PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: EbroTim on September 11, 2011, 09:44:13 PM
-
Below is TDA rule #11 verbatim. Question to follow.
11: Face Up for All-Ins
All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule.
Please consider the following scenario:
Flop
A goes all in. B calls. C calls. (Main pot is closed.)
Turn
B bets. C calls. (Side pot is created.)
River
B checks. C checks.
It is now time for showdown. Which, if any, of the following statements are true?
1. No player may muck their hand.
2. All three players MUST turn their hands face-up.
3. If any player leaves the table, the dealer must turn their hand face-up at showdown.
-
that scenario is different because we have a player all-in with action continuing between other two players:
If you consider action on the turn, player B at the showdown must be encouraged to turn his cards (since he was the player who took last aggressive action) and C can muck/show, then player A (all-in player) can muck his hand if he cannot win the side pot: now the entire pot is awarded to B who wins it.
Still I consider action on the river, not on the turn: for me and my cardroom in this particular scenario, since everybody checks the last street, from button clockwise first player shows his cards and then the others can muck/show their ones.
So:
-1) turn action: B shows first, C can decide o muck/show, A can decide to muck/show and pot is assigned.
-2) river action: from button clockwise first player shows, then the others can decide
-
This scenario is not “different.”
All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule.
Based on this rule, as written, all three hands are to be shown after the action is complete after the river card has been dealt.
-
Ditto DCJ001's post, ALL hands that reach showdown, sipepots or not must be shown, due to the showdown involving a player whom is all-in. Check-muck etc are not permissible for the scenario described. absent for Therefore all 3 statements you post at the bottom of your statement are correct.
With regard to a player who is all-in with the blinds/antes and has been absent for some time, I would have the dealer kill the hand by touching the hole cards into the muck before tabling, in order that the chips go to a present player.
Regards
Stuart
-
Wait, you are saying that if I'm player C and on the river I missed my draw and checked behind player B, and I'm the last player, I have to show my hand?
Why?
In this case I must say that first to show is player A and, if player B has a better hand must show (of course) or he can muck is hand, so could do player C.
-
Linker: This is not complicated.
1. NO hands would be shown on the turn as action is NOT COMPLETED, the river has yet to be dealt and players B and C still have chips that may be put into play.
2. Since there is a side pot, between players B and C, I would require them to both turn over their hands as soon as player C has said 'Check'. Player A does NOT reveal his hand as he is NOT a part of the side pot. I would NOT allow either of them to fold.
3. The side pot is awarded to the winning hand of either player B or C. The loosing hand is folded and placed in the muck, as it cannot win the main pot.
4. The dealer would instruct player A to reveal his hand. It cannot be folded in my opinion.
5. The dealer awards the main pot to the winning hand between player A and the winner of the side pot.
chet
-
Chet,
IMO, that was perfect.
-
Wait, you are saying that if I'm player C and on the river I missed my draw and checked behind player B, and I'm the last player, I have to show my hand?
Why?
In this case I must say that first to show is player A and, if player B has a better hand must show (of course) or he can muck is hand, so could do player C.
Have you read the TDA rules?
TDA rule # 11 says:
"All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule."
If you're running a tournament, and, if you're using TDA rules, and, if a player asks why his hand must be shown at an all in showdown, you can say "Because the rules say so."
If a player asks why the rule is being enforced, you don't need to explain why. If you're running a tournament, and, if you don't understand why some of the rules are the way that they are, you can ask questions here. For the most part, the answers that you'll get are best guesses and/or excuses.
But the rules are really not difficult to understand if you understand the language in which the rules are written.
"All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule."
-
Have you read the TDA rules?
TDA rule # 11 says:
"All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule."
If you're running a tournament, and, if you're using TDA rules, and, if a player asks why his hand must be shown at an all in showdown, you can say "Because the rules say so."
If a player asks why the rule is being enforced, you don't need to explain why. If you're running a tournament, and, if you don't understand why some of the rules are the way that they are, you can ask questions here. For the most part, the answers that you'll get are best guesses and/or excuses.
But the rules are really not difficult to understand if you understand the language in which the rules are written.
"All cards will be turned face up once a player is all-in and all betting action for the hand is complete. The dealer & players should insist on timely compliance with this rule."
Rules are, of course, easy to understand, but the reason I would let player C or B muck their hand is:
-1) they were still playing at the river and there was a side pot running between them
-2) showing losing hand could affect the strategy of the player who could have nothing and doesn't want to show his bluff (let's think at B who bets the turn and then check the river) and we always have to protect players for the best interest of the game.
-3) main pot should be awarded to the player with the winning hand between A and (B or C), so there's no reason to show the loosing hand between (B or C)
It's just that a lot of TD's here in Italy (and I don't know if in Europe also) sometimes consider last aggressive action on the turn and let player A muck is hand unless the winner asks to see them.
I don't let them do this, A is all-in and must show his cards. That's easy to understand lol.
Otherwise some TD's let the players with loosing hand muck.
