PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: BillM16 on August 25, 2015, 10:29:46 AM
-
Lets say that 3 players go to river. Player A bets $1000. Player B discards his card in front of himself and Player C quickly throws his hand entirely into the muck. According to rule #14 Live Cards at Showdown, Player B may now change his mind and decide to call Player A. In other words, shouldn't Player B have this option to change his mind only while it is his turn?
-
Lets say that 3 players go to river. Player A bets $1000. Player B discards his card in front of himself and Player C quickly throws his hand entirely into the muck. According to rule #14 Live Cards at Showdown, Player B may now change his mind and decide to call Player A. In other words, shouldn't Player B have this option to change his mind only while it is his turn?
Rule 14 applies to showdown only. Your example is on the river while betting action remains.
Player A bets 1000, B "discards in front of himself"... that's a fold when facing A's bet. C then mucks. The hand ends there on the river, and doesn't make it to showdown.
-
OK, I did miss that. Perhaps this would help others like me.
Discarding non-tabled cards facedown at showdown does not automatically kill them; ... etc.
Also, could you or someone provide an example where this could happen at showdown and in that scenario my question would still be if it matters if the player who is allowed to change his mind did so in the correct showdown order? I hope you see my point. Obviously, I'm having a hard time grasping this one. I'm a little concerned about opening up an opportunity to angle shoot.
-
Bill,
I guess I'm having a tough time understanding how Player B's cards would sit in front of him after he folded. I know when I'm dealing, those cards are automatically mucked as soon as they are released.
-
Also, could you or someone provide an example where this could happen at showdown and in that scenario my question would still be if it matters if the player who is allowed to change his mind did so in the correct showdown order? I hope you see my point. Obviously, I'm having a hard time grasping this one. I'm a little concerned about opening up an opportunity to angle shoot.
This touches on the entire showdown procedure. A key issue is when the house considers cards dead at showdown. The official TDA position is that they are not dead until placed in the muck by the dealer. The TDA language can be seen as a form of pure "cards speak". Nothing else matters.. no gestures, no declarations... as long as your hand is identifiable it can play.
Traditionally there have been other thresholds: a) when discarded forward (the idea of a "mucking line" beyond which the cards are dead); b) when touched by the dealer; c) when tapped to the muck (but still identifiable). Some houses still use one of these other thresholds.
For the pure TDA standard, that cards are not killed until put into the muck, this language is unstated but in effect: "the presumed winner should retain his cards until all other hands have been collected and mucked by the dealer". That's implied in the player's responsibility to follow the action (Rule 2), and implied in the new language of "protecting your hand including at showdown while waiting for it to be read" (Rules 13-B and 60).
So, in your example if there was no bet by A and we were at showdown, under pure TDA, B's cards are indeed still live though not yet tabled. B could choose to table them after C folds. If the house wants to enforce a strict order of show scenario it should retrieve and muck B's cards. IMO under TDA current language it's not B's responsibility to see his cards get into the muck "in order", but rather house responsibility to pull them in if that's how they want to handle the order of show. Otherwise you have a hand that can be tabled still sitting there and other players in the showdown need to be aware that hand has not been mucked.
-
Mike,
There must be standard rules of showdown. I don't know of any dealer procedure that allows Player B to show after Player C has mucked. The action must play-out in a specific order, as stated in: TDA #16 Non All-in Showdowns.
We need to allow the dealers to do their job. The simple order of showdown must be followed. Each player, one at a time. If you fold the cards are immediately mucked and then the dealer will proceed to the next player and so on. Player B's showdown must be finalized before Player C does anything.
-
Mike,
There must be standard rules of showdown. I don't know of any dealer procedure that allows Player B to show after Player C has mucked. The action must play-out in a specific order, as stated in: TDA #16 Non All-in Showdowns.
We need to allow the dealers to do their job. The simple order of showdown must be followed. Each player, one at a time. If you fold the cards are immediately mucked and then the dealer will proceed to the next player and so on. Player B's showdown must be finalized before Player C does anything.
Fact is the vast majority of showdowns don't go to an order of show... the mucking and tabling is spontaneously initiated by the players themselves. And in those cases, per TDA until a hand is in the muck it's live and can be tabled. All players who want to compete for the showdown need to follow the action during the showdown.
