Author Topic: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals  (Read 2495 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2016, 05:33:11 PM »
Max, I usually agree with you but, I'm a little confused when you say the last card of the misdeal and not the last card dealt to the button?

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2016, 11:24:09 PM »
This happens when a missdeal is declared before every player gets two cards.
For example the second dealt card flips by dealer mistake. In this case the button has not only one card.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2016, 10:37:25 AM »
Thanks, Steff0111. Now I got it...I knew Max was right, just needed a good example. :)

 I now understand the TDA Rule #34 c...and now that I do, I still don't like it!  ???

 I can't imagine dealing to the absent player, having a misdeal, and killing that players hand after he returns in time for the re-deal!?? "Daniel, don't pick up your cards, you will not be allowed to play this hand!" ::) I can imagine his response, and the vision that's going through my mind is scary!

Bottom line: If the player were on a penalty, of course the misdeal would not count...beyond that, senseless.

Why not ask a player how he feels about that rule? After all, without them, there is no poker.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 09:53:20 PM by Nick C »

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2016, 05:14:40 PM »
great I think we all agree that we understand the rule and how it works, but we dont all agree that it should be the rule... :)
Max D

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2016, 03:39:33 AM »
Hello folks,

Thank you for getting things clear.
The idea of technical penalty for absent player is really good and can help dealers to get through this situation.
(Player is considered on penalty)
However, since a player on penalty can't be at the table according to rule 66c, we should get close to something like 'live hand eligible player' for player at their seat before the deal ends. This should avoid situation with a zealous dealer who don't let player returning to his seat during the hand.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2016, 09:16:18 AM »
Boris,

 Your "live hand eligible player" is exactly what I said earlier. If the player returns before the last card is dealt, he can be dealt in with a live hand. Is this your suggestion?

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2016, 06:30:52 PM »
I see 3 scenarios here and under current wording none of them is technically wrong. The rule in place worked fantastic and was easy to explain before the TDA elected to go back to last card vs first card rule to be eligible to play the hand.

We have BillM16's interpretation, then Max D's interpretation, then we have what the rule states (which is ambiguous) and finally you have Boris's interpretation. So which is best?

We can start first with throwing out the rule as written. It allows for ambiguity, misinterpretation, favoritism and exceptions in light of the spineless rule reversal.

Boris's interpretation - View the player as being on a "technical penalty". How so? The player is not on a penalty and is simply absent from the table when the misdeal occurs and therefore you wish to penalize him after he returns? And kill his hand? This is not acceptable.

Max D's interpretation - The last card is dealt when the misdeal occurs. Therefore, complete re-deal of the hand, dealing in the absent player as it was when the misdeal occurred and then kill that players hand before action begins.

This can't work for two reasons - First as above, you are penalizing the player for returning in time for a fresh deal and secondly, and most importantly, the main purpose of the last card dealt rule is give every player every possible opportunity to play their hand. The player paid money, not simple to enter a tournament, but to play hands. As many possible hands as they can play. They not only paid a tournament entry to go towards the prize pool, but they also paid a fee to be able to play the maximum hands possible. The same as a time game in live.

Suppose the player was walking back towards his table, talking to his friend or walking the room searching for Pokemons but was timing his return to be just in time for the last card to reach the button, but alas there's a misdeal so the dealer has to begin reshuffling. Are you telling me, that your response to that player as he sits down to take his hand after he watches the reshuffling of the cards is that, "Sorry sir, you were absent when the misdeal happened" so you can't play?

And if so, then you must word the last card/eligible player rule in such a fashion, that there must be an exception to the rule and that it truly is not last card dealt rule, BECAUSE the last card dealt rule is intended and written in such a fashion as that it pertains to all players receiving complete hands.

Secondly, this suggestion also allows for purposeful misdeals and moreover, simple mistakes the lead to the exclusion of the player being eligible to play the hand. Per Max D's example, some misdeals hand with the first two cards off. So are we to declare a misdeal and then re-deal the hand in same fashion as it began and then kill the absent players hand even though he has returned to the table before the last card was dealt on the re-deal? Again, not acceptable. So IMO, this interpretation is out.

BillM16's interpretation - Because the misdeal occurred before the last card was dealt, the player may be eligible to play the hand because the last card was never dealt. A little wordy and redundant explanation, but YES.  This is simple and easy to understand. There are no exceptions. Last card dealt still means, last card dealt, meaning everyone has complete hands. If that's the wording that needs to be introduced, then let's do it.

