PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: W0lfster on October 31, 2011, 07:16:14 PM
-
Hi there, just thought Id drop by and raise a question on the final showdown of cards after the river. NL holdem, 5 players lets say are in a hand on the river and one of the players bet, 2 players fold and 2 players call. It is now time to show the hands... the player who bet shows one card an ace which causes the 2 players who called to muck their hands and not show. My question is, would the player who showed the ace be penalised for not showing both cards? I ask this because the showdown has been paid to be seen, the fact the other players have folded/mucked is irrelevant to me or am I missing the point? Would that player win the pot even though everyone has folded/mucked? Could the pot just sit there and be carried forward to the next round??? Well I guess Id doubt that one but just want to hear everyones views.
Also the showdown order of hands says that standard practice is to show from the last aggressive bettor on the river or for the SB to show first if no one had bet. Is there anywhere / casinos where you have to follow this rule? From what Ive gathered I havent been penalised for showing first when I wasnt the last bettor on the river, but if this is the case then what would be the point in having this so called standard-practice rule in the first place?
Thx :)
-
If the other two players decide to muck when they see the winning card then the betting player will be the player with the last live hand and therefore win the pot by default. Showing both cards (in that case only) is not necessary. At least not as far as TDA is concerned. (some houses require showing both winning cards in an uncontested pot - silly). So also, no penalty for showing just one because remember the action is complete. While the showdown has been paid for, the buyers have seen all they need to see, the Ace. But they could force the player to show both BEFORE they muck if they want to see both. Once they muck they lose that right to ask to see the hand. Yes the player wins the pot BECAUSE everyone folded/mucked, the action is complete and there is no requirement to show both at that point. There is a winner every hand, no carryover's.
The showdown order is in place so that the player who was called knows that they have to show first. As you said, bought and paid for. If there is no river action then the showdown order is about speeding up the game. You are correct though, it is not wrong to show your hand sooner in that case, if you think you have the winning hand. However, if you are wanting to see another players hand (say you are last to act and you want to see the SB's hand for some reason) then you can wait until he mucks (which he can do) or shows BEFORE you show your hand or muck. This order is supposed to help keep from players simply talking about their hand and waiting for the other player to muck. doesn't always prevent it but it helps.
-
JasperToo you have definitively misunderstood the dynamic of the example by W0lfster.
This is a contested showdown, since action is completed by the two callers: it's time to see who has the best hand (RULE 10: Delcarations)
In this case we have to force RULE 13: Uncontested showdown so the players in order to win the pot must show both cards.
-
Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.
-
So Jasper, if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to? Does he relinquish all claim to the pot and it is won by either of the two callers? Or wll the player with the ace win the pot but concede a penalty?
I still get confused with the current rules in whether a hand is live or dead depending on who asks to see a hand during showdown.
-
Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.
Nick I'm 100% sure jasper misunderstood the dynamic of the hand :)
About what you said "if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to?"
I'll check if the dealer does his job: turn the other card face up.
If the player volountarily throws the other card in the muck the way it can't be clearly found, he will surely get a penality for doing that.
-
I'll go through it again and see if I misunderstood the dynamics of the hand. This is the set up that Wolfster proposed:
final showdown of cards after the river. NL holdem, 5 players lets say are in a hand on the river and one of the players bet, 2 players fold and 2 players call. It is now time to show the hands... the player who bet shows one card an ace which causes the 2 players who called to muck their hands and not show.
We have three players left on the river that are eligible for the showdown. The last aggressor and two callers. Am I right so far?
No one is all in so rule 11 does NOT apply. So rule 12 applies: Showdown order. This means that our last aggressor must be the first to show his hand. There is no rule that says he has to turn over both cards at the same time, just one that says if the pot is CONTESTED he has to show both to win the pot. So again, the player turns over his first card, the Ace, and suddenly the other two players MUCK their hands (realizing they are beaten).
While it is true that the pot was being contested by the two players because they called, they have subsequently given up the contest by mucking when they see the Ace. The betting player is NOW THE LAST MAN STANDING WITH A LIVE HAND. It does not matter any longer that he showed one or both, because according to rule #14 "when all opponents cards have been mucked without being revealed, the last live hand wins." That's our boy, the other two have mucked. they don't have a hand that can contest the pot at this point. our boy wins. And there is no rule (not even 13 because there is no one left contesting the pot) that says the last live hand has to show to win the hand. (except in some houses but we are talking TDA here).
