PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: mooredog on March 14, 2011, 11:54:17 AM
-
After the flop player A bets, player B with his cards hidden under his hands does nothing, players C,D,&E all call. Player B still says nothing. The dealer taps, burns, and puts out the turn card and now player B says "Whoa! I haven't acted yet." Neither the dealer or the other players said they thought he had cards. The TD ruled he would have been able to fold or call only (not raise) if he'd said something before the dealer put out the next card but since 3 or more players had acted before he said something and the dealer put the turn card out player B's hand was dead. Right ruling? I agreed with it.
-
The hand is absolutely DEAD.
-
The TD has it right! As Nick said, "Absolutely dead."
-
RIP
-
Why is it dead exactly?
-
Several reasons:
1. His hand was concealed and not readily visible to other players. They could not tell he had cards.
2. He only objected after the dealer burned and then displayed the Turn card, and finally the most pertinent,
3. He allowed "substantial action" to occur behind him without objection.
Those are my reasons.
-
Chets answers are right on. But if you are looking for a specific rule that explains why the hand is dead I am not sure you will find an explicit one. RROP Betting & Raising #12 talks about a player retaining the right to act and that if he let's action past him without objection he loses that right. Since he loses the right to act the implication is that the hand is dead. And TDA rules don't address it at all.
I have seen this sort of thing called for a decision in a cash game and the floor has allowed the player to call and then gone through the procedure for a premature turn card. But I believe that was a bad call (and probably a new player ) and the hand should have been declared dead. If you allowed a player to let action go by and then yell he got skipped at the turn (or river) and somehow allowed him to continue in the hand you are just inviting angle shooting and a lot of wasted time.
As Chet mentioned the player is not paying attention to the action, keeping his cards hidden and not stopping the action at the appropriate time to retain his right to act. Therefore dead hand, move on to the next, and pay attention.
-
So basically if the player DID have his cards in full view and it was skipped without him even being aware with the turn card produced, wouldnt that be more to do with OOT betting? I know Im wrong in this but I just need more justification. So the fact theres a new betting round and its been skipped, is that the main reason for this dead hand or if it was that alone would it be classed as OOT rather than dead? My only instincts tell me its dead because the cards were not in full view.
-
Andy:
Substantial Action alone is enough, in my opinion, to rule his hand dead. As far as I am concerned, he could have flags waving and bands playing, but if he doesn't take TIMELY ISSUE, with the fact he has not yet acted, he loses the right to do so.
Chet
-
If the same thing happened in the original example, but the turn card was not out yet, should it still be dead?
I have had this happen twice in the last week where a player let substantial acction take place after him without speaking up, but the dealer had not put the next card out. Both times I warned the player but gave him the option to call, but not raise since all the action was otherwise complete. (And in actuality, both cases were pre-flop with the flop not dealt yet, but I believe that shouldn't make a difference.)
To be clear on my stance, I 100% agree with it being a dead hand if the next card had been dealt afterwards though.
-
Brian:
My definition of "Substantial Action" means that more than one player has acted. In reality, I am applying part of the definition of a misdeal from RRoP to this situation. RRoP says in part: "In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands."
Others may disagree and that is perfectly fine, but in my opinion, it makes no difference whether the next card is displayed or not.
I don't think this individual, who isn't paying attention, should benefit from knowing what action players that follow were going to take.
Chet
-
I'm on substantial action occuring for this one to rule the hand dead, during betting streets, 3 people (which includes the dealers rap and tap as 1 action) looses a player the right to action, so in your scenario 4 people (including the dealer) have acted, well and truly dead, bye now.
Players must protect their right to action in a hand by calling 'time' or another similar phrase - I can't remember where I have quoted that from - think it's in RROP.
Regards
Stuart
-
I like Chet's definition of substantial action, and I think Brian is right on with his comments. Stuart's mention of substantial action makes me think of a little twist to a similar situation. How do you rule if; Player A bets, Player B is skipped, Player C calls and the dealer taps, burns and turns before Player B responds?
