PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on June 02, 2010, 05:18:47 AM
-
So many tourneys ... so many cases!
I made a decision opposite to the one I made two years before! OOOOPPS ...
Two years ago:
At the showdown (no one all-in):
Player A do not pretend to the pot anymore and choose to fold his cards faces down ...
The dealer (buy error) turn his cards faces up and ... it appeard to be the WINNING HAND (!) ...
I GAVE THE POT TO PLAYER A! (...)
This year:
At the showdown (no one all-in):
Player A do not pretend to the pot anymore and choose to fold his cards faces down, stand up and go for a walk (or WC ...)
At the exact moment player A left the room, another player (player Z who was NOT on the hand) turn the folded cards of player A faces up (!!!) ... and it appeard to be the WINNING HAND (!) ...
I DID NOT GAVE THE POT TO PLAYER A! (...)
OUCH ...
Wich decision was good?
Don't tell me both?
Don't tell me none?
:D
-
In both hands, I would need more information. Was the action on the player when he surrendered his hand? Example: At the showdown, the action is on Player A and he folds. The hand is dead. If the opposing player turns it over, then it would be live. In both examples that you gave, the dealer should have killed the hand immediately. When a player voluntarily surrenders their hand, they give up any right to the pot. There will always be exceptonal situations; a player is led to believe that there are no other players in the hand and they think they are the winner or some other unusual situation.
Nick C
-
Yes, the action actually is on player A when he folds ... he really gives up (even say "I fold" if you want) ... the point is:
Actually (and waiting for more advises from TDA or other references) I still apply this way (wich is my own humble feeling of the "best interest of the game"):
At showdown any player CAN give up and fold his hand face down ... but if (for exemple):
- Some wind return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- Some unvolunteer movement of the hand or arm of the dealer or any player return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- A player who participate to the showdown voluntarily return the hand on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- A player not participating to the showdown (or the dealer) voluntarily return the hand on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is dead! (so I would not rule it as I did 2 years ago: I support now by this way the decision of Thomas Kremser at the Barcelona EPT Rolland De Wolf case: the dealer returned by error the folded winning hand ... wich was declared dead by Thomas!).
(I don't speak here of any player asking to see the hand in suspicion of collusion wich is another subject!)
GG
-
Any comment on thoses last exemples?
GG
-
At showdown any player CAN give up and fold his hand face down ... but if (for exemple):
- Some wind return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
GG: It's not written in any specific rule I'm aware of, so I'll just speak for myself: at showdown the term "fold" is meaningless... UNTIL CARDS ARE IRRETRIEVABLY MUCKED BY THE DEALER they can be tabled and played... even if the player says "I fold" or "pot is yours", etc... The cards are still live until irretrievably mucked... The player can change his/her mind, snatch the cards back and table them, for example So if they catch air and turn up, I would rule them live.
- Some unvolunteer movement of the hand or arm of the dealer or any player return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)! Same answer as above, same reason
Your other examples are trickier, because they don't involve accidental exposure of an identifiable hand at showdown... They involve exposure that is A) Deliberate AND B) Erroneous, (except perhaps in the case where a legitimate request to see a hand is made)... because in all those cases the player intended to bet/fold or check/fold, i.e. discard the hand at showdown without revealing it. Personally I feel this entire subject deserves to be a topic of review to establish a comprehensive rule. As a side note, I don't agree that this is exactly what happened in the RDW case because RDW had identified his hand and showed one card, and the entire charade went on for almost 30 seconds before he finally pushed his hand forward. That's far different than an immediate face down fold. But the RDW topic is also worthy of TDA review IMO.
-
TY Mike ...
Sure this last horrible exemple (the "folded" hand at showdown voluntarily returned faces up by the dealer - or any player out of hand - and discovered as winning hand) REALLY HAPPENED a couple of time around me ... and need in emergency a clear answer because IT CREATE TOUGH CONFUSION!
:o :( >:(
We seems to agree with the other cases (hand is live and wins).
GG
-
Mike,
I disagree with you on this one.