I think that's also because we shouldn't put a lot of pressure on the players by ruling everything they do in a wrong way especially if we have novices. And I'm talking about the action between player B or C, not A.
If we should do so, game would be affected.
-
Linker: The fact that there is a side pot between B and C has NOTHING to do with the fact that their hands must be turned FACE UP. It has to do solely with the MAIN POT!!
I get the impression that you are saying that some TD's in your location only use those TDA rules they agree with and skip over or don't use those they disagree with. That is another whole set of problems and in my opinion, unless there is a local gaming agency rule contrary to the TDA rule, those TD's should NOT be allowed to advertise or claim they follow TDA rules.
Chet
-
Ebro Tim and Linker Split,
You should take a look back at this link. http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=268.0 It has some interesting suggestions that were not addressed at the recent summit. I have always been against Rule #11 (formerly #9).
-
I get the impression that you are saying that some TD's in your location only use those TDA rules they agree with and skip over or don't use those they disagree with. That is another whole set of problems and in my opinion, unless there is a local gaming agency rule contrary to the TDA rule, those TD's should NOT be allowed to advertise or claim they follow TDA rules.
Chet
No, my location is a country (Italy), Casinoes (San Remo, Venice, Campione).
What about this scenario:
-A who is UTG goes all-in
-in order B, C, D, E, F call
-Turn is tabled
-B bets, C raises, D, E, F and then B call
-River is tabled
-everybody check.
What would you do? make B turn face up his cards and so on the others? Of course this is what I would do becuase there was NO action on the river (and still a lot of TDs consider last aggressive action on the turn and make C turn his cards first)
-1 But what if E puts his cards into the muck? Can he be arrested for this? I don't think so
-2 And what if D has what he thinks could be the nuts and turns his card before B and the others fold? It's obviously easy to understand that those cards can't be recovered.
-3 And what if F gets up and leave the table (obviously he violates rule #28)? Dealer turns his cards face up? Let the dealer make some dance and sing also, if so.
-4 And what about protecting players and the game which is the first thing we should take care about?
If you guys are telling me that RULE #11 have been discussed taking in consideration all I said, then it's fine.
Since I don't think discussion went towards these questions, I can assure that rule #11 is important, but must be modelled for various scenarios
-
Members:
I have been discussing rule #11 (formerly #9) for almost two years. The slight change that was added this year did nothing to clarify it's intent. The rule would be acceptable for head-to-head action with one player going all-in. Example: Pre-flop, Player A goes all-n and Player B calls and all other players fold. Turn both hands face up and play out the hand. IMO, the problem arises when there are situations with multiple players with side pots.
Why must we expose all players hands only when there is an all-in?
A player that leaves the table should have their hand "killed" first and then exposed . This would solve the problem of who is to turn over the absent players hand. Any player that leaves the table with action pending would violate TDA Rule #28. Their hand is dead. I would have the dealer touch the hand to the muck - killing it - and then show the hand, if it has to be shown.
Who shows first after all cards are dealt when all players check at the showdown? This could be a house rule, forcing the player that initiated the last bet after the turn card is okay, if that's the way your rule is written. Otherwise, it would be the first player clockwise to the button - the first player to check - on the last betting round. It's one or the other. Just make your rule clear.
At this years summit, members were told that slight differences in a house rule would not stop any card room from using the TDA Rules. In fact there are jurisdictions that might make following every single TDA rule to the letter impossible. Card room managers should make their house rules easy for players to understand and they are encouraged to use the TDA Rules for all of their tournaments, even if they have to make a minor adjustment on occasion. Let's not forget Rule #1, in part; Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.
-
This rule is NOT NEW, it has been in the TDA rules, albeit maybe slightly different wording, for a LONG TIME.
Obviously there are some members who do not understand it or who vehemently disagree with it. This thread makes that crystal clear. HOWEVER, it is still a TDA rule regardless and I do not believe these discussions will change it in anyway.
TDA Rules are promulgated and discussed at the bi-annual Summit. That is the vehicle for making changes.
We have discussed this issue to death, in my opinion and accomplished what?
Those of you who disagree with this rule should attend the next forum and make your positions known.
-
Chet,
It appears that your post is directed at me...so I will respond once again. I never said the rule was new. I said "The slight change that was added this year did nothing to clarify it's intent."
I was at the last summit and I did mention this rule.
Obviously, this rule is causing confusion for others, too.
To directly answer your question, yes I do disagree with TDA Rule #11. You have explained the proper order for showdown on other posts, so why do you argue, or continue to become annoyed each time it is brought-up for debate. I know you understand what to do but, the way it is currently worded, TDA Rule #11 remains unclear to others.
You are right about one thing when you said; " We have discussed this issue to death, in my opinion and accomplished what?" My answer: nothing.
