PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on May 19, 2010, 05:12:30 AM
-
Hello,
Simple situation:
NLH tournament and 2 players at the river on a big pot:
Both players check at the river (they still have chips in front of them).
Player A (first to play) clearly folds (he says "I fold") throwing his cards faces down in the middle. So the dealer muck it.
Player B (last with cards) wins the pot (no one contest this) but ask if he can fold his cards faces down ... player A says "no: I have to see it!"
WSOP: he has to show it! (right?)
TDA: he is not obliged to show it! (right?)
Personnaly I prefer the second solution ... much more logical:
We are not speaking here of 2 players pretending to the pot (wich need other rules: player A out of position must show first and player B must show his own hand if he pretend to win the pot etc ...) ... neither we speak of 2 players all-in (both must show their hand etc ...) ... neither we speak of someone else at the table asking to see the hands to check if there is any collusion between the 2 last players (Wich can be exceptionaly applied etc ...). We speak here of the LAST PLAYER WITH CARDS ASKED TO SHOW IT BY THE LAST PLAYER TO FOLD! ... Why should he show it? Curiosity will never be "the best interest of the game" to me.
Exemple here: http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director4/last_man_standing_must_show_rule
PS: Please don't tell me I have to re-write this part of my rules!
:-\
With best regards,
GG
-
GG,
Many Card-rooms do carry the must show rule, it is primarily used as a deterrany against collusion in the form of chip-dumping.
You are correct, the TDA has no formalised rule that requires 'the last man standing' to show his cards on the river, which is the way I prefer it TBA, The last man must show rule is IMO something that can be abused by arrogant players who know it all and demand to see players whole cards for information, but then it does have it's uses!
Regards
Stuart
-
Guillaume,
Robert's Rules covers this situation. The first player to show their hand tosses it face down in the direction of the muck. The hand is dead, unless the other player asks to see it, then it is live. The normal action should be; The surrendered hand is dead and the dealer should kill it by touching it to the muck. The dealer should then insist that the other player show his hand before he is awarded the pot. I don't think the TDA actually covers this situation, but as far as I know there is nothing wrong with surrendering your hand as long as all of the betting is complete and it is your turn to showdown your cards. The player might have been looking for a card to hit a straight or a flush and missed, so he surrendered his cards with no chance to win. Part of Robert's Rules:
THE SHOWDOWN....... 8.) A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, THE OTHER PLAYERS DO NOT LOSE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE HAND BE SHOWN IF HE DOES SO.
As far as the winner, not wanting to show his hand, the same rule should apply. Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. A round of betting that is complete without a wager (checked around) is still a called hand.
Nick C
-
GG: I'm going by memory of the 2009 Summit. The subject of check-fold and bet-fold on the river/showdown came up. From memory the position of the TDA membership was that in the event, for example, that there are two players to the showdown (neither all-in), both either checking or betting/calling, should one elect to immediately discard his hand at showdown, it is inappropriate for the dealer to turn the unexposed mucked hand face up. The dealer should honor the wish of the mucking player and muck the hand. Under these circumstances the remaining player was not obligated to show the hand. But this has not been formalized as of yet, and I also do not see any formal rule on the subject in the WSOP rules:
http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/2010/2010-WSOP-Rules.pdf
I also recall that this was actually a discussion that we undertook persuant to an example you had submitted a couple years ago... do you recall the example ? It was something similar to the above.
Perhaps, again, you've identified a rules issue that should be reviewed at the next Summit !
-
I have looked at the 2010 WSOP Tournament Rules and found NOTHING that addresses the situation as Mike B indicated. I have also looked at the 2010 WSOP Live Action Rules and the only thing I found is Rule 135 that says: "To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards face up on the table."
I supposed one could stretch this to include the example in this post, but I would not agree with it. My opinion is that at the showdown if one or more players, in turn, muck their cards face down and there is only one player left with live cards, the pot is awarded to the player with live cards. If one or more players muck out of turn, that complicates things a bit, but I believe my ruling would be the same. This is a situation, in my opinion, where the dealer should intercept the attempt to muck by the out of turn player and, in effect, FORCE the player to act in turn.
