Author Topic: 3 short cases  (Read 1222 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
3 short cases
« on: December 14, 2016, 06:00:50 AM »
Hello,

Here are 3 short (easy?) cases:

1) Day 2 and final table of a shootout tournament - One of the 10 players with a beautiful stack do not come and we still don't have any information after several rounds - The point is that this dead money unbalance the positions at the table! Do you let it this way until the stack is bust?

2) A hand is finished after a showdown of 3 hands - The winner is declared and the chips pushed to him - The dealer take the cards, wash and start riffle them when suddenly someone say that the winning hand was wrong and that another player should have take the pot - Everybody agree - When does this situation is frozen because too late?

3) Still no idea about the errors in series? Player A bets 5000 - Players B+C call at 5000 - Players D+E call at 3000 (misunderstanding) - The flop arrives - A open at 10000 - B+C fold - D want to raise at 30000 when suddenly someone realize the preflop misunderstanding - Everybody agree - What about D and E? Do they just add each 2000 to reach the preflop amount before betting freely at the flop? Are they dead hands? Does A+B+C take back each 2000?

Thank you,
GG
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 06:02:35 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2016, 07:06:10 AM »
Hello Guillaume,

1. Player is registered and has been identified at the start of the tournament, so I guess he has full right to be sit out. All that matters to me is the bag containing player chips has been unsealed at the table with at least 2 players sitting and the empty bag does not leave the table until the player comes.

2. Its cruel but the next hand starts with the first riffle, so ends the right to dispute the previous hand. Its a dealer mistake about reading the proper winning hand.

3. I had this case in cash game (I was the dealer) and the floor asks the players to add the missing values in the pot since everyone agreed that there was a mistake. But it was a small casino, so I guess floor decision was about keeping good spirit.
I honnestly dont know how I would rule this case. But if I had to stick to the rules, I would use Substantial actions (1 bet and 2 folds on the flop) so no one gets refunded and no one has to pay more.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2016, 09:02:57 AM »
Boris,

 I can agree with most of what you said except your answer to #2. There are rules that prevent the wrong player from winning the pot if all cards were properly tabled. The fact that mention was given that everyone agreed that the pot was awarded to the wrong player would, in my opinion, overrule the first riffle.

 I also don't agree with putting the blame on the dealer. The dealer is there to control the action, pitch the cards and other numerous responsibilities. Assisting in reading hands is one of the duties...however, the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the winning hand. There is little excuse for any player, holding a winning hand, to allow the dealer to muck his hand before the pot is awarded...just another simple proper procedure that so many of us fail to execute!

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2016, 01:12:48 PM »
Hello Nick,

Maybe I got a bit rude on this #2. When I say it is a dealer mistake, I just want to say the dealer did not read the winning hand properly through a procedure for showdown :
- Hands tabled
- Read hands
- Declare winning hand by marking the board with the good combination
- Muck losing hands
- Award the pot
- Wash the cards

With all of these steps, players have a decent amount of time to react in case of wrong winning hand declaration.

But you are right according to Rule 13C, Dealer cant kill a winning hand, so I guess the floorman would award the pot to the right player.

So Rule 13c overrule 21, thats good to know =)


Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2016, 03:31:41 PM »
I'll agree with Boris and Nick's follow-up for number 2.
I'll add RRoP
5.   A ruling may be made regarding a pot if it has been requested before the next deal starts (or before the game either ends or changes to another table). Otherwise, the result of a deal must stand. The first riffle of the shuffle marks the start for a deal.
6.   If a pot has been incorrectly awarded and mingled with chips that were not in the pot, and the time limit for a ruling request given in the previous rule has been observed, management may determine how much was in the pot by reconstructing the betting, and then transfer that amount to the proper player.

Also as a TD you always have rule #1: The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules. Floor decisions are final.
Max D

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2016, 09:04:57 PM »
Max,

 This is getting good. We agree again!  ;) I'd also like to congratulate you on your 100th post!  :)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 09:50:34 PM by Nick C »

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2016, 08:30:02 AM »
Thanks, I had not noticed the "100"  Yayyyyyyy. :)
Max D

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2016, 09:14:33 AM »
1) Day 2 and final table of a shootout tournament - One of the 10 players with a beautiful stack do not come and we still don't have any information after several rounds - The point is that this dead money unbalance the positions at the table! Do you let it this way until the stack is bust?