In the end, there's no confrontation, the player is happy, the staff is happy and the venue is happy. There's a saying at the WSOP that was use and that phrase is, "We are not in the business of killing hands".
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2016, 09:47:17 AM »
Thomas,

 Nice post...but how could you go through every reply and not mention that I agree you 100%. :(

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2016, 12:59:33 PM »
Thomas,

 Nice post...but how could you go through every reply and not mention that I agree you 100%. :(


Because in your replies, you asked for explanations from the responders in this thread and they gave you theories and reasons and make believe penalties as reasons for dealing out this player without backing it up with basic facts and didn't corner them on anything except what if Daniel Negreau sat down on the button.... etc etc, what would you do and no one had an answer.


So therefore, you never really agreed with anything I said, I hadn't even posted anything yet. LOL. You were just disagreeing with them without actually getting a solid reasoning that could be back up by facts.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2016, 01:53:31 PM »
Thomas,

This is what I said:
 
  • I can't imagine dealing to the absent player, having a misdeal, and killing that players hand after he returns in time for the re-deal!?? "Daniel, don't pick up your cards, you will not be allowed to play this hand!" ::) I can imagine his response, and the vision that's going through my mind is scary!

    Bottom line: If the player were on a penalty, of course the misdeal would not count...beyond that, senseless.
[/color]

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2017, 03:23:46 PM »
Boris,

 Your "live hand eligible player" is exactly what I said earlier. If the player returns before the last card is dealt, he can be dealt in with a live hand. Is this your suggestion?

Hey Nick,

Sorry for the delay.

If the player returns to his seat before the last card is dealt on the initial deal, he obviously is eligible for a live hand, like any player already at his seat.
But, if he is missing on the initial deal, he does not get the status "eligible". So if a misdeal is declared and we go for a re-deal of the exact same hand, he still does not get the "eligible" status since he lost it on the initial deal.

Hope I did not get too messy in my explaination =)

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: 2015 updated rule 29: At Your Seat -- and the impact to rule 34C: Misdeals
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2017, 06:53:41 AM »
I see 3 scenarios here and under current wording none of them is technically wrong. The rule in place worked fantastic and was easy to explain before the TDA elected to go back to last card vs first card rule to be eligible to play the hand.

We have BillM16's interpretation, then Max D's interpretation, then we have what the rule states (which is ambiguous) and finally you have Boris's interpretation. So which is best?


Glad to see my name in here, but I just followed Dave's idea about player being on a One hand penalty when absent. =)

Who said anything about the absent player being on a penalty?
I did.

In that other thread, I suggested that an absent player IS on a one-hand penalty. I.E. Even if he returns before it's his turn to act, he is penalized and not allowed to play his hand.

On that note, he is on penalty in that if he returns before the start of a re-deal, he is still not allowed to play the hand.


One step further pure technics : Rules say when a penalty is declared, it starts applying on the next hand. We agree we can bypass this by using Rule 1, but use of Rule 1 should be exceptionnal and not a kind of ceiling where you put all the things you didn't find a place in your living room =)

So even I understand (and like) the concept of Dave's idea (on One hand penalty), it can't work with actual rules, that's why I thought about an "eligible live hand status"

Secondly, this suggestion also allows for purposeful misdeals and moreover, simple mistakes the lead to the exclusion of the player being eligible to play the hand. Per Max D's example, some misdeals hand with the first two cards off. So are we to declare a misdeal and then re-deal the hand in same fashion as it began and then kill the absent players hand even though he has returned to the table before the last card was dealt on the re-deal? Again, not acceptable. So IMO, this interpretation is out.

BillM16's interpretation - Because the misdeal occurred before the last card was dealt, the player may be eligible to play the hand because the last card was never dealt. A little wordy and redundant explanation, but YES.  This is simple and easy to understand. There are no exceptions. Last card dealt still means, last card dealt, meaning everyone has complete hands. If that's the wording that needs to be introduced, then let's do it.



At start, I got involved into this thread (and its headache ;) ) following a fictionnal situation where a missdeal is declared AFTER the last card was dealt (Like a player other than the button missing a card or more, or a player other than the SB having more cards than intended).

So yes, all we are talking about is meant when a deal is completed and THEN declared as a misdeal.



McGee alos brought up something important about favoritism and all that kind of stuff. I also add that dealers are not always aware of this kind of very specific rules and could not be triggered by the situation to ask themselves what they should do (including calling a floorman).

« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 07:18:52 AM by Boris Mauboussin »