-
I still have concerns about 14 Live Cards at Showdown.
- It seems to establish a separate rule for attempted discards (or attempted folds) that applies only at showdown.
- However, I have seen in other posts where this rule also applies to situations such as (but not limited to):
- Pre-flop half the table folds while a few players limp and the BB (perhaps a novice) attempts to fold.
- Post-flop a player makes a bet and all but one of the remaining players fold. The aggressor discards his cards thinking that he is the only player left.
Saying check or tapping the table are universal ways of checking. Saying bet or raise or pushing chips forward are universal ways of betting. Saying fold or pushing your cards forward are universal ways of folding -- unless you are at showdown and are following TDA rules.
I don't like it.
If the intent is simply to protect the innocent from accidents then that needs to be an explicit part of the message.
-
Hi Bill: The essence of your concern seems to be that there is no "folding" rule at showdown.
That's deliberate... the TDA does not recognize the term "I fold" at showdown, anymore than it recognizes other declarations of capitulation such as "good hand" or "you got me" or "take it" or "it's yours"... At showdown Cards Speak is the TDA standard... the cards do the talking.
Nor does the TDA recognize a forward toss of cards immediately by itself as killing the hand at showdown (though dealers should take immediate possession of and kill the hand). For example, 4 hearts on the board, at showdown Player A thinks he has trips, Player B shows a straight, and Player A discards face down, then recognizes he has a heart, grabs the cards and tables them... the heart flush plays. If we were to use "folding" rules at showdown, the mere forward discard by B would kill his hand, despite it being 100% recognizable and still within his grasp.
Whereas as you point out, if during a betting round a player says "I fold" or discards their hand, it's dead at that moment.
Related: The 2013 TDA Rules on showdown did have a section that read "If a forward motion rule or mucking line is in force during showdown, house standards apply". It was removed in 2015 because virtually no house at the Summit said they use forward motion or a mucking line to kill a hand at showdown, but if they do, they could refer to the 2013 Rule and just use their house standards. See 2013 Rule 14-B here: http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Poker_TDA_Rules_2013_Version_1.1_Final_handout_PDF_redlines_from_2011_Rules.pdf
If you think the TDA should re-establish the 2013 14-B language by all means propose it.
-
Hi Bill: The essence of your concern seems to be that there is no "folding" rule at showdown.
That's deliberate... the TDA does not recognize the term "I fold" at showdown, anymore than it recognizes other declarations of capitulation such as "good hand" or "you got me" or "take it" or "it's yours"... At showdown Cards Speak is the TDA standard... the cards do the talking.
I'm not suggesting the the term fold be recognized at showdown. I also recognize that Cards Speak as they should. What I am suggesting is that the hand is live until it is discarded and that is consistent throughout all other stages of the hand and happens to be synonymous with folding.
As you know, TDA #13 and #60 try to make it very clear that at showdown proper tabling of cards faceup and protecting their hand until accurately read are of utmost importance. Given the cautions about mucking and the need for the hand to be 100% identifiable in TDA #13B and #60 why do we need to have TDA #14 that seems to me to be saying "OK, you really can discard your cards at showdown but you really have to be careful about it and don't let the dealer muck them until you see your opponents hand to decide whether or not you really want to show."
Now, I realize that this is not the intention of the TDA. However, I do think that different wording could possibly eliminate the need for several repeated warnings about mucking a possible winner without having a separate and partly contradictory rule that says players who discard at showdown can change their minds.
That is the true essence of my concern: Telling a conniving player that he can change his mind after discarding at showdown will be a welcome opportunity to the angleshooter.
-
Bill.... example situations:
1) let's look at the case described in prior text... 4 hearts on board, At showdown I pitch my cards forward a foot or so, clearly within my grasp, then realize there's a heart in the hand... too late to table it?
2) What if I toss it forward, the heart card flips up, I can't table the other card?
3) What if I discard face down and the presumed winner asks to see it... by a large majority most houses will rule the "discarded" hand live in that case... it's live in that case but not others?
