PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: pbrannon on March 23, 2011, 05:09:01 PM
-
3 players in the hand.
After the flop, P1 bets. P2 calls.
P3 goes all in. P1 and P2 calls.
Dealer runs the turn correctly, but then immediately runs the river, even though P1 and P2 has more money.
P1 then turns his cards over...but P3 who is all in says the river should go back in the deck, reshuffle, and redo the river, since the river came out before action was through.
P1 and P2 said they were going to check it anyway, but they didn't physically check it....
what do you do?
-
I know there will be other opinions but, I would let the card play. The all-in player would have no say in this situation. That's how I see it.
-
it's messy,
But I agree with Nick, I like leaving the river as-is as the best option in this scenario. It would really have to be a rule #1 decision for this, by listening to what has happened during the hand etc.
I can see no reason in your situation to intervene and change any board cards.
Regards
Stu
-
What a bloody mess... you'll probably get a range of answers to this one.
Can I ask WHY P1 turned his cards over ??? We should have had betting on the turn, but that betting round was skipped when the dealer immediately tabled the River, and things are further complicated by P1 turning up his cards ??
And then there's a chorus from the players that some of them are happy with the river, and some arent...
First off, as others have said, we don't ever want players "choosing" when board cards play and when they don't.
I feel this all comes down to WHY P1 tabled his hand. If he did it pursuant to some declaration by the Dealer to showdown, or pursuant to a check by P2 then I might lean towards letting things stand because the actions of others would have contributed to P1's error... Otherwise, I feel that P1 showed his hand for no good reason and this should not interfere with the rights of others to have a betting round on BOTH the turn and river. In other related scenarios there could be other players involved P4, P5, etc... I think we have to protect their rights to proper betting rounds. IF P1 just absent-mindedly turned his hand up he has to live with that big error. There should be a betting round on the turn, and then the river re-shuffled and re-dealt with a final betting round, IMO, unless there's a good excuse for P1 exposing the hand.
-
I'm letting the board stand. The only person objecting is the one who doesn't have any chips. His self interest has no bearing on whether P1 and P2 bet. If P1 or P2 wanted to bet, they would've been the ones objecting.
-
I can agree with everyone. Mike does bring up some important facts to consider. I think if anyone wanted to complain, with a right to do so, it would be player 2. If he wanted to, he could actually be allowed to bet into Player 1's open hand. Like thomas says, as long as the two contestants with chips remaining did not object, let it go.
-
If player 2 wanted to bet the turn then the card it would have to be reshuffled. I would only reshuffle if player 2 stated "I wanted to bet the turn." A bet on the river wouldn't change anything. If player 2 wanted to bet the river as Nick said, he should be allowed.
EDIT: Where is the rule that states that a player who does not inform the table that action has passed them loses the right to act? Somewhere in the Action out of Turn rules...
-
Spence,
You are correct but, it looks to me like the dealer is the one who thought all players were all-in...so when Player 1 turned over his cards, Player 2 probably didn't have a chance to think about anything, except that he didn't have much of a hand anyway. The chance to bet the turn vanished when the dealer turned the river card. You did say that both players said they were going to check anyway. I'll take a wild guess here, and say that the all-in player (Player 3) lost the hand.
-
Yes..the dealer did think that everyone was all in....P1 wasn't paying attention and he also thought everyone was all in, so he exposed his cards.
Both P1 and P2 said they were going to check it anyway.
The outcome was as such.....since we didn't really have a "floor person" per-se, the decision was mine to make because it was my game. I actually talked it over with another player who was not in the hand and we decided that since P1 showed his hand that we would bring the river card back, reshuffle it and replace the river. Since both P1and P2 said they were going to check it anyway, betting was frozen. We did realize that P1&P2 not betting shouldn't affect P3's all in hand...BUT also we wanted to stay true to the rules of what should happen in this same situation if P3 had not been all in. If P3 had not been all in, then this is what would have happened, so we felt that we should stick with the "standard".