JasperToo you have definitively misunderstood the dynamic of the example by W0lfster.
This is a contested showdown, since action is completed by the two callers: it's time to see who has the best hand (RULE 10: Delcarations)
In this case we have to force RULE 13: Uncontested showdown so the players in order to win the pot must show both cards.
Linker, double check your post here. Rule 10 doesn't apply unless you are just saying that it is showtime. But that rule just means you can't simply SAY what your hand is if you expect to win the pot. The cards, eventually, have to do the talking.
And, Rule 13 is not the "Uncontested pot" rule it is the "Contested pot" rule which. I think you just titled it wrong in your post but you tell. me. Also, if you would, tell me where my reasoning is gone wrong. If our boy is the last one with a live hand, does rule 14 not apply now?
Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.
Insisting on the player showing his complete hand while the other two are still holding their cards is fine. Especially if the other players are waiting on him to show before they show theirs. but once they muck you just have to go "oh, well, never mind, they gave up". Last live hand wins and the players that mucked give up the right to see the players hand - rule 14.
If the other player showed the ace but mucked the other card he no longer has a live hand and therefore cannot win the hand BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION AT ALL!!
So Jasper, if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to? Does he relinquish all claim to the pot and it is won by either of the two callers? Or wll the player with the ace win the pot but concede a penalty?
I still get confused with the current rules in whether a hand is live or dead depending on who asks to see a hand during showdown.
This is why the showdown order rule is there so that everyone knows he has to show his complete hand or muck (he is perfectly within his rights to muck the hand if the other two call and he knows he is beat). He does relinquish all claim to the pot if he refuses to show both cards, eventually he will show or muck. You should not give him the pot IF THE OTHER TWO STILL have their hands and he refuses to show. either show or muck. still no penalties except holding up the game maybe if he is a repeat offender.
But that is an entirely different situation, while the other two have live hands he has to show. But your original story has them tossing in their cards as soon as he flips the Ace. So now he is the last live hand and the winner. Under TDA rule 14 he does not have to show.
Did I really misunderstand the dynamics of the hand?
-
Jasper,
We are spending a lot of time trying to sort out contested and uncontested. To me, uncontested is when a player bets and gets no callers. When a player acts e.g., bets and is called, or bets and is raised or the last betting round is checked, that is a contested hand.
The problem with all of these new rules is; changing the old rules! There is a specific order of showdown after all the betting is done. If a player wants to show his hand because another player stalls, that's okay. That does not change the proper order, if the calling player waits for the aggresive player to show first. That is why any player in the hand (or in for that hand) has a right to see a called hand.
-
As soon as the two players folded, and there is only one player with hole cards, the hand is no longer contested.
-
DCJ001,
Was a bet made, that was not called, before the players folded? That is what an uncontested hand should be. Your answer is too vague, just like so many poker rules.
If a player calls a bet, they have a right to see that hand, and the bettor should show all of his hole cards to win the pot. If that player exposes one card, and the other players fold, that does not take away the right of the others to see that hand. If I were dealing, I would tell the player to show both cards, if he refuses, I would call the floor.
If a bet is made, and noone calls, it's uncontested.
If a bet is made, and any other player calls, those hands should be exposed if requested.
-
If we go to the meaning of the two terms "contested" and "Uncontested":
CONTESTED: A struggle for superiority or victory between rivals
UNCONTESTED: not disputed and not made the object of contention or competition
So, if player A bets and is not called, that means that player B and C doesn't want to CONTEST for the pot, surrendering to the bet.
If player A bets and B and C calls, it means that the WANT TO CONTEST for the pot, since they didn't fold.
That's the situation we must analyze, not what happened AFTER player B and C call to be eligible to win the hand.
-
Sure, Linker, the pot was contested by the call. And the betting player is to be the first to show his cards. But the conders threw in the towel as soon as the first card was shown.
They gave up, they quit. You are arguing that because of the call it is a contended pot no matter what happens, but rule 14 suggests that it is not JUST the call but having a live hand as well that makes you a contender. A calling player cant win the pot if they dont have cards anymore so it does not matter if the betting player showed both cards. (lets be clear that we are just interpreting TDA rules. I think there is some confusion because some houses demand the winning hand be shown no matter what. Not a TDA requirement)
If the calling players want to see the bettors cards they just need to wait to muck their cards until the bettor shows both. No requirement for the caller to show if he decides to muck.
-
If that player exposes one card, and the other players fold, that does not take away the right of the others to see that hand. I
If a bet is made, and any other player calls, those hands should be exposed if requested.