-
Nick:
I guess I need to clarify my adaption of the RRoP definition. I am of the opinion that Substantial Action occurs if more than one person (Note: I did not say Player) acts after the player in question. If I remember correctly, action by the dealer is, under RRoP, included when determining if the action is "Substantial". Therefore, in your example, Substantial Action would have taken place by the actions of 1) Player C and 2) the Dealer.
The purpose of the Dealer Tap (as you well know), is to notify the players that activity in the hand is progressing and to give them an opportunity to object if something is out of place.
I see no reason Player B should have the advantage of knowing what Player C is going to do as well as knowing the Turn Card.
Anyhow that is how I see it.
Chet
-
Chet,
I agree with you 100%, but I know others will not.
-
If other folks want to disagree, that is fine. I don't take it personally. I might even be persuaded to change my position, if they provide sufficient reasoning for their position and can convince me that their position is "better" than mine.
-
Nick:
I guess I need to clarify my adaption of the RRoP definition. I am of the opinion that Substantial Action occurs if more than one person (Note: I did not say Player) acts after the player in question. If I remember correctly, action by the dealer is, under RRoP, included when determining if the action is "Substantial". Therefore, in your example, Substantial Action would have taken place by the actions of 1) Player C and 2) the Dealer.
The purpose of the Dealer Tap (as you well know), is to notify the players that activity in the hand is progressing and to give them an opportunity to object if something is out of place.
I see no reason Player B should have the advantage of knowing what Player C is going to do as well as knowing the Turn Card.
Anyhow that is how I see it.
Chet
Here's me disagreeing with you ;D Sort of. For me substantial action is 2 players, but this has always been a debate. Though in this specific instance I go to RROP Betting & Raising #12. It specifically says you MAY lose the right to act if THREE players have acted. I think this is too much but that is what the rule says. As I said in an earlier post, this is the rule that we use to INFER that a players hand is dead as there is nothing explicit in the rules that I can find. I believe it is the proper inference because if you have lost your action WHILE FACING A BET you shouldn't have the advantage of seeing other players call or raise. I would like to argue that the rule says MAY lose the right to because if it is post flop and you are first to act or checked to and then 2 players after you act, that would still be substantial action but your hand wouldn't have to be dead. It would just mean that you shouldn't be allowed to raise and you should only be allowed to call when action gets back to you. Of course, in this scenario the player would be facing a bet and should lose action and the hand declared dead.
Your comment regarding the dealer being a person that acts does not come from RROP. I didn't believe I had seen anything like that before in RROP and went back and reread it all after you made the comment earlier. I would imagine that it comes from one of several Dealer Procedures books/rules/guides. it is meant to do just as you say, give people the opportunity to pitch a fit if something is amiss before play continues. It just isn't in RROP or TDA.
-
Hi guys,
I do agree with Chet on this one.
But just to throw a little gas at the fire: I've seen a player change a floorperson point of view about this once, citing that TDA rule 29, saying that the other players in front of him acted out of turn. So action would then return to him and his action would be very influential on what the other players could do.
The floor only went with that because the player pointed to the "This tournament follows TDA rules" text in the buyin receipt and the other players at the table began pressuring him about it.
Just for argument's sake: what do you think about that?
Best regards,
DC
-
DC:
If the players 'in front of him' acted out of turn, shouldn't his position be to report same and then the whole thing should be backed up so things are in proper order. I don't understand the example, I guess.
Chet
-
I am not sure I understand the example either....but...
That player's argument might be that the player next to him bet/called out of turn prompting the next player to act AS the missed player called time. This is probably why the rule says "if THREE players have acted". That would be a valid argument in my mind because action could happen that fast WHILE a player is protesting and he should get the opportunity to act. Our original situation had the action go farther.
So just for arguments sake action could be backed up to the missed player, he could act and the other players would be action out of turn, if it was clear the missed player was paying attention before action got TOO far (that's always the sticky part, what is TOO far?)