The problem is there are too many "possibilities" if we use mere discarding as the point at which a hand is killed at showdown... vs. dealer pushing them in the muck, a much more definitive action. These are some of the reasons that "live til in the muck" (i.e. "live til not 100% identifiable") was adopted at the 2013 Summit. If you combine that with Cards Speak, then it's very clean: verbal declarations are meaningless, and the cards are live until they are in the muck. This of course unless the house uses a forward motion / mucking line at showdown as provided in the 2013 Rule 14-B.
As an aside, some have suggested using "dealer takes possession" of the hand as the point of killing, rather than actually placing the cards in the muck...
Thoughts?
-
I'm not sure you want to hear my thoughts again, but here goes...I think it's nothing short of criminal. To think that the TDA (or any rule-set) would condone the "winner" to give a windfall of chips to the wrong player. This makes me question the integrity of the rule-makers. :(
I've discussed this too many times to count, and it still bothers me. I can not be the only person that feels this way. Every issue, or problem, or questionable moves, or verbal declarations, or gestures, or mistakes, or pots being awarded to the wrong player, or arguments about a player's "right" to see a hand, or wondering if we are victims of collusion, or chip dumping....(need I continue?). These are IMPOSSIBLE if any player happens to be all-in. WHY can't we eliminate the uncertainty? We (as rulemakers) must insist that the integrity of tournament poker remain intact. :)
It's not a game of "smoke and mirrors" and any player (or rulemaker) that thinks it's okay to award a pot to the losing player is an accomplice! :( Players who have reached the showdown have completed all actions for all betting rounds... and yes, this includes the final round that was checked! Turn them over and the best hand wins...and if you have a problem with that, I question your ability, as a player, to be trusted...and to the floorpersons and TD's, I question your integrity and ability to run your event in the best interest of the players and fairness the top priority. That's it...you asked for thoughts, you have mine. Thanks for listening. ;D
-
I'm not sure you want to hear my thoughts again, but here goes...I think it's nothing short of criminal. To think that the TDA (or any rule-set) would condone the "winner" to give a windfall of chips to the wrong player. This makes me question the integrity of the rule-makers. :(
WHY can't we eliminate the uncertainty? We (as rulemakers) must insist that the integrity of tournament poker remain intact. :)
It's not a game of "smoke and mirrors" and any player (or rulemaker) that thinks it's okay to award a pot to the losing player is an accomplice! :( Players who have reached the showdown have completed all actions for all betting rounds... and yes, this includes the final round that was checked! Turn them over and the best hand wins...and if you have a problem with that, I question your ability, as a player, to be trusted...
Okay Nick, simple questions:
1: Do you think what you propose above is what the majority of players want? If not, why would you make a rule they don't want?
2: Do you think that "reading your own hand" is part of the game? i.e. part of a player's responsibility is to know what hand they have? I can tell you that many people do believe that... that reading your own hand, AND occasionally making a mistake and mucking face down when you have the best hand is part of the risks a player accepts when he plays the game.
Classic example, maybe "the" example: Phil Ivey made the final WSOP table a few years back. On one hand he had a made flush but didn't realize it... his opponent showed a lesser hand. Phil contemplated then mucked what would have been the winner IF he had tabled it. An obvious error... is that part of the game, reading your own hand, or would you take that mistake out of the game? Here's Ivey's own comments about the error: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzlLQUNU8c
Under current rules almost everywhere players can muck face down without showing in non all-ins... that right far precedes the TDA.
-
Bill.... example situations:
1) let's look at the case described in prior text... 4 hearts on board, At showdown I pitch my cards forward a foot or so, clearly within my grasp, then realize there's a heart in the hand... too late to table it?
2) What if I toss it forward, the heart card flips up, I can't table the other card?
3) What if I discard face down and the presumed winner asks to see it... by a large majority most houses will rule the "discarded" hand live in that case... it's live in that case but not others?
The problem is there are too many "possibilities" if we use mere discarding as the point at which a hand is killed at showdown... vs. dealer pushing them in the muck, a much more definitive action. These are some of the reasons that "live til in the muck" (i.e. "live til not 100% identifiable") was adopted at the 2013 Summit. If you combine that with Cards Speak, then it's very clean: verbal declarations are meaningless, and the cards are live until they are in the muck. This of course unless the house uses a forward motion / mucking line at showdown as provided in the 2013 Rule 14-B.