Hope this helps!!
-
Thanks for your help!
Yes I see I allready asked for it a long time ago (sorry) ... and I see that this point isn't really clarified.
Détail: fighting against collusion is OK for me be because ANOTHER player at the table can ask to see the hand (without abusing of this right) ... BUT NOT THE OPPONENT: THIS CAN'T BE A COLLUSION CHECK because player A can't say: "Hey: I want to see player B's hand in case we both are working together !?!?! (LOOOL)! This is ONLY CURIOSITY!
Anyway ... because I have to choose my rules BEFORE I manage tournaments (I do not manage cash-games): I will stick to my actual rule (don't have to show) ... until the TDA (wich is my favorite and official reference used when talking to my players) officialy takes a clear position on this subject and ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE: Have to show it - or - Don't have to show it!
If the TDA choose officially to oblige to show the hand here: I promise I will be a "good soldier" and will (saddly but clearly) follow the line: Have to show it now!
Not written ... Not forbidden: so right now you don't have to show it!
Best regards!
GG
-
Good afternoon fellows,
I remember seeing this in a hand between Deeb and Men and it started a lot of conversation among the dealers.
Deeb was in the first position.
The action was the same as this example.
They both checked on the Turn and the river.
At the Showdown Men mucked his cards but asked to see Deeb's.
Deeb had to show.
If it had been reversed Men would not have to show since he was in second position.
Speaking of the WSOP, last year the dealers were instructed to show all winning hands.
But, I can assure you that this rule wasn’t followed to the letter.
If the hand didn’t have to be shown or wasn’t asked to be turned it wasn’t.
The dealers made that decision.
Good luck,
Martin
-
I have a question regarding a situation that happened in one of our daily tournaments.
All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were) Can you please help me? Did i make the right decision?
-
In situations such as this I explain that although a player has the right to see a hand it cannot be for information purposes; the right should not be abused because the rule only exists because collusion is suspected. I then ask if the player still wants to see the hand on that basis.
If the answer is 'yes' then I allow the hand to be shown but (assuming everything is above board on that hand) would rule against the player if they asked again.
Explaining that it is akin to accusing a player of cheating is, generally, enough to deter all but the most thick skinned players.
Best,
-
MaxH,
I have to disagree with you when you say that a player can not see a called hand for information purposes. I also don't agree that the rule only exists because collusion is suspected. You agree that any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. Why do you think it is for reasons related to collusion? Those are the rules. You might want to know why a player raised pre flop, or if you put him on a certain hand and you have an interest in knowing if you were correct, or any other reason. I've had experience with players that abuse the rule, and I think this is when you can take the priviledge away; Player A looses his third pot to Player B when he outdraws him on the river. Player B requests to see what Player A had in his hand. In anger, Player A tosses his cards into the muck before anyone has a chance to see them and says: "Dealer, every time Player B has a called hand, I want to see his cards." This is what I would define as abusing the rule. I see nothing wrong with asking to see a players called hand.
-
I don't think this is a called hand because no one has bet.
Best,
-
All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were)
What would happen if Player A's hand was realed to be the winner and their excuse was that they didn't realise what they truely had?
-
MaxH, you said no player bet, but Christine said "Player A bet and Player B called." After the last betting round, if all players have checked, I believe that the rule for showing a called hand at a players request is allowed. A checked hand is still a called hand.
Dave and Christine,
The procedure for showing a called hand, when the player requesting to see the hand is not involved in the final betting round is as follows;
The dealer will touch the folded hand to the muck (killing the hand), award the pot to the winner and then turn the mucked hand over. Touching the hand to the muck is merely a formality, the surrendered hand is dead. However, if the would be winner of the hand requests to see the hand, it is live.
Christine's example: Player A Bets, Player B Calls. Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. Then a player not in the hand asks to see the hand. I think Christine was correct in her ruling that the hand should be revealed, however the above procedure needs to be followed so if the hand is a winning hand, they will NOT be awarded the pot. If Player A Bets and Player B calls and Player A mucks his hand, Player B could lose the pot if he asks to see the mucked hand.