TDA Rule #14 takes the right of the other players that called and the mucked away from them...Rather specifically and loudly.
But when you say those hands should be exposed if requested it is only true if someine else at the table requests to see them.But not the two that mucked....
-
Linker, thats exactly what I was going to ask, would the croupier then have to turn the cards themselves?
Also Jasper, if the player then cannot win because the player refuses to show hands and the croupier is not allowed to expose the cards for the player, does that mean the hand is dead and the pot will battle out between the 2 callers?
-
Jasper,
The purpose of the right to see a called hand is to dispel any thoughts of collusion. It's that simple. At the showdown, when a player bets, you (or another player) have to pay (call) to see that hand. If no one calls, the bettor can muck or show one or both cards as long as all players get to see the hand.
I would be very suspicious of players that bet and raise each other, only to concede by tossing their cards away before they are tabled.
Some old rules should not be tampered with. I've heard rules where only the players in the hand can see the called hand...how do you accomplish that, ask the other players to close their eyes when the hand is shown? Or maybe they pass the cards to only the active players.
If I'm in a hand, and I call the last bet, I will see the hand of the player that initiated that bet.
If I'm in a hand, or at the table and two players raise and re-raise until I fold...I will see both of their hands.
Wolfster,
Do you really think an idiot player should have a right to the pot, if he refuses to turn over his cards? You answered the question...the hand should be touched to the muck and killed. If others want to see the hand it can be shown after the pot has been awarded.
Any player that refuses to show their called hand should draw a penalty.
-
Also Jasper, if the player then cannot win because the player refuses to show hands and the croupier is not allowed to expose the cards for the player, does that mean the hand is dead and the pot will battle out between the 2 callers?
Just to be clear, the scenario is changed so that the other two players STILL HAVE THEIR HANDS?? They have NOT mucked yet??
Well, if we have some crazy guy that is unwilling to turn his cards over or fold them, remember, not an all-in so he can choose to fold to the called bet, then I would expect the dealer to call the Floor over. As TD I would advise the player of his choices, MAYBE put a full 1 minute clock or just a 10 sec clock on him and then if he still hasn't made his own play, have the dealer KILL the hand and show it. Then I would penalize the guy for delay of game. (I showed the hand because the guy was being a jerk. If he had just mucked I would have waited to see if the other players asked to see it.)
So then at that point the first remaining player to the left of the button would be expected to show his cards.
-
Jasper,
The purpose of the right to see a called hand is to dispel any thoughts of collusion. It's that simple.At the showdown, when a player bets, you have to pay (call) to see that hand. If no one calls, the bettor can muck or show one or both cards as long as all players get to see the hand.
Yes, this is very true. I was never disputing the other players right to see the hand if they want to. Many, Many players, including myself will let the aggressive player muck their cards after they call them down and never WANT to see the hand. Which is why I think it is not required to show UNLESS THE OTHER PLAYERS ASK.
This part of your post seems a bit tangential to the original scenario, but we agree on this point. And strangely, this last part of your post is exactly on target to the point.
Wolfster,
Do you really think an idiot player should have a right to the pot, if he refuses to turn over his cards? You answered the question...the hand should be touched to the muck and killed. If others want to see the hand it can be shown after the pot has been awarded.
Any player that refuses to show their called hand should draw a penalty.
BUT, that is only if the other two players STILL HAVE THEIR CARDS. Otherwise, the first player has no requirement to turn over his cards as he would be the last man standing.
-
Jasper,
I understand a player betting, getting called and tossing his cards. He was bluffing and when he was called he knew he had no chance to win. The problem I'm having is when a player bets and is called, and the player or players that called muck their hands without seeing the initial bettors hand!!??? That's uncontested by your definition. Unacceptable is a better word.
-
Wow, we are almost on the same page. I, too, would be very suspicious of two players that called a bet and then just tossed their cards in without seeing the aggressors cards. I do still say that is an uncontested pot but now we are worrying about chip dumping and I would rather see the cards of the two that mucked.
But in our story, everybody saw the ace that apparently was enough to beat the callers (apparently they didnt believe he had it, thus the call, until he flashed it). So thats a different scenario, less likely to be collusive, uncontested pot, rule #14 event.
