POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types
Open Face Chinese Tournament rules
Tristan:
I think that is a great idea. I'm thinking they would need to be exposed in proper order though, correct?
K-Lo:
Yes, they would be turned face up, in turn.
One of the interesting things that I have had to deal with is when the dealer accidentally exposes a card. This potentially gives other players at an advantage, but it does not seem right to reshuffle or give the player some sort of option... We make him keep the card, but I am wondering whether there may be a better solution...?
K-Lo:
An update on our tournament... It went very smoothly, no glitches. We didn't implement the idea of turning the cards of the fourth hand face up, and although some players complained that the game was different when they could not see the contents of the fourth hand, I think it was fine.
A few clarifications in terms of procedure that we employed:
1. We chose to move, for the purposes of balancing tables, the first position left of the button. I.e. move the person that is left of the button on the first table to the same spot of the new table, or a worse position.
2. We use a "moving button"; I.e. there is no need for a 'dead button' if the button is moving to a position where a player has busted since there are no blinds.
3. The button will move to its correct position before any new players from broken tables are seated. This means that a player from a broken table will not be seated on the button.
4. In general, if a player has not released a card from their hand, they can still change the position of their card. If they have released the card, but a subsequent player has not yet revealed any of their cards for the same round, we would generally allow the player to change the position of their card.
5. In the initial setting of the 5 cards, if a player wishes to leave the bottom row empty, he must make a declaration to this effect. Otherwise, the cards that the player sets down as the "lowest" row is always deemed to be the bottom row (this is to prevent the angle of potentially later claiming that the bottom row cards were actually the middle row cards).
6. We played down to a final table of 5, where we redraw for seats, and the button sits out. The upside is that we do not have to play one table of 2 and one table of 3. The downside is that the player on the button who sits out has no chance of busting on this hand, which some may argue is somewhat unfair. However, the final table of 5 seemed to work fine.
Tristan:
--- Quote from: K-Lo on April 24, 2013, 09:03:21 AM ---5. In the initial setting of the 5 cards, if a player wishes to leave the bottom row empty, he must make a declaration to this effect. Otherwise, the cards that the player sets down as the "lowest" row is always deemed to be the bottom row (this is to prevent the angle of potentially later claiming that the bottom row cards were actually the middle row cards).
--- End quote ---
Great point, I didn't think of this potential issue.
K-Lo:
The Open Face Chinese Poker tournament structure at this year's WSOP has just come out.
There's an interesting clarification in their rules - not sure if this is standard now or not elsewhere -
"Paying out: If a table is three-handed or four-handed, players pay the player to the left of the button first. In the case of short stacks, chips that are won are separated, and the remaining chips are used for comparing against the remaining players. For example, if a player has 10 points worth of chips, and he scoops the player to the left of the button, but gets scooped by the next player, he'll get 6 points from the first player, but only have 4 points worth of chips that haven't gotten action. He/she pays off those 4 points, but still has 12 points worth of chips after the hand is over".
This seems a bit strange to me. If the player has 6 chips and the first opponent fouls, he is basically insured against having to pay out to all other opponents, since his 6 chips are already accounted for. So basically, when the stacks are short, a lot of time you'll only be concerned with how well you do only against the first opponent (i.e. a heads-up situation, ignoring all other players, even at a 'full table').
Is it me, or is this odd? Doesn't it make more sense to say that if you started the hand with 6 chips, you can only gain or lose a maximum of 6 chips from/to each player, but you must still compare hands with each player (in order)?
UPDATE: Ok. It appears that they did it this way in Monaco as well: http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/ept/2013/ept9-monaco-new-tweaks-to-open-face-chin-133340.html.
The effect of this is that a player may at best double-up in the hand. Although I appreciate that they don't want a person to luck out by making a huge hand and winning more than what his stack permits, it does not make sense. If you are up against 2 opponents, you should be able to double-up at best, but against 3 or 4 opponents, you should be able to triple up or quadruple up, just as in any poker game.
What they are doing is not correct, IMO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version