-
All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were)
What would happen if Player A's hand was realed to be the winner and their excuse was that they didn't realise what they truely had?
Hi Dave, it would depend on a couple things: 1) You say the cards are in the muck, this complicates it... how sure are we that those are A's cards?? If the answer is 99.99%, then A can't win, we have to be 100% sure when doing a muck retrieval, but more importantly 2) it depends on who asked to see the cards. Since he voluntarily mucked face down at showdown AND the dealer killed the cards they cannot be voluntarily retrieved by A (IMO)... the only player who can "re-activate" player A's hand is the winner, Player B. If player B asks to see the cards, and they actually beat B's hand, then the pot should be awarded to A. If any other person asks to see A's cards, they are dead, and are revealed only as a privledge not to be abused...B still wins the pot. Thanks alot for the interesting example.
-
Nick,
You are getting the posts confused.
The Christine post is not the post I am commenting on.
Also, a checked hand is not a called hand: it's a checked hand.
-
RRoP The Showdown Rule 1:
To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table [tabled],whether they were used in the final hand played or not.
SO in answer to the question, yes they must be shown
-
Sorry Max,
I still believe that a checked hand is treated the same as a called hand and any player has a right to see the hand. Mike refers to a hand that is in the muck, to me that is not retrievable. The proper way to assure that players are entitled to see a hand that was intended for the muck, is for the dealer to stop it from hitting the muck. Players that fold or muck their hands, with force, or high velocity in the direction of the muck should be given a warning. I guess the question is, is a checked hand treated as, or considered a called hand in this situation? Maybe Mike knows the answer.
-
i have a question that relates to this:
Why do we force the players to show the hands when all players are All-in ?
is it because its exciting , or is it to prevent any form of collusion ?
-
Hi Niclas,
yes it is to prevent chip dumping or other forms of collusion. It would be extremely easy for players to dump chips off if all-in hands were not shown.
Regards
Stuart
-
then it must be a show in these cases also IMO
-
i have a question that relates to this:
Why do we force the players to show the hands when all players are All-in ?
is it because its exciting , or is it to prevent any form of collusion ?
I would add that an All-In is a particularly "grave" circumstance because two important things are on the line: 1) The chips in the pot; but also 2) The all-in players "tournament life". We want to make absolutely sure that when a player's fate in the tournament is on the line that we get the correct reading of the hands, hence another reason to have cards up for an all-in showdown.
-
I was going over this old post and I noticed that I had a question that was unanswered. I thought that it was worth resurecting. On the final betting round, if all players check it is still considered a called hand. There was some disagreement. I feel that it is certainly an important subject that all TD's must understand. I hope that this time others will respond. A checked betting round is treated the same as a round that bets were made and called at the showdown. The order of showdown will begin with the first player that checked.
-
The actual language from TDA Rule #11 is: "...If there was no bet, the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise...."
I think the normal effect is the same as what Nick said, "The order of showdown will begin with the first player that checked." But if a player checks out of turn, then we start a whole new discussion. ::)
-
Thanks Chet,
I guess I'll have to zero right in on the post I am refering to.
I will copy this from MaxH "I don't think this is a called hand because no one has bet."
We need everyone to understand that a final betting round, that is checked around, is the same as when players called all bets on that round, if there were any. In other words; a checked round is the same as a round of betting. All players must check, in turn and showdown their cards according to the rules for that game. Chet is correct for all flop games. Stud would be the high hand or, the low hand in razz.
-
I will repost what I posted before.
'Nick,
You are getting the posts confused.
The Christine post is not the post I am commenting on.
Also, a checked hand is not a called hand: it's a checked hand.'
In the context you are talking about it is possible that a checked hand and a called hand are treated the same.
However, a checked hand is different from a called hand otherwise (logic would dictate) they would have the same name.
-
Max,
You lost me on that one. If all players check on the last betting round. We are ready for the showdown, right. Therefore any player has the right to see another players hand, just as if they had bet and were called. That is all I'm trying to clarify. If you don't understand it, let's talk it over. I'm all ears.