I would have a tough time awarding a pot to a player that said he was out and tossed his cards into the muck only to have them flip over and reveal a winner! If that isn't under the category of protecting your own hand, I don't know what is. Example; action on Player A, he says "I'm out" and throws his hand to the muck, Player B (the only opposing player) wins the pot. If Player A's cards happen to blow over in the wind, the hand should be dead anyway. That's the way I see it. How is Player A's verbal statement, "I'm out" not recognized the same as any verbal declaration? "I'm out" or "I fold" or"I give up" or "You win" or "I missed" (while tossing the cards to the muck) indicate that the player has no interest in the pot and does not want to reveal their hand. I don't see any need to complicate the process at the showdown. There are rules that already cover this situation and besides, the incidence of the situation described above, has never even happened to me in 45 years of dealing.
Thanks for listening.
Nick C
-
I am with Nick on this one,
Where a verbal statement has been made conceding the pot and/or the players hole cards have been passed with a forward motion face down I would rule their hand dead, there is one example I can think of that I would rule the hand live and that would be where the player has pushed their cards forward to muck as a result of incorrect information being received, which is a rare example of where I would be willing to attempt retrieval.
With regard to the RDW case I agree fully with Thomas's ruling that RDW's hand was dead, as he made a clear attempt to muck his cards causing another player to table his own cards, irrespective of him showing the K.
Regards
Stuart
-
Mike,
I disagree with you on this one. I would have a tough time awarding a pot to a player that said he was out and tossed his cards into the muck only to have them flip over and reveal a winner! If that isn't under the category of protecting your own hand, I don't know what is. Example; action on Player A, he says "I'm out" and throws his hand to the muck, Player B (the only opposing player) wins the pot. If Player A's cards happen to blow over in the wind, the hand should be dead anyway. That's the way I see it. How is Player A's verbal statement, "I'm out" not recognized the same as any verbal declaration? "I'm out" or "I fold" or"I give up" or "You win" or "I missed" (while tossing the cards to the muck) indicate that the player has no interest in the pot and does not want to reveal their hand. I don't see any need to complicate the process at the showdown. There are rules that already cover this situation and besides, the incidence of the situation described above, has never even happened to me in 45 years of dealing. Thanks for listening. Nick C
Hi Nick. I certainly understand your POV, and I'm sure it's shared by a number of people. Keep in mind we're talking about the SHOWDOWN... there is no "action" on anyone. Obviously if you are facing action and you say "I fold", then you've folded. But the action is over at this point... we are at showdown, and from my "school of thought" it's CARDS SPEAK. No verbal declarations mean anything at showdown "I have X hand": is meaningless, your cards read. "You win" is meaningless, your cards read. Ditto for "I fold"... there is nothing binding about the use of the term fold at showdown, or any other verbal utterance, IMO, the only thing that is binding is the reading of the cards. Otherwise we are going to get into the business of "parsing words" at showdown just as we do during the course of the action, rather than focusing stricxtly on the value of the cards. To that extent, as long as a hand that has paid to be at the showdown is identifiable, it can be tabled. The classic case is where a player at showdown doesn't realize there's 4 suited cards on board and pushes his hand forward face down only to realize the 4-flush and recall he has one of that suit in his hand, pulls his hand back and shows the flush.... This said, I fully agree that a Dealer should respect a players wish to muck his/her hand face down at showdown. But until those cards are no longer identifiable, or at the very least tapped to the muck by the Dealer, IMO they can be retreived by the player. If the player has the dumb luck of catching air that turns the cards up, then luck went his way in that case. This all said, I fully recognize there are others on the other side of this issue who do believe that utterances such as "I fold" or "you win" or "it's yours" or "take it" or "good call, you caught my bluff" when at showdown are binding "acts of capitulation"... again, perhaps an important area for a definitive TDA rule.