After reading some answers on here and having time to think about it, I would agree that leaving the board as-is would have probably been the better decision. Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand.
As a side note; the replacement river card gave the all in player a straight, which he thought was the best hand, but it gave P2 a higher straight. P1 would have scooped the pot with a flush, but after this decision he only got the low half, while P2 got the high end. All these guys are friends of mine, so no one thought there was any favoritism in the call.
Someone also tell me your thoughts on this........While I was thinking about the decision, P1 was saying that he didn't care which way the decision went; that we could do the river over or leave it as is....Now, I'm sure he was saying this because he knew he had the lock low, but even with a flush, it wasn't the nut high...but he figured he was getting half either way. I told him that if this were a real casino situation that he would be better off just keeping his mouth shut and letting the floor person make the decision without his providing any input either way.
Does anyone agree that he should just be quiet and let the floor make their decision without influence either way?
-
So are you telling us now that this was an Omaha High/Low Tournament?
I am not inclined to answer any more questions unless the poster provides ALL the important details. For example, the rules for a misdeal in button games, Hold'em and Omaha for example are different from those that apply to Stud games.
Chet
-
As a floorperson, I always have the dealer run down the situation before hearing anything from the players. As well the dealer should only answer the specific questions that I ask. Nobody is supposed to volunteer any information unless specifically asked. Essentially what it boils down to is that you need the facts to make a decison from the rules. Anything that could influence that decision should not be said. Now you are by yourself and are the only decision maker so I would post my rules best I could. Get a copy of TDA rules and perhaps Roberts Rules to have on hand to back yourself up. As well anything that isn't covered specifically in the rules we can always fall back on "Supervisors decision is FINAL" Or in your case pbrannon's decision is final.
-
After reading some answers on here and having time to think about it, I would agree that leaving the board as-is would have probably been the better decision. Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand.
Just want to add a word of caution to your statement here, specifically the portion that says, "Because P1&P2 checking it down shouldn't affect the all-in player and the outcome of the hand."
The two players, P1 and P2, checking it down 100% affects the outcome of the hand. It doesn't change what P3's final hand is, but it does change the value of P3's hand in a showdown. P3 has a greater showdown value vs 1 player than vs 2 players.
More importantly allowing two players to "check it down" in advance amounts to no less than "soft play" and in this situation "collusion" against P3.
From the thread it appears there was no "agreement" between P1 and P2 and they were following standard tournament strategy. Just wanted to mention it though.
-
OK but this all ask the question of the abuse of the #1 rule ... or WHEN does a wrong board must stay?
AFTER any action occured following the wrong flop or turn or river?
AFTER 2 or 3 actions occured following the wrong flop, turn or river?
AFTER any FEELING by the floor?
For example: Flop is on the table with 4 players left: player A bet, player B calls, player C raises, Then player D notice that no card had been burned ... ???
FLOP STAY? NO? YES? SO FLOP STAY AFTER HOW MANY ACTION?
Well ... waiting for your advices I will copy to the general misdeal rule and will freeze any wrong board only if followed by to 2 actions! So here if A & B act: the flop stay (C or D should have stopped the action before)!
BUT in the initial post: I WOULD RESHUFFLE THE RIVER BECAUSE THE ONLY ACTION OF P1 (wich may love this river & situation I suppose) isn't enought to conclude that P2 had enought time to react ... frankly it must had been quick: wrong river + P1 show = bing-bang!
SURELY that's only IMAO!
GG
-
Any opinion please? Do I stay on my "2 actions freeze any wrong board" (influenced by the "2 actions freeze any misdeal") or not?
-
yes, any two actions involving chips or any three actions is the definition of significant action that I am using. Of course that gets a bit strange when you are only 3 handed but it is a good definition.
-
It will be so great if this definition "two actions involving chips or any three actions" would be generalized to the 3 cases:
1) A misdeal followed by ... (actually 2 actions) ...
2) A wrong board followed by ... (actually nothing clear) ...
3) A forgotten player followed by ... (actually 3 actions) ...
