PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: suffolkraider on December 08, 2015, 05:05:49 PM
-
Hi all I would just like to ask a question that caused a kerfuffle tonight.
NLHE tournament blinds are 400/800 big blind only has 400 Table folds to small blind who pushes cards forward near but didn't outright declare fold to muck pile but then noted by dealer that he can't fold as he has matched bet of big blind. The cards were easily identifiable so the hand is played and the small blind wins knocking the big blind out. This then caused a stir with non players adding their bit but as I pointed out the shuffle had started so that hand was over. The TD said we were right.
My question is was the dealer right to retrieve the cards as they were near the muck pile as per the TD and were we right in saying he couldn't fold.
-
1. the card are not mucked until the dealer pulls in the card into the muck.
2. cards were identifiable and retrievable so nothing wrong here.
3. if the small blind still wants to fold he can, there are no rules that says he has to play, he should since the play doesnt require him to put more in the pot.
4. if the small blind still wants to fold, there could be colusion, something for the TD to decide.
So to answer the questions, yes the dealer can retrieve the cards since they are easy to recover and not officially mucked. And can probably recommend to play but not force the player to play (but of course there is the issue of potential colusion and not wanting to eliminate this player which could mean some penalty but not a forced play.)
-
Max,
Because we are talking tournament poker, I believe that the BB could not fold because he was all-in. It's true , the cards were identifiable but that has little to do with this situation. All-in cards must be tabled.
-
As described in the OP, it seems that the clear intent of the SB was to fold when pushing cards toward the muck. Rule #14 says that the SB "may change his mind" here. It doesn't say that the dealer should rescue him. Players have a responsibility in #2 to "one player to a hand." I also believe that dealers should not become the second player in the hand. The BB was all-in and one might argue that #15 would require the hands to be turned face up here. But, #15 is only relevant after "all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete." The SB made a choice to muck while erroneously thinking that he was facing a larger bet. Poker is a game of observation and the SB made a mistake that should not be rewarded with the assistance of the dealer and lady luck.
Regards,
B~
-
Thank you for your replies I can now see where it was right and wrong as I have problems in pub poker (as this was) that "many" players "know the rules" Our main problem was a player who was already out was trying to get the player reinstated (had a few too) I think next time if it reoccurs we should stop rather than have a discussion. So really if the SB has decide to fold it is his/her mistake and we should not help unless there has been an infringement
I knew this was the place to get the answers as you guys are the best.
-
It was a tournament, one player was all-in and all bets were matched. I would instruct SB and BB to turn their hands up and run the board out. If blinds were 300-600 and BB was all-in for 400 and SB mucked for 100 more that would be different and I would not return those cards; but in your example: all-in and matched, run it.
-
Rules for poker must be governed by the written rules that best pertain to each unique situation that may arise. In the situation described, the all-in rule "must" trump the others. I do not agree that the dealer should remain silent. A good dealer will know the rules and should do everything in his power to "protect" all tournament players from the unacceptable situation where chips are awarded to the wrong player.
So...suffolkraider, in my opinion, as I stated earlier and Brian Vickers agreed, the right thing to do is exactly what you did...the BB hand could not be killed in that situation.
-
If the SB had successfully mucked his cards, which rule(s) would apply?
-
If the cards were "successfully" mucked by the SB, the winner would be the BB.
-
The pot must be given for the last player that have live cards, in case of no showdown (that decide the winner with better hand)...
so 1 - SB successly fold, the last last player with live hand is the BB, so win the pot
2- SB fold but cards didnt touch the muck, apply the rule of all in need to showdown, once both players are with the same value of bets and BB cant raise anymore, so dealer ask to the player to showdown their cards and the better hand gona win
3- SB fold when needed to complety a small value compared with the blinds, i think dealer cant say how the player need to play, so fold continue and BB "doble up" but in this case SB can be punished for collusion.
But in case 3, can director ask for the dealer the showdown of SB cards (not to participate of the but,) only to verify a real possible of collusion, and if he/she folds a obvious good hand, the punish can be more severe, like an elimination?
-
Mateus93:
If you ask me, that's the exact situation the rule was written for. When a player is all-in, and the opposing players (or player, in this case) is already in for all bets, all cards MUST be tabled. It would guarantee that the player with the best hand is awarded the pot and it would assure that collusion is not possible. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the dealer preventing the discarded hand from hitting the muck. The way I see it, that is exactly what a good dealer should do. Prevent the cards from hitting the muck, and call the floor for further direction.
-
So the blinds were 400 and 800. The BB only had 400 and was all-in preflop. How much would the UTG have to put in to call?
-
800
-
Bill, if the blinds are 400-800 the minimum value that players need to put to play is 800. in this case the big has only 400, but its not determine the "new blinds" he put 400 because its all he has but for outhers player still 800 and a side pot will be created.
