PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: mooredog on July 22, 2016, 12:51:48 PM

Title: show one show all
Post by: mooredog on July 22, 2016, 12:51:48 PM
We had a player who would get very careless protecting his hand if his immediate neighbors were no longer in the hand. He would protect their contents if they were in the hand. If they had folded he would hold his cards out and his neighboring players could see them who had already folded. At the end of the hand others wanted to see what he had and when I ruled on showing everyone his neighbors who had seen them got mad saying that since he didn't protect them and didn't show intentionally no one else should see the cards. I ruled showing your hand does not necessarily have to be intentional to qualify for show one show all. Your thoughts.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 22, 2016, 01:45:27 PM
mooredog...

 I'm with you on this one. Besides, it's a good way to discourage them from continuing their unethical practice. Reminds me of times when I was dealing and a player would flash his hand before mucking, as a precaution, I would touch the cards to the muck and expose them to the table.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: GreggPath on July 24, 2016, 08:11:58 PM
I agree. Good call.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on July 25, 2016, 06:38:22 AM
Note that the Show One Show All is an RRoP rule and is not established in the TDA rules. 

In TDA, there is Rule #62: No Disclosure that says:

Players must protect other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore players, whether in the hand or not, must not:
     1.  Disclose contents of live or folded hands,
     2.  Advise or criticize play at any time,
     3.  Read a hand that hasn't been tabled.
One-player-to-a-hand is in effect. Among other things, this rule prohibits showing a hand to or discussing strategy with another player, advisor, or spectator.


In RRoP, there is Rule #6: Show One Show All that says:

Players are entitled to receive equal access to information about the contents of another player’s hand. After a deal, if cards are shown to another player, every player at the table has a right to see those cards. During a deal, cards that were shown to an active player who might have a further wagering decision on that betting round must immediately be shown to all the other players. If the player who saw the cards is not involved in the deal, or cannot use the information in wagering, the information should be withheld until the betting is over, so it does not affect the normal outcome of the deal. Cards shown to a person who has no more wagering decisions on that betting round, but might use the information on a later betting round, should be shown to the other players at the conclusion of that betting round. If only a portion of the hand has been shown, there is no requirement to show any of the unseen cards. The shown cards are treated as given in the preceding part of this rule.

Regards,
B~
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Dave Miller on July 25, 2016, 07:12:34 AM
Bill -

I'm not sure what your point is.

The TDA rule says, in short, don't expose cards. It doesn't say what to do if cards are exposed.

The RRoP says, if cards are exposed (thus implying that cards should not be exposed), do x, y or z depending on a, b or c.

These rules are complimentary, not contradictory.

RRoP also makes a note that some players overlook, that 'show all' refers to players, not cards.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on July 25, 2016, 07:37:15 AM
I'm not sure what your point is.

Good morning Dave,

I agree that these are complimentary.  My point is simply this:  All to often the TDA Rules presume that the reader is an experienced poker player or tournament director that knows all of the common knowledge rules and perhaps even all of the RRoP rules.  It doesn't recognize that there are many novice players who lack that level of knowledge and experience.  In most cases these details are left out of TDA in an effort to keep the rules concise.  However, brevity should not be at the expense of comprehension.  Sure, most everyone knows Show One Show All ... and IMO in belongs in the TDA Rules.  I also agree with Nick that enforcing SOSA is the best deterrent to this etiquette violation.

Regards,
B~
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Max D on July 25, 2016, 10:55:30 AM
I agree with Nick on his process to show all.  Also if you have a rule book it should be a combination of RRoP, TDA, and house rules which can give the missing guidance on some of the TDA rules.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 25, 2016, 12:33:34 PM
Gentlemen:

 This is a good post for me to vent, just a bit. Anyone that follows the TDA Forum is probably sick of hearing my rants. If I may take a minute to better explain exactly why I feel the way I do. Years ago, when I first began running poker games, I realized that I would need some solid rules to go by. Running a home game does have some advantages, such as the selection of crazy games that we will never see in a casino environment...but the lack of security and keeping a sometimes rowdy bunch of players under control takes some solid rules. I learned those rules...I applied those rules...and they carried over to my years as a dealer, instructor and floorman for nearly 20 years while I lived in Las Vegas.

 Now, let's get to my point. There have been many changes in poker through the years, primarily, the shift in popularity from draw and stud, to hold'em, Omaha and some other mixed games. The explosion of Hold'em in 2003 when Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP Main Event along with the simultaneous airing of televised poker on the Travel Channel. Suddenly, all of those major casino's that abandoned the game, began re-opening their Poker Rooms. The rest is history! Sure, it might have slowed down a bit, but I think it's here to stay.

