Author Topic: I constantly hear that an abandoned all-in must be shown. Where is this rule?  (Read 14744 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
There is always discussion about the all-in player, that leaves the table before the showdown. With each response, reference was ALWAYS preceeded by; " An all-in player's hand must be tabled!" More discussion would follow, as to who should turn over the cards if the owner of the hand refuses, or is absent from the table?

 Where is the tournament rule, that overrides TDA rule's #22 &#23, that mentions the all-in must be shown?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 08:44:59 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

I know of no such rule either.  However, there may be local gaming authority or house rules that require this to be done. 

Also, remember that implementation or adoption of any or all TDA rules is voluntary.  The TDA has no "Authority" to require adoption/adherence of the rules it promulgates, other than peer pressure and the expertise of the TDA Board of Directors and Membership.

Now to play Devil's Advocate:

In the case you bring up there are some TDA Rules that APPEAR to conflict with one-another.  You bring up rules 22 and 23, which basically require a player to be present at a table to have a live hand.  Do you agree that perhaps these rules conflict (IN THIS SITUATION) with rules 9 and 10, which basically require that in an all-in situation all hands be tabled and that the dealer cannot kill a winning hand? 

I have heard that TDA rules are listed in Priority Order, such that if a lower number rule AND a higher number rule apply, the lower number rule takes precedence.  However that is NOT THE CASE.  TDA Rules are not listed in any order of priority, at least in the 2009 version where they were reorganized by topic.  Perhaps in prior versions there was some attempt at prioritization, but no longer.  I have also read in this forum, posts which, if I remember correctly, indicate that winning players must be paid regardless of whether they are in attendance or not.  As I said previously, this may be required by house rule or by the local gaming authority.

Just some thoughts to keep in mind.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet:

 You are correct when you talk of conflicting rules. Why must the cards be tabled? Not only does it conflict with existing rules. It also goes against proper dealer procedure. Telling  the dealer that it is their responsibility to turn over the absent player's hand is unacceptable. Wouldn't it be easier, and less complicated, to insist that the all-in remain at their seat until the hand is complete?  Perhaps it would be easier to add: EXCEPT FOR THE ALL-IN PLAYER to the end of TDA rule #23.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

It seems to me that your real problem is with TDA Rule 9 which requires that the hands of players in an all-in situation be tabled.  There is NOTHING in Rule 9 that says the dealer has to table that hand.  However, if your card room is going to adhere to the TDA rules AND if the player refuses to table the hand, what is the dealer to do?  Maybe this is a bar type situation where the tables are player dealt and there isn't a formal floor.  What do you do then.  The purpose of TDA Rule 9 is to prevent chip dumping/collusion between two players.  If you don't require the hands to be tabled, how do you prevent those types of situations?

As to requiring the all-in player to remain at his seat, how do you propose to enforce that any better than requiring the hand to be tabled?

I see absolutely no need to make an exception to rule 23 for the all-in player. 

As far as I am concerned, if a player goes all-in and leaves the table that hand is abandoned and I would consider it folded.  If it is the winning hand, then I would award the pot to the opposing player.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet:

 Killing the hand is what I want to do, too. I see it no different than dealing to an absent player and then killing their hand immediately. I've always had a problem with TDA rule #9 but, I don't want to go there right now. Why do we accept, and allow any player to toss their hand into the muck at the showdown, without revealing it, when they have a looser? Why is there an exception for the all-in? Players voluntarily fold their hands regularly, when they see a hand that has them beat. Some even make mistakes and toss the winner....so why should the all-in have the added luxury of exposing their hand and having the dealer, or another player, tell them that they have a winner?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:30:24 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:  I would submit that in the vast majority of all-in situations, there are yet cards to come, so the decision as to which player has the best hand at the end is yet to come. 

For example, last Wednesday, I was playing cash and two players were all-in pre-flop, one had AA the other KK.  Obviously the AA is ahead by far.  As I recall, the flop was Q, T, A, giving the player holding AA a HUGE lead.  However, the player holding KK now has the straight draw possibility.  The Turn was a blank, and just as though it was on TV, the River was a J.  Over $400 pot with Aces again cracked.

What does this have to do with whether the cards of an all-in player should be turned up, NOTHING, at least not that I can deduce.  However, as I said before the reason for putting the cards on their backs in an all-in situation, at least in my opinion, is to prevent chip dumping and/or collusion between players. 

I know of several people that used to frequent my local card room that used to play as a team.  They would get someone between them and whipsaw them out of their chips and then at the end of the night they split the good fortune.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet:
 I understand that we need to watch for chip dumping but, I don't want to get too far off the subject. When there are only two players left in a hand, and one goes all-in, turn both hands over. That is when rule #9 should be enforced. When there are multiple players in a hand, after an all-in, side pots sometimes occur. Side pots dictate a different order of revealing cards at the showdown. Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created.

