PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types => Topic started by: Nick C on July 24, 2011, 05:43:37 AM
-
There is always discussion about the all-in player, that leaves the table before the showdown. With each response, reference was ALWAYS preceeded by; " An all-in player's hand must be tabled!" More discussion would follow, as to who should turn over the cards if the owner of the hand refuses, or is absent from the table?
Where is the tournament rule, that overrides TDA rule's #22 , that mentions the all-in must be shown?
-
Nick:
I know of no such rule either. However, there may be local gaming authority or house rules that require this to be done.
Also, remember that implementation or adoption of any or all TDA rules is voluntary. The TDA has no "Authority" to require adoption/adherence of the rules it promulgates, other than peer pressure and the expertise of the TDA Board of Directors and Membership.
Now to play Devil's Advocate:
In the case you bring up there are some TDA Rules that APPEAR to conflict with one-another. You bring up rules 22 and 23, which basically require a player to be present at a table to have a live hand. Do you agree that perhaps these rules conflict (IN THIS SITUATION) with rules 9 and 10, which basically require that in an all-in situation all hands be tabled and that the dealer cannot kill a winning hand?
I have heard that TDA rules are listed in Priority Order, such that if a lower number rule AND a higher number rule apply, the lower number rule takes precedence. However that is NOT THE CASE. TDA Rules are not listed in any order of priority, at least in the 2009 version where they were reorganized by topic. Perhaps in prior versions there was some attempt at prioritization, but no longer. I have also read in this forum, posts which, if I remember correctly, indicate that winning players must be paid regardless of whether they are in attendance or not. As I said previously, this may be required by house rule or by the local gaming authority.
Just some thoughts to keep in mind.
-
Chet:
You are correct when you talk of conflicting rules. Why must the cards be tabled? Not only does it conflict with existing rules. It also goes against proper dealer procedure. Telling the dealer that it is their responsibility to turn over the absent player's hand is unacceptable. Wouldn't it be easier, and less complicated, to insist that the all-in remain at their seat until the hand is complete? Perhaps it would be easier to add: EXCEPT FOR THE ALL-IN PLAYER to the end of TDA rule #23.
-
Nick:
It seems to me that your real problem is with TDA Rule 9 which requires that the hands of players in an all-in situation be tabled. There is NOTHING in Rule 9 that says the dealer has to table that hand. However, if your card room is going to adhere to the TDA rules AND if the player refuses to table the hand, what is the dealer to do? Maybe this is a bar type situation where the tables are player dealt and there isn't a formal floor. What do you do then. The purpose of TDA Rule 9 is to prevent chip dumping/collusion between two players. If you don't require the hands to be tabled, how do you prevent those types of situations?
As to requiring the all-in player to remain at his seat, how do you propose to enforce that any better than requiring the hand to be tabled?
I see absolutely no need to make an exception to rule 23 for the all-in player.
As far as I am concerned, if a player goes all-in and leaves the table that hand is abandoned and I would consider it folded. If it is the winning hand, then I would award the pot to the opposing player.
-
Chet:
Killing the hand is what I want to do, too. I see it no different than dealing to an absent player and then killing their hand immediately. I've always had a problem with TDA rule #9 but, I don't want to go there right now. Why do we accept, and allow any player to toss their hand into the muck at the showdown, without revealing it, when they have a looser? Why is there an exception for the all-in? Players voluntarily fold their hands regularly, when they see a hand that has them beat. Some even make mistakes and toss the winner....so why should the all-in have the added luxury of exposing their hand and having the dealer, or another player, tell them that they have a winner?
-
Nick: I would submit that in the vast majority of all-in situations, there are yet cards to come, so the decision as to which player has the best hand at the end is yet to come.
For example, last Wednesday, I was playing cash and two players were all-in pre-flop, one had AA the other KK. Obviously the AA is ahead by far. As I recall, the flop was Q, T, A, giving the player holding AA a HUGE lead. However, the player holding KK now has the straight draw possibility. The Turn was a blank, and just as though it was on TV, the River was a J. Over $400 pot with Aces again cracked.
What does this have to do with whether the cards of an all-in player should be turned up, NOTHING, at least not that I can deduce. However, as I said before the reason for putting the cards on their backs in an all-in situation, at least in my opinion, is to prevent chip dumping and/or collusion between players.
I know of several people that used to frequent my local card room that used to play as a team. They would get someone between them and whipsaw them out of their chips and then at the end of the night they split the good fortune.