 My biggest question will always be: Why was a rule changed? Some needed to change because of cell phones and different technology applied to the game. Bravo Systems and auto shufflers, etc. etc. When an old rule, that withstood the test of time, is changed...I need to know why? I need to know what reasoning is behind the change? What terrible happening occurred that called for the change?  I also would like to know who suggested it? Being a poker dealer instructor for over 35 years, I need to understand every single rule that's on the books. I joined the TDA for this  purpose. If a rule is changed, I want to know why. If I don't understand what the rule is trying to say, I'm frustrated. So I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from when I debate so many of these situations. My suggestion for all players at the showdown, in for all bets, to show their hands would eliminate TDA #13, 14, 15, and 16. Plus a whole bunch of headaches for everyone. I take pride in being a good teacher and find it impossible when I can't explain a rule because I don't understand it!

 
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 25, 2016, 08:16:00 PM
I thought that I'd get some response to my last post, but I'll just say; no news is good news. I'd also like to thank BillM16, Dave Miller,
 Max D, and GreggPath for speaking up and voicing an opinion.  The silent majority of members contribute very little to the TDA. I've fought back many times and know that my input had a impact on some of the proposed rules that were voted down, and some that were even entered and then changed back to their original state. I will continue to speak up whenever I feel that a rule needs some tweaking, or a rule is proposed that frankly makes little sense and does not protect the integrity of the game.

Thanks for listening.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Max D on July 26, 2016, 09:08:54 AM
Nick,

Healthy debate is good and hopefully it helps evolve the rules to be best for players, dealers and TD.  I love the fact that your proposal here would remove rules rather than add...  Simplifying is a thing of beauty.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 26, 2016, 09:20:21 AM
Max D.

 1777 members...it's comforting to know that I have at least one that agrees with me...on one subject, anyway! ;D
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on July 27, 2016, 02:12:15 PM
I thought that I'd get some response to my last post, but I'll just say; no news is good news. I'd also like to thank BillM16, Dave Miller,
 Max D, and GreggPath for speaking up and voicing an opinion.  The silent majority of members contribute very little to the TDA. I've fought back many times and know that my input had a impact on some of the proposed rules that were voted down, and some that were even entered and then changed back to their original state. I will continue to speak up whenever I feel that a rule needs some tweaking, or a rule is proposed that frankly makes little sense and does not protect the integrity of the game.

Thanks for listening.

Nick,
As you know, I respectfully disagree with your proposal as I currently understand it.  However, I do encourage you to start a separate thread to have your proposal fully detailed and debated and perhaps to bring it to the 2017 Summit for a vote.  Perhaps a separate thread would better give you the opportunity to air your position.  It should work better than tacking it onto threads that are somewhat related but are not directly addressing the points of your proposed changes to the rules.
Regards,
B~
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 27, 2016, 04:05:21 PM
Thanks Bill, but if you search the archives you'll see that I've been lobbying for the same changes for 6 years! I will continue to interject my very old suggestions, with the hope that someone will realize that the complaints and confusion we face at the tables today, are the same ones we addressed years ago.

 I'm not sure I know which proposal I've suggested, that you don't agree with. Would you explain? Please keep the list brief. ;D
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on July 28, 2016, 07:07:20 AM
Thanks Bill, but if you search the archives you'll see that I've been lobbying for the same changes for 6 years! I will continue to interject my very old suggestions, with the hope that someone will realize that the complaints and confusion we face at the tables today, are the same ones we addressed years ago.

 I'm not sure I know which proposal I've suggested, that you don't agree with. Would you explain? Please keep the list brief. ;D

Nick,

I think it would be very helpful for everyone if you would take the time and make the effort to enumerate your proposals that you've been lobbying for in a separate thread.  You have made 2757 posts over the 6 years and you are most qualified to present a summary of your proposed changes and opinions.  Don't leave it to me and others to search the archives.  To quote an experienced and respected TDA Member - Would you explain?  Please keep the list brief. ;D

Regards,
B~
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 28, 2016, 08:27:09 AM
Bill,

 Thanks for the mention, "experienced and respected." I'm not looking for respect, but the experience can't be denied. :D

 You're also correct about the posts. I have 2757 (plus this one), mainly because I've been repeating myself about 2000 times. Why? Because I don't get answers, that's why.