-
So, there seems to be agreement that had the SB "successfully" mucked his hand then the BB would have been the rightful winner.
The player sitting in the BB spot only had 400 of the actual 800 BB amount and was therefore all-in for his 400. Each of the players to the left of the BB would need to put in 800 to call. Well, that is of course, except for the SB who already has 400 in the pot. It's pretty easy to see how a novice in the SB might think they would need to put another 400 in to make the call. Perhaps, the dealer had even said something like "The BB is all-in for 400 and it is still 800 to call." before the remaining players began folding all the way to the SB. Then, the novice in the SB followed suit and folded like the rest of the players.
In my opinion, there are at least four written TDA rules that are relevant in this situation:
- #1 Floor Decisions
- #2 Player Responsibilities
- #15 Face Up for All-Ins
- #53 Non-Standard Folds
Several of the above TDA members believe that rule #15 should be used to reach the final verdict in this case. I however, respectfully disagree. In regards with rule #2, the SB:
- made his intention clear - he was folding
- acted in turn
- perhaps didn't follow the action
- perhaps didn't know and comply with the rules
I also see how rule #15 could be relevant in this situation. Technically speaking, even without knowing it, the SB has put enough chips into the pot to call the BB. Nowhere is there a rule that says the SB must put in the 800 and then be refunded the 400. (NOTE: All of the other players would need to put in 800 to call and then would have been refunded 400 if they were the only caller.) But, I also read in rule #15 that it applies once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete. I think that this detail is being overlooked.
IMO: When the player on the button folded, the action proceeds to the SB, who in this case folded. A Floor Decision that uses rule #15 to reverse the SB's intended action by stopping action at the button, to comply with the rest of rule #15, is going to far. TDA rules should not be used to prevent players from acting when it is their turn to act. Players must be allowed to act. (Remember now, everyone agreed that had the SB "successfully mucked" that the BB would be the winner.)
Also, let's not forget about rule #53. This rule says that folding in turn if there's no bet to you ... (is a binding fold) and subject to penalty. The fit and merit of rule #15 and #53 should be considered. IMO: #53 fits best and results in the better ruling.
Finally, rule #1 tells us that the technical rules should not be given priority over the best interest of the game and fairness when making decisions.
My ruling is based on consideration of all four of the above rules. Having given you the long of it above, here is the short of it.
The SB acted in turn and folded. The SB should receive a warning penalty for the non-standard fold as he wasn't facing a bet. The BB would win the pot as he had the last live hand.
I know that some believe that the "best cards" should always win. I believe that the "best player" should be allowed to win his fair share. The BB did nothing wrong here and the SB made a big mistake. Of course, the other players at the table wanted to get rid of the BB so they wouldn't necessarily agree with the ruling - but good players would know that is was the fairest decision :).
-
There are rules that will support almost any decision you make. However, if the dealer prevented the all-in player from mucking there would be no need for this discussion. What does the dealer tell the floorperson when they are called? "The small blind thought he had to call 400 more, because he didn't realize that the BB was all-in for 400, which equaled his SB." "I "screwed-up" and allowed his discards to hit the muck!" The cards were easily identifiable (as stated in the original post) therefor the discarded hand must be retrieved and the hand played out. That is in the best interest of the game...anyway that's the way I see it. ;D
-
I've given this a lot of thought.
I'm torn between Rule 1 and the rule of One player per hand.
If the dealer prevents the SB from mucking, isn't that two players on that hand?
-
Dave,
I've been involved in poker for a many years and I've been training dealers for nearly forty years. One of the (many) duties of a good dealer is to prevent a mistake before it occurs. Protecting the muck from a prematurely discarded hand is just as important as correcting an improper bet amount or preventing an out of turn player from acting, to name a few. Why would we expect a dealer to allow a player from mucking in the described situation? I can't agree with you on this one...I also don't consider the dealer as one of the persons considered in the "one player per hand" rule. Any player at the table has a right to speak up when a mistake is about to take place. In this situation, any player could have told the SB that his hand was live.
One of my biggest gripes on this forum has been the push for less participation from the dealers. That's right, there are too many that don't want the dealers to do much of anything because they are afraid they will make mistakes. This is a clear indication that our dealers need better training. There's nothing like watching a good dealer control the action at the table. We can't continue to "stifle" the well trained dealer because we failed to bring the poor ones up to snuff!
-
Nick -
I'm on board with your comments. I DO think dealers should be more involved, but only to a point. For example, if the BB doesn't realize he's a blind and attempts to act first and fold, then it's fine for a dealer to return the BB's cards and ask for the blind.
