Author Topic: I constantly hear that an abandoned all-in must be shown. Where is this rule?  (Read 14761 times)

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:  The TDA BOD will respond in due time, I hope.  I know they are all very busy. 

That said, you asked where is the rule that says the all-in hand of an absent player must be turned face up.  My answer is 2011 Rule 11.  There is NOTHING in this rule that says it applies only to hands where the players are present at the table. 

In my opinion, TDA Rule 11 applies REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLAYER IS PRESENT OR NOT!!

If the player is not present, the dealer (I know where you stand on this) should turn that hand face up, WHEN ALL BETTING ACTION IS COMPLETE.  If there are side pots, then the hand is turned over at the appropriate time (see my prior post).

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet,
 From what you wrote, we agree for the most part. Can you tell me why, an all-in player that leaves the table is not governed by TDA rule #28 Action Pending   A player must remain at the table if he has a live hand.

 The issue that we don't agree on is; the method and the person that is to expose the hand.

 Chet, maybe you can help me out with another rule; Why does rule #12 specify In a non-all-in showdown, at the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first..........What is the difference if it is an all-in, or a non-all-in? The order of showdown should still be followed.



chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Let me answer your last question first, as I think the answer is easier.

Rule 11 applies to all-in situations and says that, "... AS SOON AS ALL BETTING ACTION FOR THE HAND IS COMPLETE..."  There is no mention of a showdown situation since the cards are all face up and the order of showdown is immaterial and does not apply.

I understand that you do not like TDA Rul3 11, but it is a rule and has been for a number of years. 

Now for your first question:  I don't really care if the dealer kills the absent players hand right away or not.  However, let me give you an example of where I think it would be a travesty for the hand to be killed before the last card is dealt and the winning hand determined.  I have a number of allergies and every once in a while, I get on a coughing jag and can't stop for a couple of minutes.  This has happened to me at the table and I have to get up and step away, not only for my own good but also to be courteous to the other players who shouldn't have to put up with that. 

I don't leave the facility, but I do step far enough away to not bother other players.  This may be several feet or yards.  If you follow rule 28, I can make the argument that my hand should be killed.  However, I ALWAYS come back in time for the winning hand to be determined, so I am at the table when "decision time" comes.  What would you do in that situation?

We are going to have to agree to disagree on who should physically turn over the absent players hand.  However, let me add this;  The players agree to follow the TDA Rules, the TDA Rules don't specify who is to physically turn over the hand, so it is up to house rules, if there are any.  You say the floor has to be called.  I say that is a waste of time, to hold up the table until a floor is available.  I play a LOT of small events where there is only one floor for 5 or more table.  I know that if I were the floor and I had confidence in my dealers, that I would have better things to do than run around turning over absent players hands.  In my opinion, once the player has left the table, he/she has lost all "rights" so as long as the hand is turn face up in accordance with the rules and not prematurely, etc., to quote Clark Gable, "...I don't give a damn".

I am kinda rambling, its late, I need to get up early so sorry for the disorganization.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
I wil ask one of my unanswered questions again. Why does rule #12 specify in a non-all-in showdown ?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Nick, sometimes I just think you don't read these posts as carefully as you could.  Chet answered your question about #12 FIRST in last post.  And he did it very well.

But... the cards would be face up in an all in situation.  so in non-all-in situations we have a rule for who should show first....easy peasy.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Jasper,
 Apparently it's not so easy peasy.....neither you or Chet answered my question. As far as players turning over their cards when all-in, they should still comply with the correct order of showdown. I will ask the question for the trird time and see if I can get a straight answer. In TDA Rule # 12 Why does it start out with; In a non-all-in showdown? What does the non all-in have to do with the rule?

 Jasper if you think I have a problem reading some of the posts, maybe you should use English only.

 Come on, you can't sit back two weeks after the new rules are released and this is the best you've got?

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
you're right, Nick, I probably have more but too busy to get nit picky....

as to the question regarding #12, you say that players should adhere to the order of showdown in an all in situation.  That doesn't seem at all necessary.  All hands are going to have to be tabled face up if there is a player that is all in at showdown (or before if all action is complete) so who gives a rat's butt if they do it in any particular order.  All the cards are face up. (I suppose we could distinguish side pot showdowns, maybe that is what you are talking about. but rule #11 states "all hands... once the action is complete."  we would simply determine the winner of the side pot first then the main, with all hands face up)

Now, in a non-all-in situation the order of showdown is important because of the very situation we evaluated between Tobias and DeWolf.  Tobias CALLED DeWolf on the river so DeWolf should have tabled his hand face up FIRST.  Then Tobias could simply muck without showing if he wanted to, or go ahead and show his losing hand.  Tobias paid to see DeWolfs hand.  There are plenty of times that the aggressive player (the one that bet first that round) will try to just call his hand ('I have a king" or whatever) and not show it waiting to see the callers hand first.  This is not appropriate.