-
With regard to the RDW case I agree fully with Thomas's ruling that RDW's hand was dead, as he made a clear attempt to muck his cards causing another player to table his own cards, irrespective of him showing the K. Regards Stuart
My problem with the RDW incident is that the videotape shows that RDW had declared his hand and showed a card at least 20 to 30 seconds before he finally pushed the cards forward. IMO during that time the Dealer should have aggressively requested to see all cards, rather than what the tape appears to me to show. It appears that the dealer remained silent while Tobias postured and grinned as though it was obvious his hand was better. The dealer was silent while these two players engaged in verbal ruses between each other, and I don't think that's appropriate showdown procedure... Once at showdown, from my school of thought, the gamesmanship is over and it's time to get the cards turned up and read according to the Cards Speak standard, nothing else. I feel the dealer was too passive at this process, allowing the gamesmanship to spill over into the showdown. I think the appropriate response to RDW's tabling of one card and declaration of his hand would have been for the dealer to reply "Sir I'll need to see both your cards in order to read your hand". From what I can see of the tape, this did not happen and the Dealer thereby lost control of the showdown. Others may think that's too intrusive by the dealer and would be interfering in "legitimate" showdown gamesmanship.... I don't disagree necessarily with Thomas's ruling because the damage had already been done by the time he got there.... I know everyone has a different take on this incident and perhaps there is a clarification in the rules / procedures that may come out of it.
-
TY Mike ... Sure this last horrible exemple (the "folded" hand at showdown voluntarily returned faces up by the dealer - or any player out of hand - and discovered as winning hand) REALLY HAPPENED a couple of time around me ... and need in emergency a clear answer because IT CREATE TOUGH CONFUSION!
:o :( >:(
GG: If you want to use a precedent for these other examples, you could refer to Kremser's ruling in the RDW incident. I haven't watched that tape in quite awhile, but from memory it was initially thought by many that the dealer had exposed RDW's card as a result of a request by Tobias to see the hand... however (again from memory), it finally came out that the Dealer had erroneously exposed the card, and that Tobias had not formally requested to see it. Since it was erroneously exposed, the hand was not considered live. You may find this precedent to be userful in your other cases.
We seems to agree with the other cases (hand is live and wins).
We may, but as you can see, there are plenty of people on the other side of the issue. Ultimately I think it will need to be resolved formally, perhaps at the next TDA Summit?
-
Very good points Mike, I understand your stance fully and further has caused me to reconsider the showdown, with the prime example being "Fold" as the player has reached showdown no fold is actually possible and he is not facing a bet.
This will require some deep consideration and revision to see how I am going to move it forward.
With regard to the RDW I don't see me changing my stance, he announced King High which is not of any show,down value. The sole and only reason I support Thomas' decision is because he pushed his cards into the muck, I do feel the dealer made a bad situation worse by not protecting the muck pile though or usurping some control of the situation.
Cheers
Stuart
-
What are you talking about RDW? I hate abreviations. How can you say that the showdown makes a difference? If you say your out, and throw your cards in the muck....the hand is dead. Period.
I need to hear more on this one.
Nick C
-
Hi Nick,
RDW - Roland De Wolfe Case at the EPT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2agX80ZyE
-
WOW ... This situation (together with the other one : the last player at showdown with cards obliged - or not - to show is hand) shows that at SHOWDOWN: we must all help the TDA to create clear rules!
So what about this first conclusion (following - or not - some of your advises) :
At showdown a player (at is turn) says "I fold" and throws his WINNING cards in the middle faces down (but not in the muck so clearly identified):
A) If he finally realises that his hand wins the pot and turn it faces up: HAND ALIVE WINS!
B) Some involunteer element (air, unvolunteer movement of anybody) turns the cards faces up: HAND ALIVE WINS!
C) The dealer (buy error) ask the player to show the hand or directly turns it faces up himself: HAND DEAD! (RDW reference)
D) Any player (but not the actual winner) ask the player to show the hand (this can be exceptionaly accepted) or directly turns it faces up himself (a crime): HAND DEAD!
E) The actual winner ask the player to show the hand (personnaly I allways refuse it: this is only curiosity) or directly turns it faces up himself (a crime): HAND ALIVE WINS!
