POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types
I constantly hear that an abandoned all-in must be shown. Where is this rule?
Nick C:
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.
Nick C:
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:
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.
Nick C:
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:
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!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version