Author Topic: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding  (Read 588 times)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2018, 05:52:31 PM »
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.


As the TD, the first and most important ruling here is whether or not the SB has called the BB all-in bet.  I agree with what seems to be the consensus that the SB did not act on the all-in bet.  The second most important decision for the TD is whether or not to allow the SB to act now that the BB has exposed his hand.  IMO, the SB should be allowed to act on the BB all-in bet even though the hand has been exposed.  My reason is quite simple - if the SB folds there is absolutely no reason for further action or ruling.  If and only if the SB makes a call on the all-in bet is there any need to EVEN CONSIDER using rule #1 to alter the play.  As we can see from all of the scenario's above, none of the proposed solutions are perfect and could adversely impact either or both players.  Why EVEN CONSIDER those options unless the SB calls the all-in bet?

Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.  One possible ruling to minimize the error by the dealer is to reduce the bet to a min-raise and go directly to showdown.  The end result is the correct winning player wins the hand the same as if the all-in call was made without exposing the hand.  The difference however is that the amount of chips won and lost is smaller.  Who's decision should it be to reduce the all-in bet to a min-raise?  Is it really the TD?  Is it better to give the BB that option?  I'm guessing that most of the time, I'd never get to this part of the ruling as I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if I do get here, I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here.  The ultimate answer however is that THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION ALLOWED - we are going to SHOWDOWN with a call of the bet be it an all-in or min-raise.

Would you force the bet to a min-raise if the BB was holding pocket aces?  Likewise, would you give the BB an option to reduce the bet to a min-raise if he was holding seven-deuce off-suit?  Certainly, any option that does not include immediate showdown potentially determines the eventual winner in a way that would have never occurred otherwise.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 06:12:02 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2018, 01:40:41 PM »
... I would first ask the SB to make a decision to either call or fold.  If the SB chooses to make the call, then to compensate for the house error, perhaps I would use Rule #1 to give the BB a choice to alter the bet to either a min-raise or to leave it as all-in.
If you give the BB that option, it must be before you ask the SB his decision.

All of this is Rule 1, but I agree with the above because why ask the SB if he calls a bet that you might revoke? Further, asking the SB first gives the BB ALOT of information he's not entitled to. If the dealer gives me the option to retract the bet after I know the SB wants to call then on average I'll want to have a stronger hand than if I'm unsure of the SB's action.


As the TD, the first and most important ruling here is whether or not the SB has called the BB all-in bet.  I agree with what seems to be the consensus that the SB did not act on the all-in bet.  The second most important decision for the TD is whether or not to allow the SB to act now that the BB has exposed his hand.  IMO, the SB should be allowed to act on the BB all-in bet even though the hand has been exposed.  My reason is quite simple - if the SB folds there is absolutely no reason for further action or ruling.  If and only if the SB makes a call on the all-in bet is there any need to EVEN CONSIDER using rule #1 to alter the play.  As we can see from all of the scenario's above, none of the proposed solutions are perfect and could adversely impact either or both players.  Why EVEN CONSIDER those options unless the SB calls the all-in bet?

Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.  One possible ruling to minimize the error by the dealer is to reduce the bet to a min-raise and go directly to showdown.  The end result is the correct winning player wins the hand the same as if the all-in call was made without exposing the hand.  The difference however is that the amount of chips won and lost is smaller.  Who's decision should it be to reduce the all-in bet to a min-raise?  Is it really the TD?  Is it better to give the BB that option?  I'm guessing that most of the time, I'd never get to this part of the ruling as I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if I do get here, I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here.  The ultimate answer however is that THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION ALLOWED - we are going to SHOWDOWN with a call of the bet be it an all-in or min-raise.

Would you force the bet to a min-raise if the BB was holding pocket aces?  Likewise, would you give the BB an option to reduce the bet to a min-raise if he was holding seven-deuce off-suit?  Certainly, any option that does not include immediate showdown potentially determines the eventual winner in a way that would have never occurred otherwise.


So that's a good description of the view that the SB should call first, then figure out what do do with the card exposure. The alternate view is that the most important FIRST decision is what to do about the card exposure as ordered by the dealer. The dealer ordered cards exposed when the SB had not called, now the cards are exposed, what do we do about that? The BB has a tremendous handicap that has to be figured out, does he still want to make this bet or under Rule 1 will the house allow him to retract it given that it was the house that ordered him to expose the cards.

The problem with having the SB call first IMO, is this then gives the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call, that's just too much information for the BB to have.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2018, 07:37:14 AM »

So that's a good description of the view that the SB should call first, then figure out what do do with the card exposure. The alternate view is that the most important FIRST decision is what to do about the card exposure as ordered by the dealer. The dealer ordered cards exposed when the SB had not called, now the cards are exposed, what do we do about that? The BB has a tremendous handicap that has to be figured out, does he still want to make this bet or under Rule 1 will the house allow him to retract it given that it was the house that ordered him to expose the cards.

The problem with having the SB call first IMO, is this then gives the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call, that's just too much information for the BB to have.