... So my (humble) actual responses to thoses two showdown problems are:
1) Must the last possesor of a hand at showdown show it to win the pot? ... NO! (in general)
2) Does a folded winning hand et showdown wins the pot if returned by someone else? ... NO! (in general)
My general spirit (when facing a "no-rule" situation) is to RESPONSABILIZE the players. This rude and beautifull game had been invented buy rude guys from Texas ... I try to respect their memory and (only in "no-rule" situation), I prefer to favor the player FIRMLY HOLDING HIS CARDS IN HIS STRONG COWBOY HAND (lol) to wait for my decision than the FOOL OR ANGLING PLAYER (lol again) who can't play poker ... or tried a tricky move!
Come on: the name of this game isn't it "HOLD'EM"? HOLD YOUR CARDS MAN!
:D
But once again the day the TDA choose a CLEAR RULE: I will follow it IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR JOB!
;)
-
Stuart,
Thanks for that link. I've seen it before. The floor was correct. There are specific rules regarding the order of showdown. The player was asked by the dealer to reveal his hand, he chose not to. His hand is incomplete. He never thought that his hand was best and he did not want to show his poor hand. That is similar to the situation that Guillaume described. At the showdown the last player to initiate the final bet, or raise is the first to show their hand, therefore, if that player throws their hand face down in the direction of the muck, it is dead.
I noticed a few things that were different as far as procedures. The flop was placed on the table from right to left, the muck was way out of position. Just my observation.
Nick C
-
He he,
yeh I noticed his dealing was right to left too, must be a leftie! nice stub and pot management otherwise though (apart from the showdown issues!)
Stu
-
Stuart,
The dealer was right handed. It's just another example of how difficult it is to get things done the way they should. House rules are one thing, but procedures? I don't think they should be that different.
-
In my opinion if you throw you cards face down away from you at the show down then your hand is dead and cannot win the pot, unless as Stuart has already stated this was done due to serious miss information.
With respect to the "cards speaking" if someone tables and hand and oanyother person says "you win" or some other non specific phrase then personally I neg them until I have their cards in the muck, as I dont want to be in the middle of awarding the pot and then have them table the winning hand!!!
-
WOW ... This situation (together with the other one : the last player at showdown with cards obliged - or not - to show is hand) shows that at SHOWDOWN: we must all help the TDA to create clear rules!
So what about this first conclusion (following - or not - some of your advises) :
GG: I would generally agree with this list but add to it that a hand must be formally killed by the dealer before it is irretrievably dead. This avoids the need to do any parsing of gestures or utterances at showdown. Either the hand has been formally killed by the dealer or it is live and Cards Speak. Also, there may need to be a distinction for tables using a betting line.
... So my (humble) actual responses to thoses two showdown problems are:
1) Must the last possesor of a hand at showdown show it to win the pot? ... NO! (in general) This was agreed to at the 2009 Summit, assuming that the opposing player had mucked face-down at showdown.2)
Does a folded winning hand et showdown wins the pot if returned by someone else? ... NO! (in general) I would apply the rules of asking to see a hand here.
My general spirit (when facing a "no-rule" situation) is to RESPONSABILIZE the players. The membership took a big step towards this in 2009, IMO, when the language "a player must make their intentions clear" was adopted.
But once again the day the TDA choose a CLEAR RULE: I will follow it IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR JOB!
-
Mike,
In my opinion, verbal is binding and when it is your turn to act (bet or check), and you announce that you are folding and throw your hand in the direction of the muck. the hand is dead. I would like to hear from Jack Mcclelland or another member of the WSOP or WPT. It is against poker etiquette (when it is your turn to act with no bet in front of you) to throw your hand away when there are multiple players in a hand, but when facing only one player, (possibly after a failed attempt to induce the opposing player to fold after the turn) and missing your flush or straight on the river, folding your hand when you are first to act is quite comon. If a player at the table requests to see the hand (because it is treated as a called hand) then the dealer should kill the hand by touchiong it to the muck, award the pot to the winner and then turn the surrendered hand over for all to see. Mike, the only thing that I can think of, that would lead you to your decision is; maybe you are thinking that the players have already checked and the dealer is waiting for someone to show down their hand? Even then, I would have a tough time ruling that hand live.