There are no TDA rules that cover this situation.  IMO, this is no different than if the player were sitting in his seat and refusing to play any hands.  Nobody would consider forcing the player to play a hand or remove his chips.  If the player must move to balance the tables, then simply move the stack and redirect the player to the new seat when he returns.


2) A hand is finished after a showdown of 3 hands - The winner is declared and the chips pushed to him - The dealer take the cards, wash and start riffle them when suddenly someone say that the winning hand was wrong and that another player should have take the pot - Everybody agree - When does this situation is frozen because too late?

As others mentioned, Rule #21: Disputed Pots says: the right to dispute a finished hand ends when the new hand begins.  According to your explanation, there is no dispute involved as everybody is in agreement that an error has been made.  Clearly, if there were a dispute, Rule 21 would apply. 


3) Still no idea about the errors in series? Player A bets 5000 - Players B+C call at 5000 - Players D+E call at 3000 (misunderstanding) - The flop arrives - A open at 10000 - B+C fold - D want to raise at 30000 when suddenly someone realize the preflop misunderstanding - Everybody agree - What about D and E? Do they just add each 2000 to reach the preflop amount before betting freely at the flop? Are they dead hands? Does A+B+C take back each 2000?

Please see the responses in http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1336.0
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 11:10:05 AM by BillM16 »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2016, 03:49:19 PM »
TY gentlemen but I'm afraid you decisions are not clear to me:

1) We leave the dead money at the final (tv) table until ... the END? ... While unbalancing it for many rounds? To be said we did it because it's on our rules: If no information about a player who left: The chips stay a the table, cards are dealed and blinds are taken until the end. But we think about changing the rules on those final table cases! 

2) OK I agree with you if some players desagree about the winning hand but what delay if everybody AGREE? Because that's the point: the shuffle? the washing? the riffle? one hand? two hands? one day? one month (joke)? etc ...

3) This point is to be presented during the next TDA convention I suppose?

« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 03:54:07 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2016, 10:06:22 AM »
Guillaume,

 I can understand some of your frustration. Based on the information you've given us, I would consider the following: If cards were properly tabled and the dealer kills the winning hand, the error should be corrected. The problem that could arise is the failure to notice the mistake by other players, or failure to bring it to the attention of the dealer. Example: At showdown, Adam has a straight...Billy tables a flush but does not realise he has the winner. The dealer also fails to recognize the mistake. The dealer proceeds to kill Billy's flush and awards the pot to Adam. The dealer quickly gathers the cards and begins to riffle the cards for the next deal. At this point, the next hand has officially begun.
 This is where the debating begins. A good example for no further review would be if Billy failed to properly table his hand and then realised that he had a flush after the first riffle for the next deal...it's too late. REASON: the next hand has begun.
 In the case of the dealer overlooking the winner, and other players recognise the mistake (even after the first riffle for the next hand), I would award the pot to Billy. I really believe that there are numerous rules that could be enforced on many similar situations. This is where the floor must make a decision in the best interest of the game...the integrity of the game!

 As a tournament director, or floorperson, or gamekeeper, or dealer, or player...the common goal should be to assure that the best hand is awarded the pot.

 When is it too late to correct a mistake? In my opinion, once action begins on the next hand. This is not a written rule, it is what I would base my decision on in the best interest of the game. This is the ruling I would make for numerous reasons.
#1 Action has begun on the next hand. #2 Proper cards have already been dealt. #3 The outcome of the previous had might effect the table stakes of remaining players. An example here could be taking chips away from Adam, giving them to Billy and possibly eliminating him from contention.

 Think of the "breakdown" of players and the dealer, for such a mistake to occur. The dealer fails to properly read the winning hand, Billy fails to notice he had a winner, and the other players also failed to draw attention to the mistake!
This should be a very rare occurrence.

 The rules are clear for many situations that you face every day. However, your knowledge and skill, combined with an accurate account of exactly what transpired at the table will allow you to make the best decision in the most difficult situation. Good luck and I hope this helps. I know you are determined to make every call the correct one. This speaks volumes for your integrity.  You must come to the realization that there is not a rule for every situation you will experience.

