2 questions on dead button / blind movement when going from 3 players to two.
1. Alice on button, Bob SB, Carol BB. Alice on the button is eliminated. So BB travels to Bob, Carol becomes the SB and the button. I understand this as BB must move, though creates inequity in that Bob has to act first post-flop two hands in a row. But, this is the correct button movement and blinds I am quite sure.
But, I am less sure of the rationale for the situation when:
2. Alice on button, Bob on SB, Carol BB. Carol in BB is eliminated. So, my understanding is that BB moves to Alice and Bob is small blind (again) and the button.
Question I have is why isn't there no small blind in this situation. That is, Alice becomes BB as she would if Carol had not been eliminated, but Bob would be the Button, and there would be no small blind (position that Carol was in would have been SB, but was eliminated).
If more players are in a hand when the BB is eliminated there is no subsequent SB, so why would it be different when you are going from 3 players to 2. (unless TDA has rule that SB would be payed twice in multiple player action as well, and would be small blind and button, which I don't think is the case but I can't find it in the rules.
thanks,
Hey Velo,
Welcome to the forum.
I have often found that
TDA Rules do not include details that a majority of members consider to be common knowledge. These include many of the details found in other references, such as Robert's Rules of Poker version 11 (http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm).
RRoP v11 Rule #31"In heads-up play with two blinds, the small blind is on the button. When play becomes heads-up, the player who had the big blind the most recently is given the button, and his opponent is given the big blind."As you can see, in RRoP it is very clear that when heads-up both the SB and BB are always paid and that the Button is always moved to the player who most recently paid the BB.
Alice is button, Bob SB, Carol BB. Carol was BB most recently. Carol is given the button. Carol is SB. Bob is BB.
Carol was BB most recently. Carol is given the button. Carol is SB. Alice is BB.
Bob was BB most recently. Bob is given the button. Bob is SB. Alice is BB.
The rationale: In poker, position has value but chips have more value.
Regards,
B~
appreciate the confirmation.
I find it still odd that TDA wouldn't be very specific in their own rules that address this. Many well established rules are reiterated in TDA and it seems odd to refer to another set of rules as the "back up" for what TDA does not address. Are we using TDA or are we using Robert's Rules (because Robert's has at least a few items that conflict with TDA)?. Doesn't feel like a poker room should pick and choose rules and the TDA rules should address all situations.
I still am not clear about why there would not be an absent small blind when the BB is eliminated when going from 3 to 2.
I am pretty sure in a tournament that when there are 4 or more players and BB is eliminated that no one assumes the small blind on the next hand (you don't make the previous small blind repeat a small blind - he just becomes the button and there is no small blind, then there is a dead button on the next hand). So, why then when you move from 4 players in a tourney to 3 players and someone is eliminated does the player who had the small blind have to repeat the small blind when the BB is eliminated?
Just seems inconsistent
thx
Quote from: VeloPR27 on January 22, 2018, 04:19:30 AM
I still am not clear about why there would not be an absent small blind when the BB is eliminated when going from 3 to 2.
I am pretty sure in a tournament that when there are 4 or more players and BB is eliminated that no one assumes the small blind on the next hand (you don't make the previous small blind repeat a small blind - he just becomes the button and there is no small blind, then there is a dead button on the next hand). So, why then when you move from 4 players in a tourney to 3 players and someone is eliminated does the player who had the small blind have to repeat the small blind when the BB is eliminated?
Just seems inconsistent
Indeed, when playing heads-up or not, posting or skipping the SB when the BB is eliminated, can seem to be inconsistent. However, referencing more from RRoP:
--- excerpts from RRoP v11 ---
SECTION 4 - BUTTON AND BLIND USERULES FOR USING BLINDS
1. (deleted)
2. Each round every player must get an opportunity for the button, and meet the total amount of the blind obligations. Either of the following methods of button and blind placement may be designated to do this:
(a)
Moving button – The button always moves forward to the next player and the blinds adjust accordingly. There may be more than one big blind.
(b)
Dead button – The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and the small blind and button are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat, giving the same player the privilege of last action on consecutive hands. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #1, for more information on this rule.]
3. In heads-up play with two blinds, the small blind is on the button. When play becomes heads-up, the player who had the big blind the most recently is given the button, and his opponent is given the big blind.
--- end excerpts ---
TDA rules use a Dead Button. The beginning of heads-up play starts a new round and the button is given to the person who last posted the BB. RRoP says,
Each round every player must get an opportunity for the button, and meet the total amount of the blind obligations. Consequently, both players are obligated to pay a blind while heads-up. When not heads-up, players can still meet the obligation to pay the blinds in each round even though the BB has been eliminated. Under no circumstance is a tournament player allowed to skip their obligation to pay a blind whether or not they are present at the table.
Regards,
B~
I agree with Bill 100%. One of the issues with Robert's Rules is that it is used primarily for cash games. There was a time when the TDA preferred little discussion about "cash" games. Until all areas of poker are covered by the TDA we will continue to turn to Robert's Rules. If I may add some food for thought on the head to head ruling for tournaments: I believe that using a "dead small" after the BB is eliminated on the previous hand creates an unfavorable advantage where the Button would maintain the button position two hands in a row.