What fun would it be if we all agreed.
Nick C
-
Mike, In my opinion, verbal is binding and when it is your turn to act (bet or check), and you announce that you are folding and throw your hand in the direction of the muck. the hand is dead. That's not the showdown, that's a fold during a betting round. I would like to hear from Jack Mcclelland or another member of the WSOP or WPT. It is against poker etiquette (when it is your turn to act with no bet in front of you) to throw your hand away when there are multiple players in a hand, but when facing only one player, (possibly after a failed attempt to induce the opposing player to fold after the turn) and missing your flush or straight on the river, folding your hand when you are first to act is quite comon. Again, that's a binding fold when it's your turn to act during a betting round, it isn't a showdown situation. If a player at the table requests to see the hand (because it is treated as a called hand) then the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck, award the pot to the winner and then turn the surrendered hand over for all to see. Mike, the only thing that I can think of, that would lead you to your decision is; maybe you are thinking that the players have already checked and the dealer is waiting for someone to show down their hand? All the situations I described are clearly showdown situations after all betting action is completed and the pot is right. All remaining players have paid to participate in the showdown and the goal is to find the best hand using Cards Speak as the standard. A face down muck is a showdown aberration for which discussions at the last Summit went so far as to confirm the dealer should honor the request and proceed to muck (kill) the hand...and under those conditions the remaining hand need not be shown... so far, so good. The problem I have is in ruling a showdown hand irretrievably dead BEFORE it's been formally killed by the dealer...if you enforce "I fold" as a binding utterance in the showdown, then where do you draw the line? Is it only that phrase? Or might ANY phrase or even a GESTURE which would be considered a binding folding while facing action also permanently kill a hand at showdown? Lets say the guy says "I fold" but continues to hold his cards at showdown, do you declare his hand irretrievably dead and award the pot? It would be stone dead during a betting round... If he holds his cards at showdown but says "you win", is his hand irretrievably dead? Many would rule that hand dead if he said "you win" when facing a bet in a betting round... If so then we're going to have to police all verbal discussion at showdown as closely as we do during betting action. IMO that's what the entire idea of Cards Speak does: it gets us away from having to parse any verbals or gestures at showdown. Thanks to everyone who has opined on this topic, if it's taken up for rules review/clarification by the membership this dialogue should be very helpful in framing the issues.
-
WOW GG,
Have you opened a can of worms?
If a player tosses his cards in with the intent to muck/fold no one should turn those cards up.
As long as they are not placed in the muck and are identifiable they are live.
A dealer should grab them as fast as he can and muck them.
Another player should be penalized for touching the cards.
In these instances, I would have a talk with the dealer and the other player.
If the player announces fold or tosses his cards in his intent is clear but the cards must touch the muck to be dead.
I’ve had players ask to see a called hand.
Before I turn it up I will muck it and then retrieve it so that it is dead prior to showing it.
In both cases, as much as I would hate to do it, the winning hand speaks and would take the pot.
As for the RDW case, I don’t see the issue.
He showed a meaningless card.
He placed his cards into the cards under the chips.
Why did the dealer stop him and pull the cards out?
His hand was dead.
It is also interesting how many English words are not translated in poker, like Turn and River. Just noticing.
Good game to you,
Martin
-
Martin,
You bring up a very interesting topic regarding the incident in Barcelona. Why did the dealer turn over the cards after they were in the muck? The more I watch that, the more interesting it becomes. I thought that the dealer did everthing right up to that point. He asked the initial bettor to expose his hand and when he only turned over the king of clubs, he prompted the player to show the other card (which he mucked instead). If the dealer would have mucked the hand and pushed the pot to the winner, the ultimate decision of the floor would have been a lot easier. I still like the call.
For the record, my feelings about the original question posted by Guillaume are as I stated in my earlier posts. They are two completely different situations. Guillaume's example did not invole a bet and call on the last round, it was a check/fold or a check/out.