-
Nick,
The heading for this thread was about mucking at showdown and if a winning hand must be shown and it deviated into other issues not strictly related to the thread heading and we drifted off topic for a while.
I agreed that it was a player's right to see any hand but said the right should not be abused (meaning) in the case of losing hands being mucked - as often happens.
My reference for this is Robert's Rules 11.
The showdown
5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.
So, your last post I agree with. All player's check on the last betting round and any player has the right to see the cards.
However, if cards have been mucked by players seeing a hand tabled that beats theirs (although a player retains the right to see them) I follow RRs and do not allow them to 'abuse' the right.
-
I have had players abuse the right to see a called hand, but how each individual defines abuse leaves a lot of room for inconsistancy. Asking to see a hand in itself is not abuse (IMO). I have had an experience that has occurred on numerous occasions when a player is upset over getting beat, or outdrawn on the river by the same player. Out of frustration the player throws his cards into the muck, with force, before anyone has a chance to see the cards. The player that wanted to see the hand complains....so the next thing I know, the player that mucked his hand, and is still steaming over his bad beat, tells the dealer that "every time (what's his name) is in a called hand, I want to see his cards." This is abuse. Asking to see a called hand, that you have a right to see, is not.
-
As long as no clear text is written about this (wich I would follow with respect) I'm gonna apply what is more logical & best interest of the game IN MY OWN OPINION:
When two players at showdown: as soon as a player refuse to compete for the pot while MUCKING his hand (and as soon as the dealer really muck it): he renounces to the right to see the opponent hand (wich is winning for being the last live hand and who is not obliged to show it anymore!)!
SO IMAGINE 2 EXEMPLES WITH 2 PLAYERS AT SHOWDOWN (player A was the last to bet at the river & player B called):
EXEMPLE 1
-Both pretend to the pot.
-No one want to show first.
-Player A has to show first.
-Player A do show is hand first.
-If loosing, player B is not obliged to show his hand.
EXEMPLE 2
-Both pretend to the pot.
-No one want to show first.
-Player A has to show first.
-Player A choose to muck his hand.
-Player B wins and is not obliged to show his hand.
GG
-
Guillaume,
Your first example is accepted, and is probably the most common violation of any existing rule. Technically any player at the table may request to see the hand, but most of the time...no one cares. They are more interested in getting their next hand.
Your second example is another common occurrance, however, I would insist that Player B show his hand. The biggest problem in this situation is the dealer allowing the discarded hand to hit the muck (just in case someone wants to see it). Your example B is what happens every time a player attempts to bluff, and gets caught. They were hoping that no one would call so they would not have to show their hand. When the opposing player calls, they realize that they can not win and want to muck as soon as possible. Like I said, most of the time no one cares what the players had, so it's usually not a problem.
-
EXEMPLE 1-Both pretend to the pot.-No one want to show first.-Player A has to show first.-Player A do show is hand first.-If loosing, player B is not obliged to show his hand.
EXEMPLE 2-Both pretend to the pot.-No one want to show first.-Player A has to show first.-Player A choose to muck his hand.-Player B wins and is not obliged to show his hand.
I'm fine with these interpretations as long as: 1) These are NOT all-in hands. For an all-in hand, we must have cards up for a showdown. AND 2) You need to have a standard at which the mucked cards are not retrievable, and spell that out. Is it across a line or touching the muck, or buried in the muck? AND 3) Merely saying "I fold" at showdown does not constitute an irretrievably mucked hand because verbal declarations have no meaning at showdown... the cards must have reached whatever point is required by your rules to constitute irretrievably mucked.
Personally, I'd like to see a common rule that any 100% identifiable hand can be retrieved by it's player at any point at showdown, i.e. the only thing that kills a hand at showdown is being buried in the muck. This would eliminate alot of parsing of whether a hand has been "technically" killed... either it's 100% identifiable or it's not... A TDA veteran suggested this to me awhile back and I like the idea alot because it's a very workable standard.
-
A good dealer should be able to prevent any player from mucking their called hand during tournament showdown.
-
I really hope the next TDA meeting will clarify the showdown rules wich are (in my tourneys) 80% of the problems!
:-\