-
Gentelmen,
I think as members of the TDA we have a right to agree or disagree with an existing rule. How do we penalize a player that bets after the player on his right has acted? We can't. The offending player is the player that skipped the player in front of him, and bet out of turn. Then we can look to the dealer and the skipped player. The dealer should correct the improper action and direct it to the proper bettor or the player that was skipped should speak-up. If the dealer, or the player fails to say anythig and another acts, like Chet says, that's substantial action.
I don't know why my question was not answered. There are many situations where there are not enough players left in the hand to qualify for substantial action. As an example, head to head, or three handed situations that I mentioned earlier on this thread would negate the possibility of substantial action, unless you consider; the dealer. I'm with Chet on this one and Chet, stick to your guns.
Skipped players can only call or fold after substantial action. When a dealer taps, burns and turns, they have accepted the improper action and the skipped player or players have dead hands.
-
Skipped players can only call or fold after substantial action. When a dealer taps, burns and turns, they have accepted the improper action and the skipped player or players have dead hands.
I'm totally on board for this one. Players who don't speak up and let that many people act and then want to make a big raise are pretty clearly angle shooting, and I'm up for anything that helps curb angle shooting.
-
Ok..... I guess I'll be the lone ranger. ::)
From R.O.P.E. Glossary
Substantial action: Term used to define when and if a error can be corrected. Substantial action is 2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions. Also called significant action.
What does it mean 2 actions involving chips? A bet and call, a call and bet, 2 subsequent calls, a raise and call, a call and raise, a raise and another raise.
What does it mean 3 total actions? It means a bet and 2 folds, 2 checks and a bet, 3 checks (after flop).
As noted by chet the dealer is part of the action, because in a heads up situation, if both players check and the dealer raps the table that concludes the action. That's 3 total actions. Player 1 checks (action #1), Player 2 checks (action #2), Dealer raps (action #3).
Now I understand that it is possible for a player to be skipped being in late position with less than 2 players behind them and under the strict definition that would not constitute "Substantial Action". However, the dealers rap supersedes the rule by notifying all players that the action has concluded and that the dealer is about to deal another card.
-
Thomas,
So....how do you answer the original question? Your definition of significent action used to be defined by two people putting chips in the pot or three people checking. The dealer is considered in the equation if he has condoned the action. I really think that covers all that you are saying. You will find that in the LVH Rule Book that I sent you. You also mentioned the dealer's "rap" supersedes the rule by notifying all players that the action has concluded and the dealer is about to deal another card. You failed to mention that this is the last chance to stop the dealer from prematurely placing the next card on the table. If caught in time, the action should be backed-up to the proper bettor, otherwise it is too late.
You also mentioned head to head action. How do you rule when Player A bets, and the dealer taps, burns and turns before Player B responds? I always looked at head to head and considered substantial or significent action as not possible.
-
Thomas,
So....how do you answer the original question?
The hand is dead. I didn't address that question because it had been covered.
You also mentioned head to head action. How do you rule when Player A bets, and the dealer taps, burns and turns before Player B responds? I always looked at head to head and considered substantial or significent action as not possible.
I think you answered your own question. The only chances of significant action in heads-up play is: 1) Player A checks (#1), Player B check (#2), Dealer tap (#3) = 3 actions, 2) Player A bets (#1), Player B calls/raises (#2) = 2 actions involving chips.
Therefore, Player A betting and the Player B doing nothing and the Dealer rapping is not significant because Player B needs to respond to the action. Hopefully, (and it's a true hope) the dealer will understand that there's only two people in the pot and wait for both to act before proceeding.
I guess it should be more clear to say, that the dealer's rap signaling that all action is complete supersedes the rule in multi-way pots. In the original question, the dealer's tap concluding the action rendered the players hand dead. When the dealer taps that's the time to stop the dealer and protect a players action.
-
Thomas,
Wouldn't you say that the dealer's tap, and burn (before turning the next board card), still gives the player time to stop the action?
-
Thomas,
Wouldn't you say that the dealer's tap, and burn (before turning the next board card), still gives the player time to stop the action?
Yes, as long as there's been no card exposed. I don't like killing hands. I don't like bringing back board cards more.