The mention of the non-all-in situation in the rules was to distinguish it from the all in situation.

and again, if there is a player all-in ALL the cards are face up sho the order of showdown is moot.  (this, btw, was Chet's answer)

I don't know how we can be more straightforward than that.  The statement in the rule is there to distinguish it from the all-in situation.  If that somehow seems extraneous to you then I am a bit surprised as you are one of the first to want to add even a single word to a rule to make it clearer or distinguish it's particular circumstance to the reader.

The grammar may not be perfect but  I think that was all in English.   ;D :D
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 05:30:14 PM by JasperToo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Jasper,
 Thanks for your great response. For anyone that has ever played a hand of poker, what is more annouying than calling a player's raise, only to have him ask "you what do you have!" This is when the dealer should demand that the player that showed the last act of aggression, must show first. There is a difference, and every player that called the last bet, or went all-in, should abide by those rules. I have been against the wording on several rules because they are not self explanitory. I teach students and I am very precise. As far as DeWolfe and Tobias, that was probably the best 30 seconds (or whatever it took) of footage that broke more rules of showdown than any I've ever seen. I guess I am not making my point on #'s 11 and 12. I think #11 should be for head-to-head with an all-in. Even then the player that initiated the last bet would showdown their hand first. They are rules of etiquette. If you and I are in a hand, and you go all-in, and I call, I know that both hands will be turned up but yours is turned first, That's the way it is. The dealer should know that, also.

 Jasper, when there are multiple players in a hand and one goes all in, and there is a side pot, the side pot winner must be decided first! It would be inappropriate at the showdown, for the all-in to show his hand while the other players are determining the winner of the side pot. They must wait until the pot they are in for is contested....so they don't all turn them over at the showdown and they don't do it at the same time. If you want to you can, but the last player to call, will be the last to show if that's the way he wants it. Period!


If you want to debate this with me, we can. If you see what I explained in either rule #11 or #12. I want to know where it is. Chet explained it perfectly but I don't know why, we can't add somewhere, that the pots must be decided in the reverse order that they were created. You are also right when you say, I like to add a few words here and there. I will continue if it makes the rule eaisier to understand. I don't need to hear that it only takes comon sense to figure out these rules. If that were the case, we wouldn't be going back and forth trying to comprehend thier meaning.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 08:18:54 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
well, I think I am at least understanding where you are coming from, but before I go off on a small dissertation here I want to ask the question that was asked of all the rules: "Can you live with it?"

I get what you are saying about the showdown when you have one player all in and two or more players with action on the side.  You believe that the all-in hand should not turn over his hand until the side pot is adjudicated by the dealer and pushed and then the all-in should table his hand and the winner of the main pot determined.  Ok, that's fine and actually the way it is done in most places and I tend to do that as a dealer myself.  Whether it is inappropriate for the all-in hand to show at the same time is arguable in my opinion.  I don't see a problem with it and I would take the view with the new rules that it should actually be so.  Let me explain:

The dealer procedure that you use and teach where the two players in the side pot show first and the pot winner is determined and then the all-in player shows is a good procedure that helps keep the sidepots from getting confused as to who should win them.  But there is nothing in the rules that say that is the way it should be.  In fact, if you look at RROP there is nothing there to support it, and looking at the TDA rules there is nothing to support it.  It is simply an established dealer procedure that gets the job done well.

In fact, if you look at the rules as they are now, #11, #12, #13, #14 and #18 you should see that the actual fact is that if there is a player all in, when action is complete, all hands should be turned over in a timely manner and the sidepots determined first then the main. 

All I am saying here is that your procedure does not actually conflict with the rules so you can keep using them but if you have a player that turns his all in hand over when the action is done, you can't get made at him. 

and back to the question:  since it doesn't have to change the way you do things is the way the rule is written something that you can live with?

chet

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

TDA Rules are NOT intended to cover EACH and EVERY situation that needs a rule.  As is said in the introduction, the TDA Rules are intended to SUPPLEMENT the house rules. 

With regard to the order of showing hands when there is one or more all in players and side pot(s) are created:  Can you tell me of a single room you have EVER been in that doesn't decide side pots in the reverse order in which they were created?  If there is, I submit that house has management that is so STUPID that no amount of TDA Rules would help.