But in that same line of thinking, and sorta to the point of this thread, if there is no pre-flop raise, is a BB allowed to fold in turn? I see that as no different than a player who open folds on a subsequent street. Sure, they could have checked, but they fold for whatever reason. If the BB would be discouraged or forbidden from folding, then in the original post's situation, the SB should be prevented from folding as well. But is that the case? Don't we allow the BB to make the mistake of folding when he can see the flop for free?
Therefore, in the original situation, is the SB allowed to fold or not? Until we know the answer, no player or dealer should inform the SB that there is no additional action. It's only after he attempts to fold that we ask the floorperson to get involved and potentially invoke Rule 1.
-
Dave, Nick, et al.,
I'm think we have isolated the point of our opinions and concern. Nick holds that dealers have responsibility to prevent player mistakes. I hold that players are entitled to act and make mistakes. Dave says that if it is fair for one to make a mistake it should be fair for others as well. I realize that we all have the best interest of the game at heart. This is an excellent point for further debate.
When should players be allowed to act? When should dealers prevent players from acting?
We do have rules that address different situations and (as pointed out) you can find rule(s) to fit your opinion. But, the fundamental questions as stated here are not clearly defined.
Regards,
B~
-
When should players be allowed to act? When should dealers prevent players from acting?
Players should always be allowed to make mistakes.
Poker is a game of information, and observation. Consider these situations:
1 - If there is a bet, and call(s), and then an all-in raise for less than a full raise, when it comes around to the original bettor or caller(s), do we tell them they can't re-raise while they are contemplating their action?
2 - A player is about to bet out of turn. Do we stop him?
3 - At a showdown, a player shows only 1 card for the winning hand, and looks like he is going to muck the other card. Do we stop him?
Not only is situation #3 a painful lesson to learn, each situation tells the other players that the person in question is not fully aware of the rules or isn't paying attention to the game.
Similarly, if in the original post, the SB attempts to fold, whether allowed or not is up to the floor to decide. The dealer should let him attempt it because that is important information the other players are entitled to.
-
Dave,
We are talking about tournament poker. We must assure that the best hand (in for all bets) gets the pot. Period! We can not allow players to muck or surrender the best hand because they didn't read it correctly. One of the dealers duties is to assist in reading hands at the showdown.
To answer your questions: #1. No we do not tell them they can not re-raise until they attempt to do so...then it is the duty of the dealer to correct the obvious mistake.
#2 Yes, absolutely. I would expect the dealer to prevent an out of turn player from acting prematurely. The consequences result in a high percentage of problems that we encounter on this forum every day...i.e. players reacting to the improper action, by folding calling or raising will slow down the game and have floor persons running from table to table to correct the mistakes, especially when multiple players react.
#3 As far as "at the showdown" a player showing one card would be unacceptable in my game. The dealer would insist that the complete hand be shown before proceeding to the next player. Remember, in order to win the pot, the complete hand must be exposed.
-
2 - A player is about to bet out of turn. Do we stop him?
#2 Yes, absolutely. I would expect the dealer to prevent an out of turn player from acting prematurely.
Nick, I know you have extensive experience training dealers. Please tell us how dealers are trained to recognize players about to bet out of turn?
-
Dave,
We are talking about tournament poker. We must assure that the best hand (in for all bets) gets the pot. Period! We can not allow players to muck or surrender the best hand because they didn't read it correctly. One of the dealers duties is to assist in reading hands at the showdown.
I totally agree with this statement, but don't see how it applies to the debate.
I never said the SB should be allowed to fold. Just that he must be allowed to attempt to fold.
This debate really comes down to one of two things: Should players be forced to pay for their mistakes, or should they be protected from their own ignorance? Which way will they learn faster?
2 - You would stop a player that is about to act out of turn? I will always allow it, but immediately stop any additional OOT action until the skipped player has acted.
I'm reminded of a hand I was playing where I flopped the nuts. I was about to bet. I had chips in hand, forward of my cards, when the person on my left made a bet. The dealer prevented any additional OOT action and turned to me. Since I knew the OOT bet would stand if I checked, and he would be able to reconsider if I bet, I tapped and said, "I guess I check." Several other players called. When it came back to me, I raised. The OOT player and another player called. It was a nice payday by the time it got to the showdown. If that dealer had somehow prevented the OOT bet, and I then checked, maybe he would have checked as well and the eventual pot be much smaller.
3 - At showdown, players occasionally show only 1 card, waiting to see if it's good or not. If it's good, they will then show the other card. Occasionally, they will muck the other card. On more than one occasion, I've ripped the dealer a new a-hole if he advises the player to show the second card while other players are still holding cards.
Bottom line, people have a right to be stupid.
-
3 - At showdown, players occasionally show only 1 card, waiting to see if it's good or not. If it's good, they will then show the other card. Occasionally, they will muck the other card. On more than one occasion, I've ripped the dealer a new a-hole if he advises the player to show the second card while other players are still holding cards.