 I still have a problem turning over a player's hand, after they leave the table. All-in or not. Let the floor turn the cards over. We must exclude the dealer from that list.

Who said an all-in players hand can't be killed, if they bolt from the table? If you are worried about collusion, kill the hand by touching it to the muck, and then turn it over.

How about something like this:
All-in players that leave the table before the showdown, shall loose all rights to the pot. There cards will be "exposed" to the table after the winner is awarded the pot.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 09:29:46 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

Read the whole rule!!  The second part of TDA Rule 9 says, "...and all betting action is complete."  If there are multiple players and one or more side pots are possible, NO hands should be tabled.  The ONLY time hands are to be tabled is if all betting action is complete. 

Now as to your statement, "Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created."  I find nothing in Rule 9 that is contrary to what you propose.  Personally, I only invoke Rule 9 as hands are to be decided.  There is nothing in Rule 9 that prevents you from doing what you have written when side pots are present.

As far as only having only the floor turn over a players cards who has left the table, I don't have any problem with that as long as the logistics of your event allow.  However, there are lots and lots and lots of small events where I don't think it practical to limit this authority to the floor.  What about small bar type events where the "floor" or organizer of the event also is a player?  Does this person have to leave his seat every time something like this occurs?  I wouldn't like it and I don't think my players would either. 

I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table.  My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet:

 Your last statement: "I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table.  My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position."   Then you agree the hand should not be turned over?

 I've gone over this with you before on other threads.  The second part of TDA Rule #9......."and all betting is complete." The winners of each side pot will still be determined in the reverse order that they (the side pots) were created. The all-in player with the least amount in the pot (contesting the main pot, or first pot) will showdown their hand last. If player A goes all-in for 100 and three players call, when the next round of betting commences, a side pot could happen. When the last betting round is over "and all betting is complete." The all-in player should not reveal their hand along with the other player's.
 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:22:42 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

In my opinion, the ONLY time an all-in hand should NOT be tabled would be:  A) if there is still action pending and/or B) if there are subsequent side pots in which the all-in player is not involved.  As I said, I agree that side pots should be resolved in the reverse order in which they are created and ONLY the hands involved in a particular side pot should be displayed as that pot is resolved.

I DO NOT AGREE that the hand of a player absent from the table should remain face down.  That hand should be tabled at the applicable time and then killed by the dealer.  The absent player is NOT ELIGIBLE to win any part of the applicable pot.

So, here is an example:

Player A:  All In for the main pot with players B, C and D,
Player B:  All in for Side Pot #1 with player C and D,
Player C:  All in for Side Pot #2 with Player D.  NO PLAYERS CARDS ARE TABLED AT THIS POINT!!

Here is what needs to happen IN ORDER":

First, any remaining board cards are dealt, when complete, players C and D table their cards and the winner of Side Pot #2 is determined,
Second, after the dealer awards Side Pot #2, he calls for Player B to table his hand and Side Pot #1 is awarded,
Third, After Side Pot #1 has been awarded, the dealer calls for Player A to table his hand and the Main Pot is awarded.

There is nothing in the TDA Rules that forbids incorporating a bit of common sense into ones interpretation.  I don't think rule 9 needs to be interpreted quite as strictly as you seem to.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet:
 If you can interpret that from TDA Rule #9, then you see it perfectly. I however, think that something is missing, and it goes beyond common sense.

 You also said the absent player is not eligible to win any part of the pot......I agree. You also say that the absent player's hand should not remain face down. This brings us back to one of the big issues. You said the hand should be tabled by the dealer and then killed. I say the hand should be killed first and then shown to the table if anyone is concerned about chip duming, or just because. I like your thoughts about the player not being eligible for any part of the pot, but if the dealer turns it over, and it's a winner, then what?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:

To answer your last question, I quote from a prior post in this thread, "As far as I am concerned, if a player goes all-in and leaves the table that hand is abandoned and I would consider it folded.  If it is the winning hand, then I would award the pot to the opposing player."

I don't give one iota if the hand is the winner or not.  If the player isn't at the table, that player is NOT ELIGIBLE for any part of the pot.  The next best hand is awarded the pot. 

Ricky9

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 26
I am not sure I comply with the TDA here although we do use TDA rules. Our house rule is that a player must be at the table to table his/her own cards. If not the hand is dead and anyone can request to see those killed cards.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Ricky9: 

Personally I see nothing wrong with how you handle this situation in your room.  What I would like to see is a response from one or more of the TDA BOD on this issue since it has caused a considerable amount of discussion in this thread.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
What new rule covers this subject? Why was there no response on Chet's request from July 25th?