-
Chet:
I understand that we need to watch for chip dumping but, I don't want to get too far off the subject. When there are only two players left in a hand, and one goes all-in, turn both hands over. That is when rule #9 should be enforced. When there are multiple players in a hand, after an all-in, side pots sometimes occur. Side pots dictate a different order of revealing cards at the showdown. Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created.
I still have a problem turning over a player's hand, after they leave the table. All-in or not. Let the floor turn the cards over. We must exclude the dealer from that list.
Who said an all-in players hand can't be killed, if they bolt from the table? If you are worried about collusion, kill the hand by touching it to the muck, and then turn it over.
How about something like this:
All-in players that leave the table before the showdown, shall lose all rights to the pot. Their cards will be "exposed" to the table after the winner is awarded the pot.
-
Nick:
Read the whole rule!! The second part of TDA Rule 9 says, "...and all betting action is complete." If there are multiple players and one or more side pots are possible, NO hands should be tabled. The ONLY time hands are to be tabled is if all betting action is complete.
Now as to your statement, "Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created." I find nothing in Rule 9 that is contrary to what you propose. Personally, I only invoke Rule 9 as hands are to be decided. There is nothing in Rule 9 that prevents you from doing what you have written when side pots are present.
As far as only having only the floor turn over a players cards who has left the table, I don't have any problem with that as long as the logistics of your event allow. However, there are lots and lots and lots of small events where I don't think it practical to limit this authority to the floor. What about small bar type events where the "floor" or organizer of the event also is a player? Does this person have to leave his seat every time something like this occurs? I wouldn't like it and I don't think my players would either.
I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table. My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position.
-
Chet:
Your last statement: "I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table. My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position." Then you agree the hand should not be turned over?
I've gone over this with you before on other threads. The second part of TDA Rule #9......."and all betting is complete." The winners of each side pot will still be determined in the reverse order that they (the side pots) were created. The all-in player with the least amount in the pot (contesting the main pot, or first pot) will showdown their hand last. If player A goes all-in for 100 and three players call, when the next round of betting commences, a side pot could happen. When the last betting round is over "and all betting is complete." The all-in player should not reveal their hand along with the other player's.
-
Nick:
In my opinion, the ONLY time an all-in hand should NOT be tabled would be: A) if there is still action pending and/or B) if there are subsequent side pots in which the all-in player is not involved. As I said, I agree that side pots should be resolved in the reverse order in which they are created and ONLY the hands involved in a particular side pot should be displayed as that pot is resolved.
I DO NOT AGREE that the hand of a player absent from the table should remain face down. That hand should be tabled at the applicable time and then killed by the dealer. The absent player is NOT ELIGIBLE to win any part of the applicable pot.
So, here is an example:
Player A: All In for the main pot with players B, C and D,
Player B: All in for Side Pot #1 with player C and D,
Player C: All in for Side Pot #2 with Player D. NO PLAYERS CARDS ARE TABLED AT THIS POINT!!
Here is what needs to happen IN ORDER":
First, any remaining board cards are dealt, when complete, players C and D table their cards and the winner of Side Pot #2 is determined,
Second, after the dealer awards Side Pot #2, he calls for Player B to table his hand and Side Pot #1 is awarded,
Third, After Side Pot #1 has been awarded, the dealer calls for Player A to table his hand and the Main Pot is awarded.
There is nothing in the TDA Rules that forbids incorporating a bit of common sense into ones interpretation. I don't think rule 9 needs to be interpreted quite as strictly as you seem to.
Chet
-
Chet:
If you can interpret that from TDA Rule #9, then you see it perfectly. I however, think that something is missing, and it goes beyond common sense.
You also said the absent player is not eligible to win any part of the pot...I agree. You also say that the absent player's hand should not remain face down. This brings us back to one of the big issues. You said the hand should be tabled by the dealer and then killed. I say the hand should be killed first and then shown to the table if anyone is concerned about chip dumping, or just because. I like your thoughts about the player not being eligible for any part of the pot, but if the dealer turns it over, and it's a winner, then what?
-
Nick:
To answer your last question, I quote from a prior post in this thread, "As far as I am concerned, if a player goes all-in and leaves the table that hand is abandoned and I would consider it folded. If it is the winning hand, then I would award the pot to the opposing player."
I don't give one iota if the hand is the winner or not. If the player isn't at the table, that player is NOT ELIGIBLE for any part of the pot. The next best hand is awarded the pot.
-
I am not sure I comply with the TDA here although we do use TDA rules. Our house rule is that a player must be at the table to table his/her own cards. If not the hand is dead and anyone can request to see those killed cards.
-
Ricky9:
Personally I see nothing wrong with how you handle this situation in your room. What I would like to see is a response from one or more of the TDA BOD on this issue since it has caused a considerable amount of discussion in this thread.