 Bill, I'll ask you again, "which proposal did I suggest that you don't agree with?"

 I see no point in "taking the time and enumerating my proposals"...again. Anyone that has an interest in learning the purpose for a specific ruling can navigate through years of valuable information on this forum. I know the rules, even the ones I don't like. My objective is to make the rules easier for others to understand.

 In over 50 years of playing poker, I've never known a single person that agrees on every rule. That is, unless you wrote your own. :D

 The purpose of the TDA is to adopt a uniform set of poker tournament rules worldwide. In my opinion, we're not there yet.

 
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: MikeB on July 28, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
Thanks for the mention, "experienced and respected." I'm not looking for respect, but the experience can't be denied. :D

 You're also correct about the posts. I have 2757 (plus this one), mainly because I've been repeating myself about 2000 times. Why? Because I don't get answers, that's why.

 Bill, I'll ask you again, "which proposal did I suggest that you don't agree with?"


Let's not forget, the MAIN PURPOSE of this forum is to discuss the interpretation and application of the TDA Rules as they are. As such the focus should be on questions related to the current rules and how they apply to specific situations. It is not a forum for an endless list of proposed changes. Those can be discussed in private e-mail and through the "my messages" feature of this forum.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on July 28, 2016, 01:41:54 PM
Mike,

 With all due respect. I've probably sent more "private" messages than any other member. The last one I sent to you on June 18 went unanswered. I've never forgotten "the MAIN PURPOSE" of this forum. That is why I reply as often as I do. You expect me to apply the TDA rules as they are...I want to know where they originated. Or why, a perfectly accepted time tested rule was changed. If I were given a good reason, I would accept it.

 I've asked questions, given my answers to questions from others, and was passed over as if I never responded. Once you told me that you thought I should look to another online poker site to express my opinion, because you felt I was too unhappy with the direction the TDA was headed.

 My INTENT has always been improved explanations for the betterment of the game.

 Shortly after my return from the TDA Summit in 2011, you were introduced as the newest member on the board of directors. I was one of the first members to welcome you and recognize you as a great addition...I still feel that way. I know we don't agree on some of the rules, but that's to be expected. Meeting you and several of the other TDA members was a positive experience.

Back to your last post: You said this is not a forum for an endless list of proposed changes. Last year I fought like hell to get "the first card off" changed, and we succeeded. I probably had little to do with that change, but in my gut, I feel I did.

 Anyway, I don't understand some of the rule changes, and I don't believe they've improved anything. I don't live in Las Vegas anymore, so I don't mingle with the in-crowd like I used to. I can only voice my opinion on this forum and I believe it should have an impact on each and every Summit. There is no reason, in this day and age, that we can't have an on-line vote at the Summit instead of relying on a show of hands from less than 10% of the members that are usually in attendance.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: MikeB on July 28, 2016, 03:08:36 PM

My point is simply this:  All to often the TDA Rules presume that the reader is an experienced poker player or tournament director that knows all of the common knowledge rules and perhaps even all of the RRoP rules.
That has historically been true... that the TDA does not intend to completely re-write all the conventional rules of poker, but rather: 1) those rules that are unique to tournaments; 2) those rules for which there isn't a commonly practiced standard; 3) where there are 2 or more popularly-used conventional rules; 4) a few conventional / standard rules that are so important they deserve re-mention or are often mis-applied OR misapplied in certain situations.

It doesn't recognize that there are many novice players who lack that level of knowledge and experience.  In most cases these details are left out of TDA in an effort to keep the rules concise. 
The TDA does recognize this, but again it's a trade-off between keeping the TDA Rules concise and focusing on the 4 areas listed above to, as you write "keep the rules concise".

However, brevity should not be at the expense of comprehension.  Sure, most everyone knows Show One Show All ... and IMO in belongs in the TDA Rules.
So there's a great example of the trade-off: A) "most everyone knows show one, show all", so does it really need to be in the TDA Rules? And this will probably be answered in terms of: "is there anything about show one-show all that isn't clear?", "is there a common situation or situations that occur where the application of the rule needs to be clarified?".
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on July 29, 2016, 07:30:52 AM
However, brevity should not be at the expense of comprehension.  Sure, most everyone knows Show One Show All ... and IMO in belongs in the TDA Rules.
So there's a great example of the trade-off: A) "most everyone knows show one, show all", so does it really need to be in the TDA Rules? And this will probably be answered in terms of: "is there anything about show one-show all that isn't clear?", "is there a common situation or situations that occur where the application of the rule needs to be clarified?".

