PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Ash on July 26, 2017, 03:12:12 PM
-
Hi guys
Here is the case
River card
Players A, B, C check, player D bets, player A is thinking, players B and C fold, player D also folds supposing it is over, and then player A says he is still there. Neither the dealer nor the other players saw A had still his cards.
Who wins the pot?
-
I forgot to mention that D's cards are fold deep in the muck and non retrievable
-
Rule 12: Declarations. Cards Speak at Showdown
Cards speak to determine the winner. Verbal declarations of hand value are not binding at showdown but deliberately miscalling a hand may be penalized. Any player in the hand or not, should speak up if he thinks a mistake is being made in reading hands or awarding the pot.
Rule 13B: B: At showdown a player must protect his hand while waiting for it to be read (See also Rule 60). If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules the hand was not clearly read, the player has no claim to the pot. The TDs decision on whether a hand was sufficiently tabled is final.
Player A takes the pot, you can't win without cards. TD can probably gives the last bet back to player D, unless player A calls then the pot is right.
-
I agree Player D can not win the pot but he should get his last uncalled bet returned.
-
In that case i think rule 13b is not valid because it was not yet a shodown situation.
In fact the case would be the same at the turn card for instance
-
Should A get a penalty for not reacting before D folds?
-
Player A must keep his card visible to all. Player A has an obligation to speak up when Player B acted OOT and folded. He certainly had an opportunity and obligation to speak up when Player C acted OOT and folded. Player A waited until Player D mucked before speaking up. That sounds like a clear case of angle shooting. I'd need more familiarity with the game and the players but this is a case where the best interests of the game and fairness could warrant a decision that would not reward Player A.
-
I have to agree with Bill if the reputation of the player involved has a history of devious tactics. A quick answer, without suspicion, would award the pot to Player A.
There are other possibilities to consider. Why did the players not see Player A? Why did the dealer, also miss Player A? How much time elapsed before the players prematurely released their cards?
-
No bad reputation of player A.
The other players said his cards were slightly hidden behind the chips, he was counting his stack and maybe B, C, and D folded quickly. The dealer skipped also his was still in the game...
In fact there are numerous mistakes made by all the actors involved in this game.
Tricky situation!
-
Sorry, Ash, Not quite understanding what you wrote about the dealer:"The dealer skipped also his was still in the game,"?
The bottom line: No way the pot goes to anyone but Player A...he's the only player with cards! :D Also, if what you say is true, he probably should get no penalty either.
-
I am with you, Nick!
Everyone makes a mistake, but Player A has still a live hand- the only hand!
So itīs his pot!
-
I also agree that the pot goes to A - the only player with live cards.
Assuming his cards weren't hidden in a way to encourage the OOT action, is it angle shooting to remain silent to see how far the OOT domino effect proceeds before acting?
-
Dave, I'm glad we agree, however, one of the dealer's duties is to control the flow of the game and direct the action to the proper bettor. Sitting back and allowing improper bettors to act after you, in this case, required a complete breakdown of proper procedures by the players and dealer. Intentional angle shooting would be highly unethical and worthy of reprimand.
-
The OP states: "player A is thinking, players B and C fold, player D also folds supposing it is over, and then player A says he is still there. Neither the dealer nor the other players saw A had still his cards".
There are several problems with A's behavior here:
1: He didn't keep his cards visible but rather "hidden behind his chips" and "neither the dealer nor other players saw A's cards". See 2017 TDA Rules #2 and #25-C.
2: He silently let substantial action occur to his left, not speaking up to protect his action until after 3 players have folded to his left. See 2017 TDA Rules, #2, and #43-B.
3: Also we're told A was "counting his chips" rather than following the action, again a violation of Rule #2.
While D also had some culpability here by not following the action and "folding thinking he won", SA has occurred to the left of a skipped player and in such situations Rule 43-B requires the TD to fully assess the situation. Rule 43-B requires the TD to determine 1) if A had reasonable time to act and if so 2) How to treat A's hand. If a good case cannot be made for why A could not respond to D's bet (while both Player B and C could) OR even speak up until 3 players had folded behind him he's likely to have a dead hand at many venues.
There was a very interesting discussion at Summit VIII about guidelines that can be used for Rule 1 decisions. One of the most frequently-mentioned standards was "what decision will most support good play in the future", and "what decision will be most educational for all players at the table". It's very much in the interest of the game to make sure players keep their cards visible, follow the action, protect their right to act, and speak up immediately if skipped.
-
Mike,
Ash stated that the folding players acted quickly...also, why would Player D fold his hand before the dealer awarded him the pot? I have not looked at any "new" rule changes from the most recent summit but I have a feeling there will be at least one controversial addition.
There are dealer procedures that must be followed and that seems to be where most of these problems originate.
Let's look at what went wrong. #!) Player A is skipped by Player's B $ C after Player D bets...#2) The dealer also fails to notice Player A was skipped...
#3) Player A fails to stop the action before Player D folds...