Chet
-
What new rule covers this subject? Why was there no response on Chet's request from July 25th?
-
Nick: The TDA BOD will respond in due time, I hope. I know they are all very busy.
That said, you asked where is the rule that says the all-in hand of an absent player must be turned face up. My answer is 2011 Rule 11. There is NOTHING in this rule that says it applies only to hands where the players are present at the table.
In my opinion, TDA Rule 11 applies REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PLAYER IS PRESENT OR NOT!!
If the player is not present, the dealer (I know where you stand on this) should turn that hand face up, WHEN ALL BETTING ACTION IS COMPLETE. If there are side pots, then the hand is turned over at the appropriate time (see my prior post).
-
Chet,
From what you wrote, we agree for the most part. Can you tell me why an all-in player that leaves the table is not governed by TDA rule #28 Action Pending A player must remain at the table if he has a live hand.
The issue that we don't agree on is; the method and the person that is to expose the hand.
Chet, maybe you can help me out with another rule; Why does rule #12 specify In a non-all-in showdown, at the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first...What is the difference if it is an all-in, or a non-all-in? The order of showdown should still be followed.
-
Let me answer your last question first, as I think the answer is easier.
Rule 11 applies to all-in situations and says that, "... AS SOON AS ALL BETTING ACTION FOR THE HAND IS COMPLETE..." There is no mention of a showdown situation since the cards are all face up and the order of showdown is immaterial and does not apply.
I understand that you do not like TDA Rul3 11, but it is a rule and has been for a number of years.
Now for your first question: I don't really care if the dealer kills the absent players hand right away or not. However, let me give you an example of where I think it would be a travesty for the hand to be killed before the last card is dealt and the winning hand determined. I have a number of allergies and every once in a while, I get on a coughing jag and can't stop for a couple of minutes. This has happened to me at the table and I have to get up and step away, not only for my own good but also to be courteous to the other players who shouldn't have to put up with that.
I don't leave the facility, but I do step far enough away to not bother other players. This may be several feet or yards. If you follow rule 28, I can make the argument that my hand should be killed. However, I ALWAYS come back in time for the winning hand to be determined, so I am at the table when "decision time" comes. What would you do in that situation?
We are going to have to agree to disagree on who should physically turn over the absent players hand. However, let me add this; The players agree to follow the TDA Rules, the TDA Rules don't specify who is to physically turn over the hand, so it is up to house rules, if there are any. You say the floor has to be called. I say that is a waste of time, to hold up the table until a floor is available. I play a LOT of small events where there is only one floor for 5 or more table. I know that if I were the floor and I had confidence in my dealers, that I would have better things to do than run around turning over absent players hands. In my opinion, once the player has left the table, he/she has lost all "rights" so as long as the hand is turn face up in accordance with the rules and not prematurely, etc., to quote Clark Gable, "...I don't give a damn".
I am kinda rambling, its late, I need to get up early so sorry for the disorganization.
-
I wil ask one of my unanswered questions again. Why does rule #12 specify in a non-all-in showdown ?
-
Nick, sometimes I just think you don't read these posts as carefully as you could. Chet answered your question about #12 FIRST in last post. And he did it very well.
But... the cards would be face up in an all in situation. so in non-all-in situations we have a rule for who should show first....easy peasy.
-
Jasper,
Apparently, it's not so easy peasy...neither you or Chet answered my question. As far as players turning over their cards when all-in, they should still comply with the correct order of showdown. I will ask the question for the third time and see if I can get a straight answer. In TDA Rule # 12 Why does it start out with; In a non-all-in showdown? What does the non all-in have to do with the rule?
Jasper if you think I have a problem reading some of the posts, maybe you should use English only.
Come on, you can't sit back two weeks after the new rules are released and this is the best you've got?
-
you're right, Nick, I probably have more but too busy to get nit picky....
as to the question regarding #12, you say that players should adhere to the order of showdown in an all in situation. That doesn't seem at all necessary. All hands are going to have to be tabled face up if there is a player that is all in at showdown (or before if all action is complete) so who gives a rat's butt if they do it in any particular order. All the cards are face up. (I suppose we could distinguish side pot showdowns, maybe that is what you are talking about. but rule #11 states "all hands... once the action is complete." we would simply determine the winner of the side pot first then the main, with all hands face up)
Now, in a non-all-in situation the order of showdown is important because of the very situation we evaluated between Tobias and DeWolf. Tobias CALLED DeWolf on the river so DeWolf should have tabled his hand face up FIRST. Then Tobias could simply muck without showing if he wanted to, or go ahead and show his losing hand. Tobias paid to see DeWolfs hand. There are plenty of times that the aggressive player (the one that bet first that round) will try to just call his hand ('I have a king" or whatever) and not show it waiting to see the callers hand first. This is not appropriate.