As an aside, some have suggested using "dealer takes possession" of the hand as the point of killing, rather than actually placing the cards in the muck...
Thoughts?
Hey Mike, I think there are a few things found in RRoP v.11 that I'd like to include while answering your examples:
ROBERT’S RULES OF POKER
VERSION 11
DEAD HANDS
1. Your hand is declared dead if:
(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).
2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.
THE SHOWDOWN
2. Cards speak (cards read for themselves). The dealer assists in reading hands, but players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot.
4. All losing hands will be killed by the dealer before a pot is awarded.
5. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.
Now to the crux of the problem. Clearly, before the pot is awarded the hands must be read at showdown. Certainly, the hands that have been tabled correctly should be read. Likewise, those that have been thrown away in a forward motion should be killed. If I'm not mistaken, the dilemma that we are dissecting is whether or not a player should be able to reverse his decision to muck and instead decide to table his hand before the dealer actually kills it. Here is my answer.
First, we assume that the cards are 100% identifiable and that the player can regain control of those cards without armwrestling with the dealer.
Now, we have two possible scenarios. Players are either:
1) spontaneously tabling their hands in no particular order or
2) the tabling order is proceeding based on TDA rules
Lets now assume that the dealer is a graduate of Nick's University of Professional Poker Dealers;). So, hands that are discarded are being killed ASAP.
IMO: A player who changes his mind during the spontaneously tabling scenario is one lucky guy and should be able to table his hand. Furthermore, I doubt that any of the other players would object in this case. Also, if the tabling is proceeding under rule, then Nick's disciple would likely kill the players hand unless he had changed his mind before it was his turn to show.
However, most dealers are not UPPD graduates. Unless players are tabling spontaneously, what usually happens is that a dealer will merely identify the correct player who should show first and then players follow the correct order from there. In this case, if showdown action proceeds past a discarded player then that player should not be allowed to change his mind and table his cards.
In answer to your examples:
Example 1: Lets use Phil Ivey's 2009 WSOP muck instead of your example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKBKoSyTEAE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKBKoSyTEAE)
Phil's hand is in the muck but was placed there by himself and not the dealer. The cards are 100% identifiable. If he suddenly remembered that he had the 8 of spades and the winning flush, should he be allowed to change his mind? What if he were sitting in seat #2 and discarded with his arm extended toward the muck but didn't actually hit the mucked cards. Then suddenly, before the dealer could muck his hand should he be allowed to change his mind? He is last to act in both of these cases. Following RRoP Dead Hands #2: The question in the first case here is would I as TD decide the best interest of the game would allow Phil to table his winning hand. In this case, I would have to allow his hand to play. Following that same logic, the second scenario is also a yes. But, what if there were a third player in the hand that was to act after Phil? Lets say the third player shows the 7 of spades for an apparent winner. Then, suddenly Phil says "wait I had the 8 of spades." Then, following RRoP Dead Hands #1, I would not allow Phil's hand to play.
Example 2: Players often toss their cards forward to help the dealer read or muck the hand. Who is to say that the faceup or facedown card was the accidental card? The hand is live and both cards should be tabled.
Example 3: I agree with the majority and with RRoP - If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.
-
Classic example, maybe "the" example: Phil Ivey made the final WSOP table a few years back. On one hand he had a made flush but didn't realize it... his opponent showed a lesser hand. Phil contemplated then mucked what would have been the winner IF he had tabled it. An obvious error... is that part of the game, reading your own hand, or would you take that mistake out of the game? Here's Ivey's own comments about the error: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzlLQUNU8c
Funny that we would both choose this example at the same time. Note, I agree with you that Phil is loser due to his mistake. I don't like Nick's proposal of saving losers from making mistakes. In my response above we change the reality and give Phil an epiphany that might save him.
