Author Topic: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?  (Read 11192 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2012, 08:01:00 PM »
K-Lo,

 I like the bet or check rule with no option to fold.

 In your next sentence are you saying that if the first player to act checks, and the next player checks, that the first player can muck without showing? In addition, the winner must expose his hand? If you are correct, how does that protect the integrity of the game?

 I was always one who thought that poker, whether tournament or cash, were similar with a few differences. Now that I've been addressing so many issues that happen in tournament play, I have to say, it's like two completely different games!

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2012, 08:14:59 PM »
Technically, if it goes check-check, the first player should show first under standard showdown rules, but if he just throws his hand into the muck and the other player doesn't care to see it, I'm not going to enforce a penalty.  This happens all the time.  And if that happens, under the rules of many venues, the second person will win the pot and does not need to show because he is the last person with a live hand;  at the WSOP though, the winner must show his hand so I would have to apply those rules.

I know you want to see the rules changed to have both hands shown at showdown even in non-all in situations, and I agree that probably better protects the integrity of the game.  I'm not disagreeing, I was just simply saying how I would have ruled in the given situation under the current rules.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2012, 08:20:46 PM »
Here's my problem with the TD saying "you cannot fold, it is prohibited"...   if that were true, then if instead of asking, Antonio had merely opened the betting round by saying "I fold", then wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule, the rule is that if he declares a fold here, it is binding; the only question is what, if anything will be the penalty for doing so.

Given a strict interpretation, might the "optimal" (or most literal) response to Antonio have been: "If you declare fold here, it is binding, and you may be subject to penalty"? The TD in this specific case gave a slightly different response: "If you declare a fold here, it is binding, and here's what the penalty will be"....

Very interesting thread, definitely worthy of further exploration at the next Summit.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 08:48:25 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2012, 08:41:19 PM »
I don't think the focus was on the "penalty" aspect, frankly.  I find it strange that he would "penalize" Antonio by showing his hand, and then forcing the other person (who did nothing wrong here) to show his hand when he wouldn't have had to if he had the opportunity to bet.  He probably just wanted to find some way to let Antonio fold and move the game forward.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2012, 08:51:47 PM »
I don't think the focus was on the "penalty" aspect, frankly.  I find it strange that he would "penalize" Antonio by showing his hand, and then forcing the other person (who did nothing wrong here) to show his hand when he wouldn't have had to if he had the opportunity to bet.  He probably just wanted to find some way to let Antonio fold and move the game forward.
Then there's the other issue of maintaining the integrity of the game by ensuring against collusion, given that folding in the face of no bet from one view has the strongest appearance of soft play. Requiring the two hands to be shown here might be justified for that reason alone, quite apart from strictly the issue of folding to a check. Perhaps the TD saw the ruling not as penalty (i.e. he allowed the soft fold w/o a penalty), but required the mutual show for game integrity.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 08:53:39 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2012, 09:09:42 PM »
 Do you rule any different if there are three players in the hand instead of heads-up? If so, can you explain the difference?

 What if three players were involved but one player is all-in on the flop, leaving two players with chips and the player wanted to fold instead of check?

 I'm only trying to shed some light on a few different scenarios that seem to fall into the same category.

 Tournament poker should demand all cards be tabled at the showdown, or at least upon request. I see no better way to solve the great number of problems that are created every time these showdown questions are asked.

 Mike, I don't believe every subject is governed by a specific rule. The subject we speak of is poker etiquette. It is highly unethical to fold when you have an option to check. I like what you just wrote;..." wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule.

 That's correct it isn't a rule. However, mucking in that situation must never be an option...never.

 

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2012, 09:17:43 PM »
Question for those of you in the "fold to a check is prohibited" camp:

1) is an out-of-turn fold also generally prohibited or is it binding or is it subject to the same binding/not binding conditions as any other OOT action (such as an OOT bet, raise, check)? Does it make a difference whether the OOT fold occurs when the current action is a check or a bet?

2) When the BB folds on his option when there's been no raise, do you push the cards back to him and tell him he can't fold, it's prohibited?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:18:53 PM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2012, 09:48:08 PM »
Does anyone have a clip or link to a clip of this situation, btw? Would be good to have for any future discussion of it.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2012, 11:08:22 PM »
Then there's the other issue of maintaining the integrity of the game by ensuring against collusion, given that folding in the face of no bet from one view has the strongest appearance of soft play. Requiring the two hands to be shown here might be justified for that reason alone, quite apart from strictly the issue of folding to a check. Perhaps the TD saw the ruling not as penalty (i.e. he allowed the soft fold w/o a penalty), but required the mutual show for game integrity.