The mention of the non-all-in situation in the rules was to distinguish it from the all in situation.
and again, if there is a player all-in ALL the cards are face up sho the order of showdown is moot. (this, btw, was Chet's answer)
I don't know how we can be more straightforward than that. The statement in the rule is there to distinguish it from the all-in situation. If that somehow seems extraneous to you then I am a bit surprised as you are one of the first to want to add even a single word to a rule to make it clearer or distinguish it's particular circumstance to the reader.
The grammar may not be perfect but I think that was all in English. ;D :D
-
Jasper,
Thanks for your great response. For anyone that has ever played a hand of poker, what is more annouying than calling a player's raise, only to have him ask "you what do you have!" This is when the dealer should demand that the player that showed the last act of aggression, must show first. There is a difference, and every player that called the last bet, or went all-in, should abide by those rules. I have been against the wording on several rules because they are not self explanitory. I teach students and I am very precise. As far as DeWolfe and Tobias, that was probably the best 30 seconds (or whatever it took) of footage that broke more rules of showdown than any I've ever seen. I guess I am not making my point on #'s 11 and 12. I think #11 should be for head-to-head with an all-in. Even then the player that initiated the last bet would showdown their hand first. They are rules of etiquette. If you and I are in a hand, and you go all-in, and I call, I know that both hands will be turned up but yours is turned first, That's the way it is. The dealer should know that, also.
Jasper, when there are multiple players in a hand and one goes all in, and there is a side pot, the side pot winner must be decided first! It would be inappropriate at the showdown, for the all-in to show his hand while the other players are determining the winner of the side pot. They must wait until the pot they are in for is contested....so they don't all turn them over at the showdown and they don't do it at the same time. If you want to you can, but the last player to call, will be the last to show if that's the way he wants it. Period!
If you want to debate this with me, we can. If you see what I explained in either rule #11 or #12. I want to know where it is. Chet explained it perfectly but I don't know why, we can't add somewhere, that the pots must be decided in the reverse order that they were created. You are also right when you say, I like to add a few words here and there. I will continue if it makes the rule eaisier to understand. I don't need to hear that it only takes comon sense to figure out these rules. If that were the case, we wouldn't be going back and forth trying to comprehend thier meaning.
-
well, I think I am at least understanding where you are coming from, but before I go off on a small dissertation here I want to ask the question that was asked of all the rules: "Can you live with it?"
I get what you are saying about the showdown when you have one player all in and two or more players with action on the side. You believe that the all-in hand should not turn over his hand until the side pot is adjudicated by the dealer and pushed and then the all-in should table his hand and the winner of the main pot determined. Ok, that's fine and actually the way it is done in most places and I tend to do that as a dealer myself. Whether it is inappropriate for the all-in hand to show at the same time is arguable in my opinion. I don't see a problem with it and I would take the view with the new rules that it should actually be so. Let me explain:
The dealer procedure that you use and teach where the two players in the side pot show first and the pot winner is determined and then the all-in player shows is a good procedure that helps keep the sidepots from getting confused as to who should win them. But there is nothing in the rules that say that is the way it should be. In fact, if you look at RROP there is nothing there to support it, and looking at the TDA rules there is nothing to support it. It is simply an established dealer procedure that gets the job done well.
In fact, if you look at the rules as they are now, #11, #12, #13, #14 and #18 you should see that the actual fact is that if there is a player all in, when action is complete, all hands should be turned over in a timely manner and the sidepots determined first then the main.
All I am saying here is that your procedure does not actually conflict with the rules so you can keep using them but if you have a player that turns his all in hand over when the action is done, you can't get made at him.
and back to the question: since it doesn't have to change the way you do things is the way the rule is written something that you can live with?
-
Nick:
TDA Rules are NOT intended to cover EACH and EVERY situation that needs a rule. As is said in the introduction, the TDA Rules are intended to SUPPLEMENT the house rules.
With regard to the order of showing hands when there is one or more all in players and side pot(s) are created: Can you tell me of a single room you have EVER been in that doesn't decide side pots in the reverse order in which they were created? If there is, I submit that house has management that is so STUPID that no amount of TDA Rules would help.
I believe it is just common sense and generally accepted practice that side pots are decided in the reverse order of creation and that ONLY hands should be turned face up that are involved in the pot being decided. I DO NOT think the TDA needs, or should have, to include such simple and generally accepted practices in their rules.