I remember years ago, walking into a casino hosting a hold'em tournament and every time the table got down to two remaining players they did it wrong. I corrected them but it's easy to understand how confusing the rules can be.
You might note (two remaining players) the first card dealt will go to the BB...That too is confusing.
I have been thinking about this. The reason for doing it this way, is tradition.
But if you're going to question this rule, you probably should also ask yourself why the tournament doesn't start without a small blind on the first hand.
In simpler terms then RRoP; A player may not be the BB twice (two hands in succession).
Quote from: Nick C on January 23, 2018, 12:25:20 AM
You might note (two remaining players) the first card dealt will go to the BB...That too is confusing.
This is why
TDA Rule #34: Button in Heads-Up says:
Heads-up, the small blind is the button, is dealt the last card, and acts first pre-flop and last on all other betting rounds.This, of course, makes perfect sense as the button is
always dealt the last card. Given, there are only two players, the other guy has to get the first card.
(An exception may occur when a previous player's hole card has been exposed during the initial deal.)
Quote from: WSOPMcGee on April 28, 2018, 10:11:01 PM
In simpler terms then RRoP; A player may not be the BB twice (two hands in succession).
And more accurately:
A player may not be the BB twice (two hands in succession) and the BB is never the button.
However, this doesn't cover the situation where:
Scenario #1
- Alice is Button.
- Bob is SB.
- Carl is BB.
- Dave is UTG.
- Eric is UTG+1.
- Fran is UTG+2.
Alice, Bob, Carl, and Dave bust out, leaving Eric and Fran heads-up. Now, you need the more complete rules.
The Button and SB moves to Fran as she was the BB most recently. Eric is BB, is dealt first, and acts last pre-flop. As always, the Button acts last post-flop. And, acts first when heads-up pre-flop.
So:
- Most recent BB becomes Button and SB
- The other player becomes BB
- The new BB is dealt first and acts last pre-flop
- The new Button is dealt last and acts first pre-flop
This is also why I think
TDA Rule #34 needs improvement. It says:
Starting heads-up play, the button may need to be adjusted to ensure no player has the big blind twice in a row.I prefer the RRoP wording.
Scenario #2
- Alice is Button.
- Bob is SB.
- Carl is BB.
The confusion stems from the fact that the Button usually moves forward to the next player. In the above, the Button would typically move to Bob. However, when Alice busts out leaving Bob and Carl heads-up, the Button cannot move to Bob as that would make Carl BB twice.
So, which wording is more clear?
The button may need to be adjusted to ensure no player has the big blind twice in a row. — or —
The button goes to the player who paid the BB most recently.Reconsider the first scenario above where Fran becomes the Button. It had nothing to do with ensuring that no player has the BB twice in a row.
Ignore the following bug in SMF: [/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]
Bill,
Everything you laid out is unnecessary. No matter how many players are eliminated in any particular hand which results in heads-up play, the BB advances to the next player in turn, so long as they were not the BB the previous hand. In your Scenario #1, you're pointing out the obvious and not because Fran was the most recent BB. Eric is the BB because he's next in turn. By default, the Button backs up to Fran.
No need to over complicate things by extensive wording. That's already been done by MikeB with the chip manipulation rule. It needs to be reworded completely and renamed to the Chips Speak rule. But that's another topic.
Thomas,
Perhaps this will make my point more clearly.
| Alice | | Bob | | Chris | | Deb | | Eric | |
| B | | SB | | BB | | UTG | | UTG+1 | |
| BB | | B-SB | |------- | | ------- | |-------| |
| BB | |------- | | B-SB | |------- | |-------| |
| B-SB | |------- | |------- | | BB | |-------| |
| B-SB | |------- | |------- | |------- | | BB | |
|------- | | BB | | B-SB | |------- | |-------| |
|------- | | B-SB | |------- | | BB | |-------| |
|------- | | B-SB | |------- | |------- | | BB | |
|------- | |------- | | B-SB | | BB | |-------| |
|------- | |------- | | B-SB | |------- | | BB | |
|------- | |------- | |------- | | BB | | B-SB | |
- The button moves in normal order to Bob.
- The button is adjusted to Chris to prevent paying the BB twice in a row.
- The button is adjusted to Alice or Eric as they paid the BB most recently.
Of course, in all cases the button moved to the player who paid the BB most recently. But, the button is
adjusted in cases other than prevention of paying BB twice in a row.
Deb cannot become button in this scenario as it is her natural turn to pay the BB. All other players can become button under the correct circumstance. That circumstance is stated correctly in RRoP, not in the TDA.
Nice use of color, but the rules can be stated more simply:
Regardless of how many people got knocked out, or what positions the survivors were in, once two players remain:
A - The next remaining player clockwise from the prior BB becomes BB. I.E. The same person who would be BB if there were more than 2 players remaining.
B - The other player is SB and Button.