-
Not sure if our solution is right if we have A as all in B and C call the main pot is then pushed towards A as "all he can win" then B an C continue with any further bets on separate part of table as side pot till the river when all action finished all turn cards and pots are awarded as per winning hands. This is how we have done it since I can remember that way all in the action know which pot is which, mind you if we get a second all in multi way then we usually call TD to watch
-
Suffolkraider,
TDA rule #11 has been debated for quite some time. Your situation is more about formulating the main pot and separating it from other pots. I teach my student dealers to consider the main pot as pot "A." Pot A will be the pot that is contested by the all-in player with the least amount of chips in the pot. Continued betting will begin pot "B." There could be many more pots if multiple players go all-in. It could be Pot A, B, C...etc. I was never in favor of moving the position of the pot because there are too many times when it will not work out. There is confusion (if you ask me) as to the order of showdown. TDA does not really explain the proper order of showdown when a player or players are all-in.
I will copy the following from Robert's Rules of Poker:
If there is a side pot, the winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.
I would suggest that this is what the TDA is addressing when they say: The dealer & players should insist on a timely compliance with this rule. If all players turn their hands over at the same time, too much confusion can occur and pot winners are much more difficult to determine.
-
I don't understand how we can enforce both B and C showing on a checked down river when if there was a bet then either could fold and not have to show. If checked down on the river, use either the last agressor rule or first from the button rule (whichever is your house way) to decide on who should open. Not force both players to show.
As Linker said:
-2) showing losing hand could affect the strategy of the player who could have nothing and doesn't want to show his bluff (let's think at B who bets the turn and then check the river) and we always have to protect players for the best interest of the game.
-
Spence,
You are correct. The rule is not written for players that check. IMO, it is for all-in situations when players have no option because opposing players are out of chips. The way I see it, when any player goes all-in, that does not require other players (with chips) that check to show their cards.
I agree with Linker_Split and Spence on this one.
-
Sorry people, I am a bit confused, why does the absent player get his/her hand dead when they decided to put their tournament on the line? Maybe the player needed the bathroom and players B and C took ages to make decisions on the turn and river. Theres also the scenario that Player A needed to take a phone call and had to leave the table. IMO, I dont think its as clear cut to kill an absent player's hand but I could be wrong. The only time I would kill the hand is if the player had not committed chips fullstop and was not at the table with action pending.
This is how I see it:
A goes all in on flop B and C call (main pot and side pot created)
B bets C calls (chips added to side pot)
B goes all in and C calls (chips added to side pot)
Showdown - B and C show cards first - winner take side pot which is player B lets say
Absent player A beats player B and takes down the main pot.
I say this because I think its unfair to kill an absent player when he/she had to leave for no fault of their own and have committed chips to the pot. IMO, once you pay, you are entitled to win.
I agree with Nick that I dont like Dealers turning up an absent player's hole cards at showndown but if thats the case, I would rather that than a player turning the cards up.
-
My mistake A goes all in on flop B and C call (main pot created) no side spot.
-
If you guys are telling me that RULE #11 have been discussed taking in consideration all I said, then it's fine.
Since I don't think discussion went towards these questions, I can assure that rule #11 is important, but must be modelled for various scenarios
Hello Linker,
Your response is valid and no we are not going to arrest anyone. One thing that is lacking in this thread is the purpose for making everyone turn over their hands at the river even when everyone check and even when there is a side pot between other players who are not all-in.
The debate has raged on this forum and at the TDA summit and yes we have considered and discussed all scenarios.
The bottom line is this: Every player in the hand at showdown must turn their hand face up to protect the other players who are in the tournament. Whether the all-in player wins the hand or gets knocked out, not only affects the table and the players in the hand, it also affects the players left in the tournament.
Important things to consider: 1) A player at showdown may misread their hand and muck the winning hand enabling the all-in player to remain in the tournament. 2) Player A may be trying to chip dump to Player B. There other minor reasons but those are the most important.
Hope that helps.
-
Thomas,
I raised this question on another thread, 'do all tournament players have to table their cards at the showdown, or only when there is an all-in'? Your explanation; to protect all tournament players is why all cards should be tabled whenever there is an all-in player.
Is that correct?
So, whenever there is an all-in, there can be no mistakes as to who has the best hand. There can be no folding of a winning hand by mistake and every player involved at the showdown has the guarantee that they will see every players hand...is that correct? If so, why?
I'd like to start a debate on this subject because I never got the answer I wanted. Are there different showdown procedures, from regular showdown and when any player is all-in?
-
Thomas,
I raised this question on another thread, 'do all tournament players have to table their cards at the showdown, or only when there is an all-in'? Your explanation; to protect all tournament players is why all cards should be tabled whenever there is an all-in player.
Is that correct?
Yes, to protect all tournament players. Same reason we don't want players talking about the contents of their hand or showing cards with action pending.
So, whenever there is an all-in, there can be no mistakes as to who has the best hand. There can be no folding of a winning hand by mistake and every player involved at the showdown has the guarantee that they will see every players hand...is that correct? If so, why?
Why what? You answered your own question here. We want the best hand to win. We want players to win or lose pots properly. Especially pots which involve possible elimination.
I'd like to start a debate on this subject because I never got the answer I wanted. Are there different showdown procedures, from regular showdown and when any player is all-in?
What answer do you want? :) Yes there are different procedures. Start a new thread.
-
I agree. Start a thread. This is something I'd like to argue over as well.