One of the concerns of the TDA, as I understand it, is that the rules not get so involved and numerous that they cannot be easily published and understood. I am not saying that adding the language you seem to be promoting for this single instance would be enough to put the rules "over the top", but where does one stop?
-
Jasper,
Thanks for your response. I have to say that I am a little surprised that you don't see the problem with the all-in turning over his hand when there are side pots to be decided first. The first time an all-in turns his hand over, and players that are contesting the side pots toss their hands into the muck because they see a hand that has theirs beat, you will understand the reason for the reverse order of showdown.
You listed several rules and none of them mention what I've discussed, or what Chet explained as the proper procedure with multiple pots. I also want to add that rule #18 has nothing to do with the order of showdown, only that each pot will be split separately and NOT combined and divided, even if it is split between the same two players.
I want you to know that I understand what every rule is "trying" to say. I just feel that this one needs more work. While you are at it, can you translate the last line in rule #11...The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule...Can you translate?
Finally. Yes, I can live with it, but if I'm having trouble with it, I can bet that new players and casino poker employees will have a tough time too.
-
Jasper,
You might want to take a look at this:
ROBRETS RULES OF POKER version 11
3- General Poker Rules Showdown
Rule 8
If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. 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.
-
Nick: What you don't seem to be able to understand is that in a multiple pot situation, the all-in player(s) does not turn his/her hand face up UNTIL THE POT IN WHICH HE/SHE IS INVOLVED IS BEING DECIDED!! So if the all-in player is only involved with the Main Pot and there are 1 or more side pots, the all-in player DOES NOT EXPOSE HIS HAND UNTIL THE MAIN POT IS BEING DECIDED!!!
As to your concerns with TDA Rule 11, SO WHAT if it differs from RROP. The TDA membership adopted that rule and that is the 'standard' on which they have chosen to operate. You can like it or not, the choice is yours. But, in my no so humble opinion, you have quite clearly made your point. Continuing to harange about this day after day after day isn't going to change anything. As I said in a prior post, I only see you, me, Jasper and maybe MikeB involved with these threads and us four, even if we agreed with oneanother (which we do not) are so miniscule compared to the total membership that we are not and we should not be able to get a rule changed.
If you want to get the rule changed, I suggest you start lobbying for 50, 100, 200 members to get on your side and start posting their feelings. Otherwise, what was decided at the Summit should be the TDA Standard.
I have made my points clear on several of these issues. I do not intend to keep posting the same answers time after time after time. Lets move on to something else.
Chet
ps: Sorry if I sound cranky, but I have been at the ER since early this AM and don't have a clue when I will be able to take the wife home.
-
Chet, Where in the TDA rules, does it clarify the all-in with side pots? What in the world are you talking about when you say I don't understand the mutiple pot situation. That's what I've been preaching for the last year and a half and no one agreed with me. You can't bring yourself to say I'm right about a rule, even when you agree with what I've said. I guess even RROP aren't good enough for some of us.
I started this thread on a different subject and you are the person who shifted us to TDA rule #9 (now 11).
Jasper, perhaps you overlooked this when you went through RR's.
I have many other issues that I will turn to. As far as this one, I rest my case. We're like the damn Democrats and Republicans, everything is an argument and nothing gets accomplished.
-
Well, sure enough, I overlooked that paragraph. Or misread it. It certainly is the spot that established the procedure you use and teach (and that most of us actually use).
Really, I was never arguing the validity of the procedure. My argument was more along the lines that if you take the TDA rules straight up as currently written, it is possible to read that all hands get turned up. And for you that is a problem (which I do see).
however, after rereading both TDA and RROP it seems like there is less of a conflict than you might believe. As Chet points out, the all-in hand is not turned up until the betting action for the HAND is complete. Therefore, if there is a sidepot, and with the established (foundational rule of RROP) of deciding the sidepot first, you can consider betting action unfinished until the sidepots are decided.
There is then no real conflict, and rule 12 dictates the order of showdown for the folks in the sidepot if they are not all in.
I simply am trying to suggest that there is less of a conflict or confusion in the rule as written now then you suggest. I suppose it is a bit like the argument we had over the old rule 33 (?).
Chet, hope the wifey is ok!!
-
Thanks Jasper!!
Brought her home today. She is as good as can be expected when you consider the Asthma, Emphysema and COPD caused by about 60 years of smoking. Don't even go into getting her to quit, that is a battle that CANNOT BE WON!! On second thought not a battle, but a WAR.
Thanks Again!