There were multiple mistakes made by everyone at the table. However, for you to say that in many venues Player A should have a dead hand is ridiculous. Barring an obvious intent to hide his cards under the table, or some other devious tactic, Player A is the only player with cards and killing his hand is criminal.
What do you do with the pot if you decide to kill Player A's hand? :o
-
Mike,
Ash stated that the folding players acted quickly...
Not sure why you selectively read the OP. Verbatim it reads:
"player A is thinking, players B and C fold, player D also folds supposing it is over, and then player A says he is still there. Neither the dealer nor the other players saw A had still his cards".
Nobody including the dealer saw Player A's cards which were "hidden behind his chips". While B and C may have "folded quickly" they did so in turn, meaning that, unlike A, they were following the action. I've played poker many years and can't recall a situation where 3 attentive players discard so quickly that a 4th player can't follow their action and speak up.
also, why would Player D fold his hand before the dealer awarded him the pot?
While that isn't good form on D's part, 1) people toss their cards forward "in exchange" for the pot all the time and 2) nobody thought A had any cards, he had them hidden and made no effort to speak up.
I have not looked at any "new" rule changes from the most recent summit but I have a feeling there will be at least one controversial addition.
No doubt you'll find something in 2017 to disagree with, but Rules 2, 25-C and 43-B have been affirmed for three Summits now... they were all adopted in 2013 (Rules 2, 24-C and 38-B back then: http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Poker_TDA_Rules_2013_Version_1.1_Final_handout_PDF_redlines_from_2011_Rules.pdf)
There are dealer procedures that must be followed and that seems to be where most of these problems originate.
Each situation is different... in this case nobody at the table saw A's hidden cards (a violation), and A either didn't follow the action or if he did he decided not to defend his right to act, both also Rule 2 violations. The primary problem here isn't with the dealer, it's with Player A.
Let's look at what went wrong. #1) Player A is skipped....
Before this, what went wrong was that A hid his cards and unlike B, C, and D didn't follow the action or defend his right to act.
#2) The dealer also fails to notice Player A was skipped...
Why would the dealer notice that? Nobody saw A's cards according to the OP.
#3) Player A fails to stop the action before Player D folds...
So now there are 3 players folding to his left... typically that's substantial action. The twist in this situation is that the last "folder" is also the last player at the table... so does that constitute SA? That's what the TD has to decide here.
There were multiple mistakes made by everyone at the table. However, for you to say that in many venues Player A should have a dead hand is ridiculous. Barring an obvious intent to hide his cards under the table, or some other devious tactic, Player A is the only player with cards and killing his hand is criminal.
Player A has committed "crimes" to use your term against at least 4 TDA Rules. It doesn't matter what A's intent is here... only what his actions are: not keeping his live hand visible at all times, not following the action, not defending his right to act, and ultimately allowing SA to occur to his left after being skipped.
What do you do with the pot if you decide to kill Player A's hand? :o
If the decision is to kill A's hand, then D would be the winner. He's the guy who knocked B and C out, and A knocked himself out by not speaking up and allowing SA to occur to his left. See Rule 43-B. "... including ruling a dead hand as the TD sees fit under the circumstances". Believe me, there's a large contingent of TDs who would like to see the hand ruled dead everytime SA occurs to the left of a skipped player, assuming that player had reasonable time to act.
-
Mike,
You are basing all of your replies on Player A hiding his cards. Ash said: "No bad reputation of player A.
The other players said his cards were slightly hidden behind the chips, he was counting his stack and maybe B, C, and D folded quickly." If a player intentionally hides his cards...throw his ass out of the room! Beyond that, I could never justify killing Player A's hand in this situation.
Any good dealer would insist that all cards are in plain view, so the dealer should have said something. Mike, contrary to what you must be thinking, I would like nothing more than to agree with you on something...anything.
-
"slightly hidden" in this context sounds something like "partly pregnant". The OP states "Neither dealer or other players saw A had cards".
And this is key... it's A's responsibility to keep his cards clear, not everyone else's responsibility to crane their necks to see them...
-
What an interesting debate here with that case
Nick C : sorry for the sentence you didn't well understand, english is not my mother language
Whatever you decide to give the pot to A or D, based on any rule, you know when you see that you will face a strong dispute between of one them, and that makes this debate interesting to find the best solutions.
Given that all people involved in the game made mistakes, and taking into account all the aspects, could you consider to split the pot between A and D? and then warn them?
-
Ash,
If it were a cash game I think splitting the pot would be a reasonable solution, if it were agreeable to both parties. The TDA or any other rule set for tournament poker, would never agree to a split.
the only other option would be to return Player D's uncalled bet and leave the chips in the center for the next deal.
My advice to all poker players is to read, and understand the rules of any tournament you are playing in. Act in turn and protect your own hand and you should be clear of any troubles.
-
I also agree that the pot goes to A - the only player with live cards.
Assuming his cards weren't hidden in a way to encourage the OOT action, is it angle shooting to remain silent to see how far the OOT domino effect proceeds before acting?
Dave
Waiting quietly to see how far OOT proceeds is definitely angle shooting!
B~