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2016, 05:01:40 PM »
What if you can't reconstruct the pot?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2016, 08:58:16 AM »

1) We leave the dead money at the final (tv) table until ... the END? ... While unbalancing it for many rounds? To be said we did it because it's on our rules: If no information about a player who left: The chips stay a the table, cards are dealed and blinds are taken until the end. But we think about changing the rules on those final table cases! 

Good morning Guillaume,

Let me ask you a few questions on this one.  How would you handle it if a player were sitting at the final table but choosing NOT to play any hands?  Is it OK for a player with a big stack to sit at the final table and be blinded away until the end?  The player might decide to wait until the very last hand.  He would be forced to play his last chips all-in due to the blinds and antes.  Of course, if the player loses that last hand he takes second place, right?  Is that a problem?  (I've seen this happen quite naturally in tournaments.)  My point is simply this:  Whether or not a player is sitting at the final table, there should be nothing that forces his betting action other than the blinds and antes.

I realize from prior threads that some of your tournaments are not dealt by professional dealers.  Instead, some of your tournaments are dealt by the players setting at the table.  Without professional dealers, mistakes are made and rules are broken perhaps more often and depending upon the level of knowledge and experience of the players at each table.  This can certainly lead to a series of errors occurring before the Tournament Director is called to resolve the complicated situation.  Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that TDA rules do not address the full spectrum of complications that can occur in large player-dealt tournaments.

I also realize that you try your best to stick to the TDA rules and are struggling with these situations.  I know that my advice here is going to be inadequate, but here it is:  I recommend that you write and publish your own house rules for these tournaments.  I am confident that you have the most experience and are qualified to handle these situations.   You clearly know the TDA rules that can be used as a foundation for your house rules.  Guillaume, I doubt that new TDA rules could be established that would address these series of errors situations that you describe.  Most of the voting TDA members simply do not have these series of errors problems happening frequently in their tournaments.

For example, let's say that you decide that it is important to the success and the integrity of your tournaments to have a clear rule that works well for the complicated series of errors that you have described in this and other threads. 

Perhaps an example could be one of these:
  • A series of errors will result in the hand being completely unwound (all chips returned), and the hand discarded and replayed.
-- or --
  • A series of errors will freeze action at that point.  The TD may give each player an option to either call or fold an equitable amount.  Afterwards, at TD discretion, the hand will continue to showdown with or without further betting action allowed.

Regards,
B~
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 09:02:09 AM by BillM16 »

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2016, 02:16:53 PM »
This is a good point Bill, I saw what you described last year during the WSOP at a satellite table, top 16 player got two lamers and $100, the big stack didn't want to do anything and just waited until the end, he had such a huge stack that there was no issue that he was getting cash.  Some player complained that they didn't get a chance to get some of his chips (except for blind), but it was his prerogative not play them, he went to sit at another table and waited until the table got down to 16 players.  the only thing the TD asked was that he remove his chips from the racks (he had just moved table).
Max D

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2016, 07:05:14 PM »
TY Guys,

Yes I recently managed tournaments of 2127 players, 663 and 717 players in self-dealing (promotional live freerolls offered by online rooms with big money at the end like 500.000 etc) ... And yes those rulings are needed!

1) OK for this point: Let stay the chips on the place and blind them off naturally!

2) For us it's over when next shuffle starts but if all players agree on the error (and before any other hand dealt) we can use rule #1 to give the money back (up to the TD).

3) My actual solution is: All bets and amount must be corrected one by one starting by the first error and following the normal betting rules ... But if too late and next board card plus sub. action or any showdown ---> In this case the TD will balance all the bets the best way he can! Most of the time the last bettors will be rectified like if A+B did bet something and C+D+E did bet other amount ---> C+D+E will be rectified (up or down depending on the case). In the case of A betting something and B+C+D+E betting another amount, my tendency will be to rectify A only ... TD's discretion.

To be said: This case number 3 ACTUALLY MATERS FOR OTHER TDA MEMBERS THAN ME (they told me) so I hope this subject will be on the next convention list!

GG
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 04:31:09 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 3 short cases
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2016, 09:28:58 PM »
Guillaume,

 Wow...you have a big responsibility. I've been around poker most of my life but never managed tournaments of that size. They should be lucky to have you working those tournaments.

 I like your suggestions on your recent post. Makes perfect sense to me. Letting your players know how you will handle these situations before they occur is the best way to handle the mistakes you've mentioned.