So what ist the status of this hand?
He didnīt muck the second card and hold it to his hand. So itīs still alive?
The hand is dead because he just has shown one card?
An other player in turn wins the pot, because he has shown both cards?
What, when the first player shows his second card later and claim the pot?
How should the dealer react? And when?
Thanks for clarification!
-
Status? Although he didn't show both YET, he still has a live hand, and the dealer shouldn't get involved.
I occasionally do this myself when playing, so let me describe this another way.
If I have a weak hand, such as one pair with a bad kicker, I'll show the card that makes the pair, but still hold the other card. If anyone else shows a better hand, I'll turn that card face down and fold. Once everyone else folds, I'll turn my other card up. If it gets to the point where it seems like I have the winner, but there's another player holding cards, waiting to see if I'll muck my kicker, then I'll turn it up without being prompted to do so.
I've also been the other guy, holding onto my losing hand, waiting to see if the 'winner' will muck his kicker. If the dealer tells that player to show the other card, I'll tell him, in no uncertain terms, that he shouldn't get involved when there is still action pending.
Note that I deal in a poker league. It's supposed to be a friendly league. If a player only shows one card, I will not ship the pot, even if all other players have folded. I'll say something like, "Show me a winner." Afterwards I'll explain how they could have lost the pot in a casino.
-
Dave
I'm trying not to be too critical but...your dealer training needs some work. How can you say: "The dealer shouldn't get involved?" On the contrary, the dealer has an obligation to insist that the player showing his hand must show the complete hand. That's it...there is no waiting to see other players cards first and then showing any card that you are holding back. When it's your turn (in the proper order of showdown), if I'm dealing and you attempt to show only one card; I will insist that your hand be properly tabled or I will call the floor for assistance. The reasons are obvious: #1 we don't need players irritating other players by showing a straight and then turning the nut flush with the other card, if needed. #2 We need to assure that the player does not have any "extra" cards and only the proper number of hole cards.
Steff0111, I hope this will cover your earlier question. The dealer must react...it's part of his job. Control the action, keep the game moving in a smooth orderly fashion...address one player at a time, in order of showdown and all of these problems would not exist.
BillM16, you asked how a dealer can recognize a player about to act out of turn. If you've ever dealt, I'm sure you could pick up on a player about to bet before he should. I would simply say, "hold on, it's not your turn." Then I would direct the action to the proper bettor and continue. The silent dealers add to our issues. When a good dealer is in control of a table, listen to his direction and there will be far less headaches for us to deal with.
-
Nick -
What I mean is, if players are showing and/or folding their hands, whether in proper showdown order or not, I would expect a dealer to not get involved until there was a point where more than one player still had unexposed cards, and it seemed like there would be a stand-off.
At that point, sure, showdown order prevails. But I wouldn't say, "Gotta show two cards to win." I'd more likely say, "Are you going to show both cards?" If he then asked, "Do I have to?" I'd respond, "I'm not sure I'm allowed to say..." or "You have to show it or fold it..." Just as long as he does something.
My argument is, if a player may possibly make a mistake, the dealer should not get involved to prevent it, but only to handle things after the mistake is made.
-
Dave,
I fully understand what you're saying...I just don't agree. I wanted to address this earlier from a prior post of yours. You mentioned the player that "open folds" when he could have checked. ::) To me, that might be the single worst act any player can do. It offers no protection to other players still in the hand, and can only raise questions of collusion or chip dumping! Period! On your turn to act, when not facing a bet, you may check or bet...that's it. You should NEVER be allowed to fold. That's the way I see it. Open fold...ridiculous! >:(
-
Nick, thanks for your confirmation!
We have a proper showdown order. So, oneone should be allowed just to show one card!
I would stop the other players, when they would try to act "in turn", because it is not their turn.
Action is pending: Tableing the second card!
There are maximum two options in this situation:
1st: Table both cards to claim the pot
2nd: Muck both cards without facing a bet on the river (when accepted)
-
Nick -
I agree that open folding is a stupid thing to do. But are you saying you don't allow it?
Frankly, if I was a player who lost a hand to a player who had attempted to open fold, I'd be quite upset. I'd be equally upset if I lost to a player that was prevented from mucking a card.
If you do not allow open folding, then I think we've come to an impasse, and we must simply agree to disagree (even though I hate that phrase).
If you allow open folding, I gotta ask, how is that different than the player who shows one card and attempts to muck the other?
Action is pending: Tableing the second card!
Correction: Action is pending. Tabling OR MUCKING the other card.
-
Gentlemen,
I would like to address this situation with more detail. Unfortunately, I am unable to take the time to do so right now. For those that are interested in my reasoning, I'll try later today.