-
Bill,
First of all, I have some openings for my next poker dealer course...drop me a line if your interested. :D
I'm glad that both you and Mike selected the same example (Phil Ivey's screw-up)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OzlLQUNU8c
Before I even get into Phil Ivey, I want to point out that your mention of Robert's Rules is strictly for cash games. We need to know the difference. In a cash game, I don't care if a player overlooks his winning hand...that's part of the game. It should not be a part of tournament poker. The time for a player to misread his hand is during a betting round...facing a bet and folds, a simple mistake. However, once that player has reached the showdown he should never lose if holding the best hand!
Back to Phil Ivey...I have some questions for you: How far did the player Ivey faced advance?
How would you like being eliminated by that player later in the tournament, because he had more chips than he should have? It's happened too many times to count on youtube videos I've watched.
How do you know that Phil didn't intentionally dump his chips?
How would you feel if: you were on the bubble and could have moved into the money, if the correct player got the pot?
I could continue but if you don't understand where I'm going, I'm wasting everyone's time.
Mike and Bill, please take a look at this one and tell me this is acceptable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n-FWeY7avw
-
Bill,
First of all, I have some openings for my next poker dealer course...drop me a line if your interested. :D
Can I earn a free scholarship if I answer the remaining questions correctly?
In a cash game, I don't care if a player overlooks his winning hand...that's part of the game. It should not be a part of tournament poker.
Nick, I fully realize that this is your opinion. However, I am also quite glad that yours is a minority opinion as I fully agree with the majority who believe it is rightfully part of tournament poker.
Back to Phil Ivey...I have some questions for you: How far did the player Ivey faced advance?
How would you like being eliminated by that player later in the tournament, because he had more chips than he should have? It's happened too many times to count on youtube videos I've watched.
How do you know that Phil didn't intentionally dump his chips?
How would you feel if: you were on the bubble and could have moved into the money, if the correct player got the pot?
I could continue but if you don't understand where I'm going, I'm wasting everyone's time.
Nick, none of these things matter one iota to me as it is merely part of the game that all good players learn to overcome. It is the weak player that needs and wants your help to make the game easier for them. As to the question regarding Phil - it doesn't deserve an answer.
Mike and Bill, please take a look at this one and tell me this is acceptable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n-FWeY7avw
Nick, this is yet another perfect example! This is entirely acceptable and a fantastic call by Lizano. Please realize that I do understand you. This is a perfect example of a horrible mistake Pantaleo! Now, you see this as a flaw in the game that needs to be corrected by rule makers. I see this as an integral facet of the game that makes it so interesting and challenging. Why in the world did Pantaleo fold? Don't try to convince me he was dumping chips; that would be insane. He folded because he was absolutely convinced that he was beat! Perhaps his ego even got in the way, so he didn't want to show Lizano his bluff hand. Maybe, he even wanted the cameras and the world to know just how certain he was beaten as proven by his willingness to fold with absolutely nothing at risk except his pride! That is great poker buddy and I wouldn't want you or anyone else to change it. To me it would be sacrilege for someone to step in here and pull his hand from the muck and give him half of the pot.
I guess I'll be paying full price for your poker dealer course :(.
-
Bill,
You keep telling me you fully understand how I feel, yet you fail to explain how, in either situation, the errors could not occur if either player were all-in! Phil Ivey could never have lost that pot if he was all-in, and the other player (in the other video) would have received half the pot! II find it totally ridiculous that "protection" is only extended for all-in situations. I hope we're still around when the TDA members realize how asinine the current showdown rules are and the proper change is made. You refer to me as your buddy, that might be the case some day if we meet...right now I feel like your "punching bag!" :-\
As far as taking my poker dealing course, my students learn more than the mechanics of the game. Poker ethics and etiquette are also an integral part of their training. I'm not sure you'd be interested.
For the 100th time, just in case any readers missed it: Why should tournament players only be guaranteed that the proper player receives the pot when someone is all-in at the showdown????? Why?
-
Nick, I didn't mean to imply that I understand your feelings, only your written words. I meant no harm and I'm sorry if I made this personal, I will be careful to keep this strictly professional in the future. Please accept my sincere apologies.
-
Bill,
No apology necessary... like you I'm only trying to express my feelings, based on many years of poker, for the betterment of the game!
May the flops be with you...and don't muck any winners at the showdown! ;D