am all for having hand-for-hand whenever there is a pay jump but I don't think it should matter if two players on different tables are eliminated during the same hand. Why should it be different than if both players were on the same table? The reasoning for order-of-elimination is the same as if it were on one table.
I'm not sure what odd chips you are referring to. The pots are going to the players who won the hand on each table so there should be no odd chips (unless, of course, there is a split pot on one of the tables, but there is already a rule that covers that).
-
Gregg,
I also prefer b.)...but the WSOP does not.
According to the WSOP, if three players are eliminated vieng for the last money spot, whether at the same table or not, they would all share equally in prize money...correct? I also understand why that, in itself, is reason enough to oppose the WSOP ruling.
As far as the odd chip, I could have given a better example but I do believe it's possible that extra dollars could exist especially if prize money is divided among multiple players.
-
I also prefer b.)...but the WSOP does not.
Has the WSOP ever considering using TDA rules?
According to the WSOP, if three players are eliminated vieng for the last money spot, whether at the same table or not, they would all share equally in prize money...correct? I also understand why that, in itself, is reason enough to oppose the WSOP ruling.
I believe they go by biggest stacks when players are at same table, but it's a tie otherwise.
As far as the odd chip, I could have given a better example but I do believe it's possible that extra dollars could exist especially if prize money is divided among multiple players.
When you say odd chip, do you mean prize money or a tournament chip?
-
Prize money
Gregg, I thought I'd offer some feedback that might help members come up with a quick solution should this topic arise at the Summit. It's been six years since I attended a TDA Summit and as much as I'd like to, I don't know when I'll be able to attend another. I've always been in favor of hashing out some of these issues that members, such as yourself, bring to the forum.
The two days of the summit is not enough time to cover TDA rules that need to be addressed. This forum would be a perfect venue to prepare attending members for what to expect. I'd also like to have an impact on decisions made and not rely strictly on the 150 or so attendees.
In my humble opinion, there is always too much time spent on a "new rule" that somehow emerges that creates a firestorm of controversy instead of addressing some much needed changes to raise rules, all-in's, and procedures at showdown.
I agreed when you posted your original question that it was surprising that the TDA has no rule governing Hand-for-Hand, however, if more than 15 minutes is required to come to a decision, I hope it's dropped and they move on.
-
Awarding the $$ to the biggest loser?? Isn't that a TV show?
-
The TDA has never reached a consensus on Hand for Hand rules even though there were by and large agreed upon. One of the main reasons there is not a rule is due to size of the event. In a 12-table poker room where hand for hand might only take place on the bubble between two tables, during the WSOP or other large tournaments, hand for hand might be on dozens of tables. Would it be better to do hand for hand or round for round? Stop the clock or not stop the clock. Split payouts or not? I believe this was one of the challenges with creating guidelines for this rule, but I think it's at least worth bringing up at the Summit this year.