... to determine THE REAL DELAY TO REACT TO THOSES SITUATIONS !?!
-
If the second improper action were allowed, or prompted by the dealer, that too would be considered substantial action, would it not? If not, then we must erase substantial action from all head to head action. I believe the dealer counts in the equation.
Guillaume Gleize,
I like your definition of two actions involving chips or any three actions, I especially liked when you used "Freeze the action." All you have to do is consider whether you want to include the dealer as one of those participants. If it is too confusing, leave it the way you have it. There are always other factors that the floor needs to consider, and when we are talking about substantial action (or significant action), it involves premature betting, out of turn betting, and too many situations to mention.
-
This definition (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions) is beautifull and I'm ready to use it but it will break the traditionnal RRoP "2 actions after a misdeal & 3 actions after a forgotten player"!
So if we use this new definition, would you agree that:
1) Any initial error of deal (preflop) followed only by 2 folds before being discovered can be declared a misdeal because there were no "substantial action" (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions)?
2) Any forgotten player during a betting round followed only by an open-bet & a raise is enought to freeze the forgotten player (can't create action anymore) because there were "substancial action" (2 actions involving chips)?
Can't wait for the next TDA MEETING (won't be there because of european tourneys but will follow it very closely)!
GG
-
Guillaume,
I can agree with #1 but I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the forgotten player can't create action anymore. There are other links where we have discused this at great length. If you are implying that the players hand is dead, then I would say that is not right. I would say that the player could only call or fold when the action is returned to him, unless the dealer has turned the next board card. I don't want to complicate this but, I need an example that better explains what you mean; can't create action.
-
OK about the case #2 sorry not being clear: yes the result is that the player could only call or fold when the action is returned to him BUT THE MAIN POINT WAS THE DELAY:
Is it after 3 players acted (RRoP) or after the new expression of "substantial action" (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions)?
So in the #2 my question was: Does the fact to be followed only by an open-bet + a raise is enought to "punish" the forgotten player because there were "substancial action" (2 actions involving chips) knowing that we didn't have the 3 actions recommanded by the RRoP?
GG
-
Guillaume,
I like your definition of substantial action but, others may disagree. The big decisions that you will have to consider is; are you sure you want to" punish" the forgotten player, or the offending player that bet out of turn? You will have to determine why the player was skipped, and then make your decision as to who was at fault.
There are too many situations to cover all of substantial action but, I will try to cover a basic scenario: Player A bets, Player B is skipped, PlayerC calls (first action), Player D folds (second action, but no bet). The skipped Player (B) now speaks out and stops the action from continuing. I would allow the action to be backed up to the proper bettor. If Player B, or the dealer allowed one more player to act (the third action), then it would be too late to back it up.
My advise is to focus on the reason the improper action took place. Only then will you be able to make the right call. The forgotten player is not always the one at fault. All you have to decide is if you are going to consider the dealer in the equation. I hope this helps you understand. This is my interpretation of substantial action.
-
TY for this answer ... so I hope you will excuse my (very) last question (rude right?):
First I know about the special circumstancies and don't worry: I will never apply the rules like a robot ... But I need to have a strong base under all this ... so my last question will be:
In your last example and under normal conditions, if player D raised or called instead of folding and then player B (skipped) stops everything: it would be 2 actions (with bets) so I suppose it would be too late to for the action to be backed up right?
If yes: so we apply the "2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions"!
If no: so we stick to the RRoP "3 actions"!
(just to establish a base rule before all the special circumstancies)
GG
-
Short answer, in my opinion; Two actions involving chips,or any three actions. Remember, if you are going to consider the dealer, this would change. I will give another example and keep in mind, this is how I understand substantial action. Example: Player A bets, Player B is skipped, Player C bets out of turn and the dealer tells Player D that the bet is on him and he folds, because the dealer was involved this could be considered substantial action, even though there were not two out of turn players betting.
That's about all I have on this one.
-
Thanks for all your advises Nick.
Long live poker!
;)