Yes, that is what I have been saying.  It makes total sense from a game integrity standpoint.  But the ruling essentially penalizes the second player by forcing him to show his hand when he has done nothing wrong...  The second player should be permitted to act in turn, and presumably be given the opportunity to bet if checked to (and thus take down the pot without showing if Antonio folds to the bet).  

Mike, I don't believe every subject is governed by a specific rule. The subject we speak of is poker etiquette. It is highly unethical to fold when you have an option to check. I like what you just wrote;..." wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule.
That's correct it isn't a rule. However, mucking in that situation must never be an option...never.

Agreed... perhaps the problem is that it isn't explicitly stated in the rules but it should be.  Don't dealers often tell the first player to act in a betting round to "check or bet"?  They don't say, "well, you could check or bet, but you could also fold technically although it's considered poor etiquette and non-standard since the presumption is you are engaging in soft play when you fold when you could actually check and so you may be subject to a penalty, but essentially, your options are check or bet".    ;D

In my experience, the only people who insist on being allowed to fold when check is an option are players who selfishly want to get out of the hand, are not willing to wait their turn in what is a turn-based game, and who don't care about maintaining game integrity or concern themselves about how their fold might influence future action.  I am not persuaded that there is any valid reason why someone should be permitted to fold when check is an option.  We could codify this explicitly, but really, I am surprised that anyone thought "the rule" was otherwise. For me, it is a matter of common sense.  If fold were meant to be an option along with check, then that should be an exception to be set out explicitly in the rules.  I am 100% in agreement with Nick that mucking when a check is possible should never be an option, and I don't think it ever was.

Question for those of you in the "fold to a check is prohibited" camp:

1) is an out-of-turn fold also generally prohibited or is it binding or is it subject to the same binding/not binding conditions as any other OOT action (such as an OOT bet, raise, check)? Does it make a difference whether the OOT fold occurs when the current action is a check or a bet?

Before the new TDA rule came into effect, I would have ruled an out-of-turn fold the same as any other OOT action -- all options remain open if action hasn't changed.  Now the rule says that it is binding, so I have to rule the fold as binding unconditionally.  To me though, the fold being "binding" does not mean I must kill the hand immediately, or that fold is an "option" when the player could check.  

If a player (who could check) folds, I think the correct approach should be to have him take his cards back, force him to check (he cannot take aggressive action by betting now), let action around the table continue, and should the action come back to him and he faces a bet, then he must fold at that point.  That is what "binding" means to me.  His immediately penalty is that his opponents can bet knowing that he will fold (but if no one bets, IMO his hand is still iive!).  After the hand is done, the TD can assess hand and round penalties as well.  

To me, "binding" means that when the action returns to a player, and fold becomes a valid option on the player's actual turn, then the fold is enforced.  The term "binding", in and of itself, has no temporal restrictions.  If the intention was that "binding" = "kill the hand immediately" in non-standard fold situations, then I think that should have been made explicit in the new rule.

Personally, I would prefer if the rule said:  (1) A player who folds out-of-turn is bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player and the player faces a bet.  (2) A fold that has been made in turn when the player had the option to check will be deemed a check, but the player will be bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player and the player faces a bet.  In both cases, the player may not make any aggressive action (e.g. bet) while his hand remains live.  

Similarly, I would also prefer that there be an explicit rule that says if a player checks or "calls" out-of-turn in a given betting round, the player is bound by that action if action to that player has not changed (as per Rule 36), but additionally, the player has give up any right to make any aggressive action (e.g. bet, raise) in that betting round.  

Quote
2) When the BB folds on his option when there's been no raise, do you push the cards back to him and tell him he can't fold, it's prohibited?