-
So in that sense Jasper, and I see what Nick is saying too, you both dont seem to like the fact that the dealer should be the one to turn the player's cards over if he/she refuses to except when touching the cards to the muck then exposing. Theres a lot of confusion my side because according to the recent TDA sumnmit, I gathered that Matt Savage would be in favour of the dealer showing both cards if a player refused to e.g. an All In situation.
So am I right in saying Nick and Jasper if the player with the ace wont show and one of the 2 callers or both callers say "lets see them!" then the bettor mucked his hand, would the dealer try to make sure they dont touch the muck and have them exposed? The fact he voluntarily mucked I wouldve thought it wouldnt of mattered whether the other 2 callers asked to see except if it was an all in showdown, again I could be wrong.
Supposing the bettors cards were mucked after the 2 callers asked to see them but the cards landed on the burn cards. Do the burn cards also represent the muck?
-
So in that sense Jasper, and I see what Nick is saying too, you both dont seem to like the fact that the dealer should be the one to turn the player's cards over if he/she refuses to except when touching the cards to the muck then exposing. That is in my opinion a correct assessment
Theres a lot of confusion my side because according to the recent TDA sumnmit, I gathered that Matt Savage would be in favour of the dealer showing both cards if a player refused to e.g. an All In situation. I heard the same thing from Matt and I personally believe the dealers can do it BUT ONLY because it is an all-in situation and there is a specific REQUIREMENT to turn the hand face up. No such requirement exists outside of the all-in such as the current sample situation
So am I right in saying Nick and Jasper if the player with the ace wont show and one of the 2 callers or both callers say "lets see them!" then the bettor mucked his hand, would the dealer try to make sure they dont touch the muck and have them exposed?
Yes, he should make that effort to protect the muck
The fact he voluntarily mucked I wouldve thought it wouldnt of mattered whether the other 2 callers asked to see except if it was an all in showdown, again I could be wrong. I maintain that the rules only require he is the FIRST to show if he is going to continue to contend for the pot. If he decides to muck, there is no TDA rule that says he is FORCED to show but the other players can ASK. So it does matter whether someone asks to see or not.
Supposing the bettors cards were mucked after the 2 callers asked to see them but the cards landed on the burn cards. Do the burn cards also represent the muck? Meh, don't much matter because the player obviously is folding and the other players asked so they could be tapped to the proper muck and shown. However, I would fall in the camp that says the burn is the muck.
-
Jasper,
Nicely done. The only problem I have is the dealer turning over a players cards...but if I were dealing, and Matt Savage told me to turn the cards, I would.
I just can't help putting myself in the place of a player that is about to be awarded the pot, and the dealer reaches over and turns a players hand over that has mine beat! I don't like it and you'll never see it in a cash game.
-
This raises another question, I apologise for asking so many! Lol but anyway am I right in saying supposing the callers show their hands first and the loser of the two hands asks to see the bettors cards, are those cards tapped to the muck then shown? OR are they just mucked face down if the bettor threw their cards in the middle and then they asked to see the hand?
I ask this because IMO the player made a decision to muck those cards face down and since the players did not ask to see quick enough, the fact the bettor passed the cards in a forward motion should mean a voluntary fold. Would this however not matter? Would the dealer try to stop them entering the muck? Obviously theres nothing they can do if the cards are not 100% identifiable in that case they would be dead.
If the winner caller asks to see the hand before the bettor shows any card/s, would the current rules still state that because the winner asked to see the hand, the hand would be live and shown? (best hand wins) and vice versa if the losing player asks?
I think the real question behind these sentences is: Does it matter if the callers asked to see the bettors hand just AFTER he/she decided to muck it?
-
I know that this is not an all-in situation because we should all be in agreement that the hand would be opened but if it were and the player mucked his other card would it be as simple as a penalty? If that is the case then why is it not so simple when it happens without the player being all-in. If we are really unsure about the fact of collusion, or perhaps we are sure but we couldn't retrieve the acrd then wouldn't it make sense to penalize the player an amount equal to the pot? I would think that may prevent a player from trying it again. These answers being pertinent IF the player HAD to expose his other card, which I don't think we've agreed on yet.
-
I must admit that I still enforce player to show both to win the hand in that contested showdown... I wrote our house rules including this rule mainly because of the best interest of the game and to prevent from collusions and fouled stub problems.