Martin, I also wanted to know how you feel about the flop, turn and river going from right to left? It would be good to hear from some of our newer members, also.
Thanks for listening.
Nick C
-
Nick,
I believe that the cards being dealt from the dealers left to right was just natural for right handed dealers.
I’m right handed but pitch left so I’m a left handed dealer. There are more of us than I ever imagined. Lefties turn the flop from right to left where righties turn the flop from left to right. Dealing from left to right for a lefty is more difficult. I don’t understand where the idea came from for a right handed dealer to place cards from right to left. That just isn’t natural.
I guess it was decided somewhere that it was better from the players side of the table. Is it a European thing?
For me, I was trained to place the turn and river cards from left to right to replicate the right handed dealers. It is just the way casinos have always done.
I don’t see an issue either way but it should be standard.
Good games to you,
Martin
-
Martin,
When you approach a table and all five board cards are in place, you should be able to determine what the flop. turn and river cards were. The biggest issue is online poker. Most sites show the dealer at the top of the screen, but when the cards come out, the flop is on the left, folowed by the turn on the right and the river on the right, which is wrong. The only time I've ever seen a live dealer in the box deal that way is on that link from Barcelona. It makes no difference if you are right handed or left handed. When you are seated at the table, the placement of the flop is on your left in line with your left shoulder. I realize that some left handed dealers turn the flop in the opposite direction from right handed dealers, but the turn card and river should still be placed to the right of the flop, not the left. It might not be much of an issue with players because the same cards are still on the board but, when you teach dealing as a profession it should be noted.
Just an observation
Nick C
-
Forgive me for digressing slightly, but I am curious, several people have commented that the flop should go on the left the turn to its right and the river again to the turns right. I am left handed and when I deal thats how i put out the community cards, but does it actually say anywhere in the rules this ihow they should be done, as I cant find it. I'm asking parly out of curiosity and partly because I have seen some dealers put the turn and river below the flop. Personally speaking I can see nothign wrong with this as it is still obvious which cards are what street. I'd justl ike to know if it is official somewhere or just convention.
Thanks
Lewis
-
Lewis,
There are no rules for it. I am a poker dealer instructor and I have been teaching dealers for over thirty years and I think that there should be. I have seen dealers turn the flop one card at a time. I don't like it but, they can do whatever they want if it is accepted. I would like to see a standardized set of rules and procedures for dealers as well as players. Just my observation. I will say this, just because you see it on television, or at a tournament or in a casino or, on the internet, that doesn't necessarily make it right. There are a few books on the market for dealers that are pretty good, but how do you get everyone "on the same page?" It is very difficult. I applaud the TDA for trying to standardize a set of rules that everyone could use, but as soon as people disagree, they will continue to do it the way they want, unfortunately.
Not a rule, just my observation.
Nick C
-
Nick,
I agree with what you are trying to do but is it the TDA’s place? Who can make this standardized rule so that it will be followed? I don’t know.
There is no dealers union that does the training.
Most dealers are taught in a dealer’s schools that are just trying to get their grads an audition. Then they are taught by the casinos to do everything their way.
In “The Professional Poker Dealer’s Handbook” by Dan Paymar, Donna Harris and Mason Malmuth there is a good section on placement of the community cards.
The pot is left of center in front of the dealer’s left shoulder. “The first card should line up with the left edge of the rack and stay where it’s dropped as the other two slide to the right.” They go on to say the Turn and River are placed to the right of the Flop.
As far as I’m concerned there is only one way to deal the community cards. But, there is a difference once you cross the Atlantic. I’ve seen some European dealers seem to deal poker like they are dealing out of a shoe. If I’m not mistaken they also deal Blackjack different over there.
As for my comment about lefties and righties, I was just trying to explain how we got to this point. The only difference in a leftie and a rightie is how they spread the Flop. Righties spread left to right and lefties spread right to left. The Turn and River are still placed right of the Flop.
I’ve never thought about the difference with on-line games. They place the cards from the dealer’s point of view. That is strange.
Good games to you,
Martin