I understand and respect your position, but I disagree.

It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.  At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.

If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 06:39:04 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2018, 07:59:06 PM »
Since this is Rule 1, allow me to present an opposing view as follows:


It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.

Definitely agree and that's the problem with giving the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call... it creates a major new impact.

At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

At this point the bigger issue is to address the BBs cards exposed by house order. This should be straightened out first. I want the BB to decide to proceed with his bet or retract it without having knowledge of whether the SB wants to call. I'm giving the BB a major (but deserved) break because the card exposure was largely a house error.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.
This all raises the question of whether the BB has made a valid bet in the first place. If I intend to offer the BB the option to retract his bet then I'm not sending a valid, binding bet to the SB. It's not a huge problem if the SB folds, but if he calls then that's additional information the BB isn't entitled to.


If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.
Card exposure, even by the house, does not automatically freeze play. For example, if the river card in stud is exposed by dealer error the player has the option to choose to freeze his play or continue to play, but he must make the decision before anyone else acts. (TDA Rec Procedure RP9-A.). That procedure has other implications for this case: A) that the exposed player has to decide before anyone else acts so he doesn't have knowledge of what others want to do; B) one Rule 1 solution here is to allow the BB to declare no further betting. I don't hate that ruling but it's still very early in this hand and the BB may have a hand he wants to play even with exposure. I'd be more inclined to offer this option later in the hand if a larger pot had accumulated.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
The alternate view is that it is in fact necessary to address the action immediately because the BBs cards were exposed by house error. Once the BB decides what his bet is in light of the card exposure (just as the 7-stud player with the exposed river) then we have a binding bet we can send to the SB.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 08:29:37 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2018, 07:38:55 AM »
Since this is Rule 1, allow me to present an opposing view as follows:


It is important to minimize the impact that a TD ruling has on the hand.

Definitely agree and that's the problem with giving the BB the information as to whether the SB wants to call... it creates a major new impact.

I'm glad that we agree here.  The house error already gave the SB information - the BB's hole cards.  A ruling impacting the hand is only to be considered if the SB decides to call.

At the point in time when the dealer's error occurred the BB had raised all-in and the SB had not yet acted.  At that point, the SB was facing an obligation to either call or fold.  A TD ruling should not overlook or eliminate that critical obligation.

At this point the bigger issue is to address the BBs cards exposed by house order. This should be straightened out first. I want the BB to decide to proceed with his bet or retract it without having knowledge of whether the SB wants to call. I'm giving the BB a major (but deserved) break because the card exposure was largely a house error.
.

This is certainly a point on which we hold different opinions.  The SB knows the BB's hole cards due to house error and has not yet acted.  You hold that the house will rule at this point that the BB's all-in bet can be kept or retracted, but that the BB must make this decision without knowing if the SB was calling.  I hold that the SB must first act on the all-in bet before the house decides whether or not to rule in the hand.

If the SB folds to the BB's all-in bet then there is absolutely no need for a Rule #1 consideration in the hand. Only if the SB has called the all-in should a Rule #1 consideration be made.  Removing this requirement unfairly imposes a TD ruling on this hand.
This all raises the question of whether the BB has made a valid bet in the first place. If I intend to offer the BB the option to retract his bet then I'm not sending a valid, binding bet to the SB. It's not a huge problem if the SB folds, but if he calls then that's additional information the BB isn't entitled to.


Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

If a ruling allows the all-in action to be altered under Rule #1 then proceeding directly to showdown must be required. This prevents the SB from taking unfair advantage obtained by the dealer's error.
Card exposure, even by the house, does not automatically freeze play. For example, if the river card in stud is exposed by dealer error the player has the option to choose to freeze his play or continue to play, but he must make the decision before anyone else acts. (TDA Rec Procedure RP9-A.). That procedure has other implications for this case: A) that the exposed player has to decide before anyone else acts so he doesn't have knowledge of what others want to do; B) one Rule 1 solution here is to allow the BB to declare no further betting. I don't hate that ruling but it's still very early in this hand and the BB may have a hand he wants to play even with exposure. I'd be more inclined to offer this option later in the hand if a larger pot had accumulated.

I see very little similarity here.  This isn't 7-card stud with 3 hole cards and it isn't the river.  The original bet was all-in, which requires showdown if called.  Altering the amount bet with a fairness ruling should not alter how the hand is to be played out.  We are trying to be fair and have the least impact on the play.  Allowing play to continue gives the SB an unfair advantage on every street.

A ruling that gives the BB an option to reduce his all-in bet before the SB meets the obligation to call alters the action unnecessarily and unfairly.
The alternate view is that it is in fact necessary to address the action immediately because the BBs cards were exposed by house error. Once the BB decides what his bet is in light of the card exposure (just as the 7-stud player with the exposed river) then we have a binding bet we can send to the SB.

Again, I understand your point of view and simply disagree.  What is most important is that a ruling is fair to all.  Not requiring the SB to act on the all-in bet before making a ruling is IMO unfair to the BB who has already been wronged by the house.  Two house wrongs wouldn't make it right.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 08:23:25 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2018, 08:51:05 AM »
Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

Bit confused on the term "might be given an opportunity". As in a prior quote: "Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.... I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if [the SB calls], I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here."

