Author Topic: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation  (Read 6924 times)

scottweb53

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« on: July 07, 2012, 11:19:38 AM »
We had an interesting situation happen in a no-limit texas holdem tournament.

On the river, Player A bet T1500. Player B raised all-in for T3500. Player A did not realize that Player B had raised and turned up his hand thinking he had been called. Player B then turned up his hand. We (the floor) were called over. Player A had the obvious winning hand, yet had not called. Player B was arguing that his hand should be dead, but we informed him, that although he has yet to call, he did not declare that he was folding and still had action. Player B used some expletetives to express his displeasure and Player A responded by saying, "Fine, you want to win the hand that way, I'm folding." and proceeded to throw his hand in the muck. We gave the Players a 1 round penalty for early exposure of cards, but then, the other players at the table complained that it was collusion, since it was obvious that he had the winning hand and should have taken Player B out of the tournament. Do you think A) that we should have made him call, or B) given him a stricter penalty for collusion if he did not? This was obvious to all of us that he was not colluding with this player, as we know that these two players do not, in fact, even like each other, yet he did allow another player to win with the second best hand and remain in the tournament.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2012, 12:23:13 PM »
An interesting situation indeed.  This is one of those situations where no matter what you do, someone is going to freak out and claim that the rules are "stupid"', when it is their own crazy actions that caused the mess in the first place.   :-[

This is how I would have ruled, although I am sure others may have differing opinions.  First, I would not be forcing a call here that would eliminate B.  In my view, B has done nothing wrong, except perhaps that he should have protected his hand by ensuring that his all-in was actually called before flipping.  But it is A who opened his hand prematurely and could potentially benefit from a read of B's actions, and it is A who folded in turn.  Unless it is clear that A would most certainly call here, (e.g. He had the nuts or near-nuts, or it was only a nominal amount to call), I don't think I would force a call here.

1 round penalty to A for exposing cards with action pending as you did, and at least one additional round penalty for chip dumping seems reasonable to me, although a strict application of the rules should actually disqualify A for chip dumping under rule 54.

By the way, what happened to the dealer here!  Did he not try to clarify whether A had called before calling for the hands to be turned over?  I certainly know that Nick will have something to say about that...  ;D
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 12:25:27 PM by K-Lo »

scottweb53

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 12:46:40 PM »
To clarify, Player A had the second nuts in the hand, had bet 1500 and was raised all in to 2500 total, so 1000 more, 2/3 of his original bet. It was clear after the cards were turned over that he had the winner. 

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 01:21:25 PM »
Oh, I see.  That changes things in my view, having to call 1000 into a 4000+ pot with the second nuts. The issue for me is not so much that it is clear, after the fact, who had the winning hand when both hands were tabled (since if A might not call in that spot, we never would have known what those hands were), but whether A would have certainly called even knowing that B went all-in.  In this case, A is never folding so whether he sees that he would have beat Bs hand here is irrelevant, and it is unlikely that any angle is being played.  I would deem A to have called, and possibly give him a warning or penalty.  And my response to B would simply be that exposing cards prematurely may be penalized (potentially severely) at the end of the hand, but doing so does not kill the hand. 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 04:28:42 PM »
Gentlemen,

 As much as I am not in favor of TDA Rule (currently #41) Accepted Action, don't you think it should apply in this situation? Like K-Lo says, Player B did nothing wrong therefore Player A should be awarded the pot but he should not be awarded the extra 2000 that he failed to call. I think his cards (Player A's), should have nothing to do with the final decision.

 We can't afford to put either player in a situation where they can benefit from their mistake. Player A turned his hand first. Player A failed to recognize a raise and I don't know what in the hell the dealer was doing.

 To complicate the situation, the winner wants to give the pot to the loser!??  ...I don't like it. Besides, it's not up to him.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 06:28:54 PM by Nick C »

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2012, 11:53:35 AM »
I also think I am going to have to rule that A has action still and normally would say that he can call/raise/fold if this had happened preflop or on the flop or turn... but if he knows what the other guy has, and the river is out.  The guy shouldn't have the option to fold here. 

It's going to be a call and an elimination because folding when you have the other guy beat and no more cards to come would be chip dumping/collusion. 

Also, why would player B turn his hand up???  Is he trying to show player A a bluff and that he got him to fold the winning hand or is he turning it face up because he thought A called him and it was time for the showdown.  If he's trying to rub a bluff in a guy's face, why are we even considering feeling like he's being wronged here?

If no discrepency had occured, Player B would have been elminated.  We can EASILY infer in this case that the guy was going to call 1000 more and the guy was always going to be knocked out if the cards were never turned up, so you shouldn't feel in the least bit bad about this ruling.

Also, Player A is getting a 1 round penalty for premature exposure.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2012, 01:10:14 PM »
I believe that all actions are available to the players whether there are exposed hands or not.  On all streets.  Players with open hands are (generally) at a disadvantage so they can play however they like under the circumstances.  (that's my view Brian).

This one is interesting though.  As I see it, Player A made the first mistake by opening his hand.  If he is still in at the end then he will be receiving a round penalty.  Player B, however, made the same exact mistake.  Perhaps worse because he raised and he should have waiting to clarify if there was a call or fold before exposing.  Regardless, he exposed his hand out of turn and if he survives will get a round penalty.  Now we have both players who prematurly exposed their hands and as stated I think all players have all actions open to them at this stage.

If player A was the only one with an exposed hand he could fold or call.  But now that he knows what player B's holding is I think he can still have those same choices but they should be informed choices.  I would tell them that Player A has both choices.  If he calls, Player B is out and Player A receives his penalty,  If Player A chooses to fold, player A will likely be disqualified for chip dumping and Player B will receive his penalty.  What say you Player A?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2012, 06:01:01 AM »
Hello Jasper,

 I hope you are referring to heads-up when you wrote: "I believe that all actions are available to the players whether there are exposed hands or not. On all streets. Players with open hands are (generally) at a disadvantage so they can play however they like under the circumstances."

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2012, 05:48:52 PM »
No, I am talking about at any time.  They made the mistake of exposing their hand.  They are allowed to play it anyway they like with that disadvantage.  There is no rule that I am aware of or reason that I can think of to restrict that players actions.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Collusion Ruling/Interesting tournament situation
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2012, 06:44:52 PM »
JasperToo,

 Don't you think there is a difference between a player exposing his hand when head to head and a player exposing his hand when facing multiple players? How do you see it as a disadvantage to the offending player, only? If you want to expose your cards against one player, that's bad enough, but to allow a player to expose his cards with multiple players and action pending is highly unethical.

 You can't do it.