Good morning Mike,

Apparently, the OP thought that there was room for clarification here - and I agree.

In TDA, there is Rule #62: No Disclosure that says:
...
One-player-to-a-hand is in effect.

IMO, the following is a very small change and is worthwhile.

Show-one-show-all and one-player-to-a-hand are in effect.

Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Terence Bertault on August 17, 2016, 01:03:03 PM
Hi guys,

Very basic and smple rule.

One hand, one player. Show one, show all.
If a player show one of his card to a player or a spectator, the dealer has to open the two cards at the end of the hand.
Showing a card is forbidden during a hand and have to be penalyze.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Uniden32 on August 21, 2016, 09:18:23 AM
One hand, one player. Show one, show all.
If a player show one of his card to a player or a spectator, the dealer has to open the two cards at the end of the hand.
Showing a card is forbidden during a hand and have to be penalyze.

Personally, I hate the phrase, "Show one, show all."  While I agree with the intent and spirit of the rule, the wording is awful.  It gives the impression that the flashed cards should automatically be opened by the dealer.

I'd no more want my dealers automatically showing cards and giving free information, than I would have them automatically count all-in stacks.

As far as penalties go, again, I believe that each situation needs to be addressed individually.  I'll try and give some examples:

1.  If I have a player who is last to act in a heads up situation and exposes their cards to their neighbor, I'm only going to ask/warn them to stop.

2.  If I have a player accidentally expose their hand in an all-in situation where they don't realize they weren't called yet and they only player it's affecting negatively is themselves ... again, probably only a warning.

3.  If I have a player expose their hand with multiple all-ins, or raises, and pending action ... penalty.
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Guillaume Gleize on September 08, 2016, 05:31:22 AM
Hello ... And here comes one of my most hatred situation:

Big multiplayer pot - Middle of a betting round (some did bet huge amount & some still have to act) - One player (in the hand or not) shows (accidentally or not) his hand to the players who still have to act - The hand shown has a huge influence on the next player decision (giving an information the first player to bet didn't have) ...

---> Here my question is not about the punishment on the guilty player (I'll manage that): My question is about the continuation of the current hand? I really had some situations were the shown hand did created a huge mess in the poker etiquette ... giving different levels of informations to the different players in the hand!

---> Most of the time I keep the hand to continue (while punishing the guilty player) but I admit that it happened to me some (few) times with huge amounts were I did split the pot between the remaining players in the hand (while heavily punishing the guilty player)!

Your opinions? ...
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on September 08, 2016, 06:25:48 AM
Your opinions? ...

Hello Guillaume, here is my opinion.

So, assuming that the scenario is similar to this:  Blinds are 100 and 200.  Preflop, Alice opens for 1,000 and gets four callers, Bob, Carol, Don, and Erin.  The pot is 5,300.  On the flop, Alice bets 10,000.  Bob, exposes his hand and folds.  Carol raises to 35,000.  Before acting, Don says: “I saw Bob’s hand.”  The floor is called for a decision before Don and Erin are to act on the flop.  The pot is now 50,300.

We can assume that Alice did not see Bob’s hand before she made her bet.  Carol acted after Bob folded and she may or may not have seen Bob’s hand.  Don told us he saw Bob’s hand and he has yet to act.  Also, Erin may or may not have seen Bob’s hand and will act after Don.  Both, Carol and Erin may or may not tell us the truth when asked if they saw Bob’s hand. 

In this scenario, my ruling would be:  Show Bob’s hand to all players and allow the hand to continue, having now given equal information to all.  Alice should realize that the Carol may or may not have seen Bob's hand when she made her raise.  Alice and Carol also know that Bob and Erin are going to act after seeing Bob’s hand.

Regardless of Bob’s two cards and regardless of the three flop cards, everyone is now proceeding with equal information.  I don’t want to begin an endless discussion here on speculation of various boards, holdings, influences, and outcomes - to no avail.  However, the players must take all of that into consideration as they proceed.

Finally, if there were reason to suspect cheating (collusion) my ruling would be different.  Including, killing the hand, returning all bets, and disqualifying players.

Regards,
B~
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on September 08, 2016, 11:25:02 AM
Guillaume,

 Great question...I will respond to Bill first. I'm not sure allowing the action to continue would be fair in your situation. Alice may not have wagered if she knew the identity of Bob's exposed hand...and likewise, Carol may not have raised.