But now I agree to the fact it is not required in TDA rules
-
Hi folks,
I am with Jasper on this one, there seems to be some confusion as to whether this is a contested or uncontested showdown, IMO this is an uncontested showdown, for me and my interpretation of the TDA rule, the clue is in the wording, contested/uncontested SHOWDOWN, if you were to believe that a showdown required the last live hand to show their complete starting hand then there would be no such thing as an uncontested showdown, yes it is a showdown, but all other players have mucked their hands, therefore not contesting the pot, in that situation the last live hand wins, a showdown only becomes contested when, for example one of those players who mucked at showdown table their hand. In that situation the high hand wins and the player with the ace would have to table his full hand. the player who bet and tabled an ace has not opened his hand yet, and is looking to win the pot by default, by having the last live hand at the table, not the high hand.
Regards
Stuart
-
I must admit that I still enforce player to show both to win the hand in that contested showdown... I wrote our house rules including this rule mainly because of the best interest of the game and to prevent from collusions and fouled stub problems.
But now I agree to the fact it is not required in TDA rules
You are not alone in having a house rule that demands the hand shown. It's just not a TDA thing. And while I get that it is in the best interest of the game that the best hand wins, I am one of the gang that thinks NOT showing if it is not REQUIRED is a very important part of the gamesmanship and almost as important as the best hand winning.
The collusion thing is something that we shouldn't really have worry about that much as I suspect it is rare and also would be easy to spot if it is happening more than once. Soft play is more likely.
I would like to hear your thoughts on why demanding to show the winning hand in all situations is so important in tournament play?
-
I think the real question behind these sentences is: Does it matter if the callers asked to see the bettors hand just AFTER he/she decided to muck it?
I think you understand it actually.
The dealer should be protecting the muck all the time, so that when a player FOLDS the dealer MUCKS the cards. This gives us the opportunity to see the hand if we need to or prevents a player from mucking a hand when he shouldn't. The calling player should say, I want to see those cards as the player is folding. But remember, those cards would now be LIVE (because the "winning" player wants to see them).
-
I would like to hear your thoughts on why demanding to show the winning hand in all situations is so important in tournament play?
Wait wait wait, I force a player to show both cards ONLY when ALL-IN or when I consider the pot CONTESTED.
I do this to prevent both fouled stub problems and to avoid stalling of the game (player shows only one card, the other one asks to see the other and so on... just a waste of time) so I trained my dealers to say "please can you turn both your cards?"
-
Wait wait wait, I force a player to show both cards ONLY when ALL-IN or when I consider the pot CONTESTED.
I do this to prevent both fouled stub problems and to avoid stalling of the game (player shows only one card, the other one asks to see the other and so on... just a waste of time) so I trained my dealers to say "please can you turn both your cards?"
Oh, OK. I thought you were saying that it was a "winner has to show all the time" rule. I gotcha now.
So, would your house rule make it so that the bettor in this story would HAVE to show the second card even if the other two mucked as soon as he flipped the Ace?
-
Yes, not "WOULD", but "MUST" ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jasper is right. 100%
Regards
RK
-
I ruled like Jasper for more than 10 years: They mucked their cards ... no more constested pot.
8)
-
Let's analyze this spot:
two players at the river, it's time for showdown:
Board: (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/7h.png) (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/5c.png) (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/6h.png) (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/Td.png) (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/Tc.png)
Player A shows (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/5h.png)
player B shows (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/5s.png) and mucks saying he has a low kicker, being sure his opponent has a card higher than the 7h on the board.
Player A then shows (http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/5h.png)(http://media.intellipoker.com/images/wrp-cards/bigcards/3h.png) and claims the pot.
What Would Have Happened if player A showed both cards? Is this an angle shooting?
-
Linker_split,
I might consider that "chip dumping" might be taking place, but I wouldn't call it angle shooting. When Player A showed only one card, the dealer should have insisted on seeing the other. Blayer B had no right to the pot because he didn't protect his hand. It would raise some suspition and that is why I like the rule where any player at the table can ask to see a called hand. Why would he (Player A) throw away his hand? Why would Player B show both after A mucked? Strange.
-
Linker_Split, I think Nick's answer is correct. Though, I wouldn't even say it's chip dumping I would say it's just a bad player. Look, people throw the best hand away all the time. That is part of the game. Player B simply didn't analyze the possibilities well enough and didn't protect his hand.
Your scenario isn't any different than the original one. Player A showed what player B believed to be the winning card and folded his hand. The fact that it was a mistake doesn't change the fact that the pot is no longer contested once player B throws his cards away.
As Nick points out, if someone is really concerned about soft play they can ask to see the hand and then watch for another similar play by player B and then start penalizing.