I believe it is just common sense and generally accepted practice that side pots are decided in the reverse order of creation and that ONLY hands should be turned face up that are involved in the pot being decided.  I DO NOT think the TDA needs, or should have, to include such simple and generally accepted practices in their rules. 

One of the concerns of the TDA, as I understand it, is that the rules not get so involved and numerous that they cannot be easily published and understood.  I am not saying that adding the language you seem to be promoting for this single instance would be enough to put the rules "over the top", but where does one stop?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Jasper,
 Thanks for your response. I have to say that I am a little surprised that you don't see the problem with the all-in turning over his hand when there are side pots to be decided first. The first time an all-in turns his hand over, and players that are contesting the side pots toss their hands into the muck because they see a hand that has theirs beat, you will understand the reason for the reverse order of showdown.

 You listed several rules and none of them mention what I've discussed, or what Chet explained as the proper procedure with multiple pots. I also want to add that rule #18 has nothing to do with the order of showdown, only that each pot will be split separately and NOT combined and divided, even if it is split between the same two players.

 I want you to know that I understand what every rule is "trying" to say. I just feel that this one needs more work. While you are at it, can you translate the last line in rule #11....... The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule......Can you translate?

 Finally. Yes I can live with it, but if I'm having trouble with it, I can bet that new players and casino poker employees will have a tough time too.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 02:55:37 PM by Nick C »

Nick C

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

 You might want to take a look at this: 
                       
                        ROBRETS RULES OF POKER version 11
3- General Poker Rules      Showdown

Rule 8
If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so.







chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Nick:  What you don't seem to be able to understand is that in a multiple pot situation, the all-in player(s) does not turn his/her hand face up UNTIL THE POT IN WHICH HE/SHE IS INVOLVED IS BEING DECIDED!!  So if the all-in player is only involved with the Main Pot and there are 1 or more side pots, the all-in player DOES NOT EXPOSE HIS HAND UNTIL THE MAIN POT IS BEING DECIDED!!!

As to your concerns with TDA Rule 11, SO WHAT if it differs from RROP.  The TDA membership adopted that rule and that is the 'standard' on which they have chosen to operate.  You can like it or not, the choice is yours.  But, in my no so humble opinion, you have quite clearly made your point.  Continuing to harange about this day after day after day isn't going to change anything.  As I said in a prior post, I only see you, me, Jasper and maybe MikeB involved with these threads and us four, even if we agreed with oneanother (which we do not) are so miniscule compared to the total membership that we are not and we should not be able to get a rule changed. 

If you want to get the rule changed, I suggest you start lobbying for 50, 100, 200 members to get on your side and start posting their feelings.  Otherwise, what was decided at the Summit should be the TDA Standard.

I have made my points clear on several of these issues.  I do not intend to keep posting the same answers time after time after time.  Lets move on to something else.

Chet

ps:  Sorry if I sound cranky, but I have been at the ER since early this AM and don't have a clue when I will be able to take the wife home.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 10:32:06 AM by chet »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet, Where in the TDA rules, does it clarify the all-in with side pots? What in the world are you talking about when you say I don't understand the mutiple pot situation. That's what I've been preaching for the last year and a half and no one agreed with me. You can't bring yourself to say I'm right about a rule, even when you agree with what I've said. I guess even RROP aren't good enough for some of us.

 I started this thread on a different subject and you are the person who shifted us to TDA rule #9 (now 11). 

 Jasper, perhaps you overlooked this when you went through RR's.

 I have many other issues that I will turn to. As far as this one, I rest my case. We're like the damn Democrats and Republicans, everything is an argument and nothing gets accomplished.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Well, sure enough, I overlooked that paragraph.  Or misread it.  It certainly is the spot that established the procedure you use and teach (and that most of us actually use). 

Really, I was never arguing the validity of the procedure.  My argument was more along the lines  that if you take the TDA rules straight up as currently written, it is possible to read that all hands get turned up.  And for you that is a problem (which I do see).

however, after rereading both TDA and RROP it seems like there is less of a conflict than you might believe.  As Chet points out, the all-in hand is not turned up until the betting action for the HAND is complete.  Therefore, if there is a sidepot, and with the established (foundational rule of RROP) of deciding the sidepot first, you can consider betting action unfinished until the sidepots are decided.

There is then no real conflict, and rule 12 dictates the order of showdown for the folks in the sidepot if they are not all in. 

I simply am trying to suggest that there is less of a conflict or confusion in the rule as written now then you suggest.  I suppose it is a bit like the argument we had over the old rule 33 (?). 

Chet, hope the wifey is ok!!