 Guillaume, I do understand your awkward situation. There are a couple of different solutions that would be in the best interest and fairness to all.
                       #1) Stop the action, announce the exposed card and not allow Carol to raise, but only fold or call. Might not be the best option because it appears to penalize an innocent player (Carol) for the error of Bob.

                      #2) Stop the action, announce the exposed card and allow Alice the opportunity to retract her bet of 10,000. This might not be too popular either, but I believe it to be more fair.
   
                       #3) Suspend all action, and award the pot to the best  hand. This would be more likely on the final betting round when the exposed card could greatly effect the outcome and cost undue financial loss. My example would be: 2H, 10S, JS, 9C 6S...the exposed hand AS QH. Any player holding the King of spades and any other spade will now be holding the nuts.
         
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Guillaume Gleize on September 09, 2016, 05:30:38 PM
Hello,

Yep the traditionnal rulling is to never cancel the hand but it really happens sometime to times cases like:

- On a flop QQ7 rainbow with 3 players left and big pot

- Player A open bet a big amount (with no Queen but big pair or pure bluff)

- Player B (completely forgetting player C) folds and shows Q3 saying like "look at my hero fold!"

- Player C (with Q5) now can play more safely ...  :(

I mean those situations can change the odds for the remaining players so much ...
I usually stand the hand but it happened to me to stop and split when (on my own judgement) the amounts or the consequences were so big and the situation so unfair for the first bettors!

But if all of you (plus the TDA) tell me to never do it again: I will follow and never do it again. But before I will wait (here and on many places) for the maximum number of advices.
TY for those first ones.

Registered! ;) 
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: BillM16 on September 10, 2016, 07:22:17 AM

- Player C (with Q5) now can play more safely ...  :(

I mean those situations can change the odds for the remaining players so much ...


Good morning Guillaume,

Yours is a very good example of why the TD should stick to the rule - show one show all - and reject any temptation that the TD might have to become Aequitas Augusti (the goddess of fairness). 

Unless there is cheating involved, it is wrong to stop the action early and rule that innocent players must limit their actions to those a misguided TD determines to be fair.  Even worse would be to ridiculously award the pot early to whomever happens to be holding the best cards before the hand plays out!  This is poker and either Player A or Player C may win, with or without the best hand in the longer run.

In your example, you presume that Player C can now play more safely because the last Q was exposed.  However, Player C is certainly not safe! For example, Player A may be holding 77.  However, regardless of the actual holdings, Player A and Player C both have the same information:  Player B had Q3 and decided that his weak trips are beat.  The fact is, there are two cards yet to come and they could change any outcome that the Aequitas Augusti TD might predict.  My advice:  Stick to the rules and drop the blindfold, scales of justice, and cornucopia of the goddess of fairness.

Finally, the actual odds have not changed at all.  The real odds of winning for Player A and Player C are the same as they were before the cards were exposed.  After all, those cards were in Player B's hand and whether or not they were visible doesn't change the real odds of making their hand after the cards are dealt.  True, both Player A and C know that the other player is less likely to be holding a Q or a 3.  True, Player C knows that he has the last Q and Player A does not.  True, Player A knows that he does not have the last Q and that Player C might have it.  This is poker!  You have to adjust your predictions of the odds with all of the information as it becomes available.  Player A and C have the same NEW information!

What if Player A is holding 22 and it comes runner runner 22?  Or, he's holding 56 and 48 come? Etc. etc. etc.  We can come up with millions of scenarios and in the end, I would show one show all and play poker. (Unless someone is cheating.)

Best regards,
B~
 
Title: Re: show one show all
Post by: Nick C on September 11, 2016, 07:44:49 PM
Bill,

 I'm sorry but I can't agree that a standard rule "must" apply in every situation when a card is shown. Show one show all is fine before action takes place and no wagers have been made. It's much to easy for players to "cheat" if you are going to allow play to continue in the situations Guillaume has explained. There are always exceptions to every rule and I think Guillaume should continue to use his better judgment and side with Aequitas Augusti...the goddess of fairness...(I'll take your word on this one!).

  I will quote one of my favorite authors of poker rules, Chuck Ferry. In one of his books, RULES OF POKER he discusses Decisions Beyond The Rules: At times a situation may arise which is not expressly covered by the Rules. In such situations the floorperson shall weigh the facts and render the most appropriate decision. He goes on to say: When strict enforcement of a rule will cause an obviously unfair result the floorperson shall execute the unrestricted right to waive that rule.