And if anybody cares to know why, it's so that in an unraised put, the BB acts last pre-flop and the button acts last post-flop. I.E. The same as when there are more than 2 players remaining.
Quote from: Dave Miller on May 01, 2018, 09:20:40 PM
Nice use of color, but the rules can be stated more simply:
Regardless of how many people got knocked out, or what positions the survivors were in, once two players remain:
A - The next remaining player clockwise from the prior BB becomes BB. I.E. The same person who would be BB if there were more than 2 players remaining.
B - The other player is SB and Button.
And if anybody cares to know why, it's so that in an unraised put, the BB acts last pre-flop and the button acts last post-flop. I.E. The same as when there are more than 2 players remaining.
I used to be confused by the blinds head's up... I looked at it from the deal's point of view... with more than 2 players, you always deal to the small blind first, so I always thought it should be the same head's up. I now understand and agree with the rule. I also agree with Dave's wording. Could also simply say, "For the first hand head's up, the button and SB will be given to the player who most recently was BB".
Regarding heads-up movement of buttons and blinds, the following sets are transitive equalities:
Set A:
- The button and SB are given to the player who most recently paid the BB.
- The BB is given to the other player.
Set B:
- The BB is given to the player left of the player who most recently paid the BB.
- The button and SB are given to the other player.
Set C:
- The button and SB are given to the player who most recently paid the BB.
- The BB is given to the player left of the player who most recently paid the BB.
A=B, and B=C, so A=C.
To me, the first set of statements are more clear. If you disagree, then I agree to disagree.
Quote from: WSOPMcGee on April 30, 2018, 09:28:34 AM
No matter how many players are eliminated in any particular hand which results in heads-up play, the BB advances to the next player in turn, so long as they were not the BB the previous hand.
How is that possible? If the BB was previously paid by player A, how can it possibly
advance to player A if there is a player B?
Again, the problem arises when typical button movement fails in heads-up situations. The BB twice problem only occurs after the button is incorrectly moved. The button is sometimes adjusted when first heads-up. Thus, describing the solution in terms of button movement makes more sense. Dealers are responsible for moving buttons correctly. Players expect the button to moved correctly before posting blinds.
TDA Rule #34 is appropriately titled
Button in Heads-up, not BB in heads-up.
Wow...I might be wrong on this one but I don't remember it being this complicated. I will only refer to a three-handed game after one player is eliminated.
Alice Button...Bob SB...Carol BB...If either Alice or Bob gets eliminated the Button goes to Carol. If Carol gets eliminated the Button will advance to Bob. It does give Bob the SB twice but Alice would have been the BB on the next hand if Carol were not eliminated. I could be wrong but I think it's that simple.
Sorry to revive an old tread, but Is there clear verbiage in the TDA Rules that indicate who are the blinds when players are eliminated resulting in head-up play? If not, can we add it?
All I could find in the TDA rules, is that when going to heads-up, a player can't be BB twice. WSOP rules say the same thing. There's nothing in either that says a player can or can't be SB twice.
The TD of a charity poker company that does tournaments for various charities almost every week (sometimes more than one in a weekend), insists that the rule is you can't be BB OR SB twice in a row.
Therefore, when three handed, he says that if the BB is eliminated, the SB can't be SB again so he becomes the BB, while the button becomes the SB.
I've always believed it was just the opposite of what he says. The player to the BB's left (button) becomes the next BB and the other player is the SB & Button.
In fact, over the years, I've written in several posts on these forums without getting corrected, and saw other people's posts saying the same thing, so it would be nice if the rules state it as well.
FYI: I've been an unlicensed dealer in a pub league for about 15 years. No license required since there's no cash involved. I've trained new dealers. I recently got a license to allow me to deal in charity events. Is it SO nice being able to deal, and be able to call the floor rather than settle rules issues myself.
It was at one of those events where I saw it. I was internally losing my mind when it happened.
Thanks.
It's already covered in rule 34.
I don't think anything needs to be added/changed?
34: Button Placement and Movement
A: If incorrect button movement is discovered before SA occurs, the error will be corrected. However, if SA has occurred, play will continue. Ex: If the button is moved twice and SA occurs the error will stand, the button will not be backed-up on the next hand. All players have a responsibility to monitor button placement and speak up if they see a mistake (Rule 2)
B: Heads-up, the small blind is the button, is dealt the last card, and acts first pre-flop and last on all other betting rounds. Starting heads-up play, the button may need to be adjusted to ensure no player has the big blind twice in a row.
When training dealers, I tell them that when going from 3 to 2 players, the puck always moves forward, except when the puck busts out
Bob Puck
Sam SB
Tom BB
Sam busts, puck moves to Tom
Tom busts, puck moves to Sam
Bob busts, puck moves to Tom (technically backwards - instinct is to move it forward to Sam)
Brooks -
Thanks for responding, but Rule 34 does not address my question, at all.
Also, I agree with your description of how the blinds and button move when going to heads up.
My question / problem is, there is no official rule nor procedure that illustrates what we already agree upon.
Nor is there a rule that specifies that a player can (or can't) be SB twice in a row.