-
And I think the real point here is not that player A didn't show both cards at once, it's that player B (or/and C) didn't protect their hand and insist on seeing both of A's cards before mucking or showing.
Let's turn it around a little. let's use your example. After player A turns over a 5, what if player A decided that he was out kicked and mucked his hand? Player B would not be required to show his second card either but he would be the last man standing and he would win the pot.
All this is not to say that if this kind of thing keeps happening, especially with the same player, that the dealer shouldn't call the floor and get the player a warning about delay of game, he should. Your example shows more horsing around than the original example. This one actually has both players dorking around by only showing one card trying to one up the opponent.
-
And I think the real point here is not that player A didn't show both cards at once, it's that player B (or/and C) didn't protect their hand and insist on seeing both of A's cards before mucking or showing.
Let's turn it around a little. let's use your example. After player A turns over a 5, what if player A decided that he was out kicked and mucked his hand? Player B would not be required to show his second card either but he would be the last man standing and he would win the pot.
All this is not to say that if this kind of thing keeps happening, especially with the same player, that the dealer shouldn't call the floor and get the player a warning about delay of game, he should. Your example shows more horsing around than the original example. This one actually has both players dorking around by only showing one card trying to one up the opponent.
Yep, I completely understand your point of view, I just don't accept it :)
I mean I absolutely respect it as you would do with mine, but I make the first player who made action to show both cards to avoid some complications and the wasting of time
-
yep point of view respected but not accepted ;D ;D. I just think it's part of the game that the players should get to be responsible for.
-
I'm not sure we should be looking at the poor stooge that mucked his hand as a blunder. I'd be more suspicious that he might be passing chips to his partner.
-
sure, Nick, but you can't judge it by a single event. Well, you can't really prove it with a single event I guess so mark it down, move on and deal with it when you see it again.
-
sure, Nick, but you can't judge it by a single event. Well, you can't really prove it with a single event I guess so mark it down, move on and deal with it when you see it again.
I would be inclined to at least warn that player that actions such as this can be cause for a penalty or disqualification. Making a mental note and continuing on doesn't seem like enough.
-
I notice in version 2 of the rules, there are no more "contested"/"uncontested" showdown provisions. Have we given up on codifying the "Last man standing" rule?
-
I wouldn't say given up... but the TDA is a large tent and as such includes two major camps on the "uncontested" showdown issue. One camp favors not requiring show of the winning hand, the other camp favors "all winning hands must be shown". The language in Version 2.0 permits both camps to exist under the TDA tent. Perhaps at the next Summit we can move towards a common standard, it will certainly be on the agenda.
Please also note that venues which adhere to the Version 1.0 Uncontested Showdown standard are 100% compliant with Version 2.0 as well.
-
Ok, I hope I'm not on the wrong page with my rule on this one, but here goes. We had a serious issue with people showing one card, allowing all other players to fold and then mucking their hidden card without showing. It's kind of a dilemma, since they seem to be holding the only live hand, however, their hand isn't able to win the pot without both cards. So, I implemented a rule regarding the showing of only one card. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but it allowed us to gain control again.
If a player hot-dogs and shows only one card, any forward movement of the shown card kills the hidden cards. Since they no longer hold a valid hand, they can't win the hand. This leads us to what happens if they show an Ace and two other players fold. Since they were the last two players in the pot holding valid hands, and they both mucked without showing, they split the pot. Their hands cannot be pulled back out of the muck since touching the muck kills the cards. However, at the moment a player shows only one card they are holding live cards. Since they were the last to hold live cards, they split the pot.
We had to enforce this rule exactly one time. Now, every player will remind other players to turn over both cards. But, if they give them any flack, the players will call them on forward motion and kill their hand. That also happened exactly once.
We no longer have a problem (AT ALL) with players showing one card with expectations of winning a hand.
-
Pepper_W,
Too bad you felt like you had to implement a rule like that to get the job done. But I maintain that there was no need to do it. The rules are in place for it already.
Player A is first to show. If he only turns one card over then the other players in the hand simply wait for him to turn the other one over before giving him the pot. If player A continues to delay the game by only showing one card and expecting others to show two before he does then you give him warnings and penalties. Done, show over. You don't have to complicate things further with the one card forward motion stuff. But I am glad it worked for you in the end, of course.
BTW, the need to show both cards to win a pot is a secondary condition that exists only if there is another hand looking to claim the pot. The "last live hand" rule is a primary condition. A hand is absolutely able to win a pot without showing (unless there is contention for the pot)