With respect to the BB folding his option when there's been no raise, we discussed this in a separate thread.  Many believe that to avoid players from being upset by someone who intended to fold ultimately winning the pot, the BB's hand should immediately be killed.  I disagreed because I felt that this penalty was disproportionate and extreme for something that is most likely unintentional.  It is much different from being first to act on a betting round and folding out of turn;  a BB inadvertently folding his option is closing the action for that betting round and giving him back his hand when no one has raised does not affect any player's outstanding decisions for that round.  Personally, I would prefer a compromise position that would not kill the BB's hand (e.g. give the BB back his cards, and allow his hand to be live but he cannot take any aggressive action for the remainder of the hand), but I don't think this would get majority support.  
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 11:10:16 PM by K-Lo »

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2012, 08:37:18 PM »
i have to ask what happens to the pot in wsop rules if the last man with a live hand throws it in the muck, are all the chips in the pot disqualified
i know the tda does not support that the last player must show to win because of rule 14

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2012, 09:32:07 PM »
I believe that Jack Effel was asked this during WSOP, and if I'm not mistaken, he indicated that the pot will still go to the person that held the last live hand, but that person may receive a penalty for not showing the hand.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2012, 08:06:05 AM »
K-Lo,

 I agree with your suggestion;  The second player should be permitted to act in turn, and presumably be given the opportunity to bet if checked to (and thus take down the pot without showing if Antonio folds to the bet).

 I've always felt an intentional OOT should be as binding as action in turn. Your suggestions for punishment are interesting. Although, I'm not sure I would allow the offender any chance at the pot. if any player bets after the incident. Correct me if I'm wrong but, the last line of TDA rule (currently #35) Action Out Of Turn: An out of turn fold is binding. Does that not translate to; the hand is dead! This should also include TDA Rule #45 Non-Standard Folds.

 I also agree with returning the hand of the BB, after he attempts to (unintentionally) muck when no raise occurred.

 

 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 08:11:30 AM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2012, 09:01:56 AM »
I've always felt an intentional OOT should be as binding as action in turn. Your suggestions for punishment are interesting. Although, I'm not sure I would allow the offender any chance at the pot. if any player bets after the incident. Correct me if I'm wrong but, the last line of TDA rule (currently #35) Action Out Of Turn: An out of turn fold is binding. Does that not translate to; the hand is dead! This should also include TDA Rule #45 Non-Standard Folds.

Nick:

Yes if any player bets after an OOT fold, then the fold will be binding and the hand cannot win the pot. That's a no brainer.

However, let's say we have a three-way pot post-flop, Players A, B, & C.  Before A has a chance to act, B attempts to fold OOT.  Do you return his cards to him and tell him to wait his turn, or do you kill his hand now and continue the action heads-up (and potentially assess a penalty later)?  If you say "return his cards and tell him to wait", then if A checks, what do you do with B then?  Do you then accept his fold?  Technically, he can't fold there because fold isn't an option yet (he can check). 

Similarly, say Players A, B, & C are at the river.  A attempts to fold.  Do you kill his hand and continue the action heads-up, or do you return his cards to him and tell him to wait since fold is not an option?  If both B and C then check, is his hand still live?

Under the current rule, I think you are probably right that killing the "folding" hand right away is justified in both cases.  But if we are talking whether there's a better alternative, I would actually be OK with returning hands folded OOT or folded in-turn when they should be checked, and keeping the hand live until someone actually bets, at which time the hand is folded.  I think this approach can be applied more consistently across the various different situations that we discussed, and certainly better than killing the hand but then forcing other players who did nothing wrong to reveal their hands.



Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2012, 01:56:15 PM »
 We are entering a real grey area. I say this because I know of players that will take your ruling too far. Intentionally tossing a hand OOT, knowing that you will give them the hand back, is not a good practice.

 This is how I see it, and this is how I make my decision: Any fold OOT, (unless it is an obvious mistake) will kill the offending player's hand. You said that it is a no-brainer if any player bets after the OOT fold. Are you counting the OOT as one of the players for substantial action?  Because if you are, IMO, I see it different. The dealer should have time to correct the action to the proper bettor and possibly salvage the hand. This is where it gets tricky, I would not allow the OOT fold the opportunity to remain in contention for the pot.

 Your example of a three way pot, post flop, where player B folds before Player A acts is not only a violation of OOT, it also goes against ethics because fold is not an option when not facing a bet.

 These rules can be very complex when we try to look at every possible scenario. I think this is when the skill and experience of a good floorperson comes into play. If a player is intentionally betting OOT, or intentionally breaking rules of poker etiquette, they must be subjected to warning, penalties, or expulsion from the tournament for repeat offenders.

  I am not disagreeing with your reasoning, only adding a few facts to consider.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2015, 05:10:04 AM »
Anyone think this might be worth revisting at the summit?  Mucking to a check on river requires that the hand be shown but is a dead hand?  Are we going to far into this?