So, since you're not certain prior to asking the SB to call or fold, let's work through your solution: the SB calls the BB's all-in bet. How do you decide whether to allow the BB to retract or to hold him to the all-in? What are some of the most important of the "many variables" you will take into consideration. Also, please provide an example of variables where you would not allow the BB to retract if he's called.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 09:21:16 AM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2018, 04:02:32 PM »
Clearly, the BB's all-in bet was a valid bet before his cards were exposed.  If the SB folds to the all-in, there is no need for a ruling.  If the SB calls with knowledge of the BB's hand then the BB might be given an opportunity to retract his bet with knowledge that the SB was calling.  IMO, this is more fair than punishing the BB twice by first exposing his hand and then asking him if he'd like to let the SB into the hand for a smaller bet.

Bit confused on the term "might be given an opportunity". As in a prior quote: "Now, if the SB does indeed call the all-in bet, THEN AND ONLY THEN should rule #1 be considered.  One option is to not do anything at all, let the all-in bet and call stand.  I might rule that this is unfair as the SB made the call after he saw the BB hand.... I believe the SB is going to fold.  But, if [the SB calls], I might decide to go either way given MANY other variables not discussed here."

So, since you're not certain prior to asking the SB to call or fold, let's work through your solution: the SB calls the BB's all-in bet. How do you decide whether to allow the BB to retract or to hold him to the all-in? What are some of the most important of the "many variables" you will take into consideration. Also, please provide an example of variables where you would not allow the BB to retract if he's called.

As I've discussed at length above, I believe it is important that the SB act before considering rule #1.  Accordingly, it is also important that both the SB and BB have no idea how I'm going to rule until after the SB has acted.  As you know, there are many variables at the table that cannot be accurately conveyed in this or any forum.  I doubt that any examples that I provide here will help change your mind.  But, I will offer you an example. 

Let's say the BB has 1000 big blinds and the SB has only 1 big blind.  The SB calls, regardless of the BB's hand - give him 72o or AA.  Clearly, it would not be in the best interest of the game or fairness to offer the BB an option to retract his all-in bet. 

Also, what if there are several versions of what happened from the players at the table.  Some might say the SB did call and only claimed that he didn't act after he saw that the BB was holding AA.  If the SB when confronted then says "OK, Ill make the call dammit.",  I'm not going to give the BB an option to retract.

Maybe an overly concerned player who is most interested in splitting rule hairs demanded that the floor be called.  When I get there the SB says, "He's right, I hadn't acted yet, but I was gonna call anyhow." and the BB says "You don't really need to be here, I'm all-in and he says he's calling."  In that case, I'm bowing out without getting involved

Maybe the BB is Gus Hanson and has raised all-in the last 23 hands in a row.  I'm not likely to give him an option if the SB calls.

Maybe the SB says "I was gonna fold but now that I see the BB's hand and the size of the pot, I guess I'm getting the right odds to call after all." In this case, seeing the BB's hand has influenced the SB's action.  In the interest of fairness, I could give the BB an option and then proceed to showdown.

Let's not lose sight of what is important here.  The TD should not be involved without just cause.  If the SB folds there is no reason for involvement.  If the BB is obviously satisfied with a call, then there is no reason for involvement.  If rule #1 is invoked, the ruling should ensure that the same player wins that would have won if the all-in hand was not exposed and had been called. In other words, the ruling should not change the winner.  There is no good reason to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 05:16:38 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2018, 11:39:50 AM »

Let's not lose sight of what is important here.  The TD should not be involved without just cause.  If the SB folds there is no reason for involvement.  If the BB is obviously satisfied with a call, then there is no reason for involvement.  If rule #1 is invoked, the ruling should ensure that the same player wins that would have won if the all-in hand was not exposed and had been called. In other words, the ruling should not change the winner.  There is no good reason to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Bill: thanks for the clarifications on your approach. This thread will provide interesting Rule-1 reading. Thinking this is potentially good 2019 Summit material for a topic such as "Card Exposure by the House"; while it's rare, it does happen and if there's consensus, that consensus can potentially apply to other situations.

Shehu-J

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: all-in player showdown/global misunderstanding
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2018, 09:24:01 PM »
This is indeed a very unusual spot happened to me not long ago in a Final table.

So here is  my humble opinion : The way i see it ,it's a house error and both players had their share in it.

Ruling 1 : Ask sb to call the all in or forfeit his 2400 ( i wouldn't suggest it since he has advantage over BB )

Ruling 2 : Both players showdown run the whole board and move on to the next hand (Minimum damage to both players ) not fair to the other opponents though.

Ruling 3 : Similar to 2 ,Force bb to Min raise ,sb has option to call or fold and forfeit. If he call they both are passive so we go to the river and the best hand wins. This is what i did anyway ,it was a huge misunderstanding it would be very unfair for a player to bust out due to a silly mistake.