PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Non-TDA Tournament and General Poker Rules Discussion => Topic started by: EbroTim on July 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM

Title: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 03, 2012, 11:45:41 PM
At approximately 2 hours, 27 minutes into the Big One for One Drop broadcast on ESPN today, Antonio Esfandiari and David Einhorn were in a hand that checked the flop and turn.  And then on the river, Antonio (1st to act) asked if he could open fold.

TD Jack Effel said Antonio can fold, but that both players must show their hands.  I couldn't hear the conversation between them after that because the announcers were talking.

Does anyone know what Jack Effel's reasoning was behind requiring both players to show?  And whether this is a rule WSOP newly put in place, or whether this is even a rule at all?
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 04, 2012, 03:39:30 AM
EmbroTim,

 I could easily support Jack Effel's decision. I'm sure it has to do with the possibility of collusion and chip dumping. The options open to players first to act are: Check or bet. In a normal situation, players might check and concede but, the right to see that hand should be open to any player at the table.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 04, 2012, 04:12:32 AM
I see that forcing both players to expose their hands when the first player to act decides to fold can expose collusion.

What do you think about the fact that it allows the first player to act to force the other player to show his hand if he open folds?  This can be used to gain information when the first player knows that if he checks, the other player will bet, forcing him to fold, and he wouldn't get the benefit of seeing the other player's hand.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 04, 2012, 06:05:00 AM
ET,
 
 On the contrary, the order of showdown should always be followed. If the first to act checks and the next player checks, the dealer should insist that the first player show their hand. In your other example, I believe that the possibility of a check raise eliminates the forced situation you speak of. I guess, what I'm saying is; In tournament poker all hands should be tabled at the showdown. Why is it only when a player is all-in?

 Bottom line, I think it's a good policy to enforce. Jack Effel might have a different reason but, I like his call. 
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 08:18:31 AM
When you say "open fold", do you mean that Antonio wanted to fold his cards face-up, or just merely fold before acting on the last street?

In any case, I'm pretty sure that accepting Antonio's fold when fold is not an option, and having both players turn up their cards is not an explicit WSOP rule, but is done for transparency.  If the fold was allowed and the hand simply moved on, viewers would be wondering what the heck just happened there, isn't that soft play, etc...

The only potentially related WSOP rule/policy that might be considered is that at showdown, if a player wins the pot because the opponent decides to fold (e.g. it goes check-check and 1st player mucks before other player shows, or it goes bet-call and the bettor folds before caller shows), the remaining person must still show his complete hand in order to win the pot.  In contrast, in some other non-WSOP tourneys, you may not need to show one or both cards to win the pot so long as you are the "last man standing" at showdown. 

Perhaps Jack is effectively treating this situation as check-check-muck, thus Einhorn at least would need to show anyways.  And showing Antonio's hand would temper any accusations of soft play.  ET is right that if the action actually went check-bet-muck, we may not have been able to see Einhorn's hand, but if Antonio is willing to surrender the pot and to have his own hand shown, then perhaps that would be considered a sufficient penalty to pay to see the other person's hand (although I don't think Antonio had any expectation to see Einhorn's hand when folding in this particular case). 

Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: chet on July 04, 2012, 10:27:49 AM
As I remember it, Antonio asked the attending floor, I think it was Jack Effel, if he could fold and the response was yes, but he would have to show his hand.

I think it very important that he asked before acting.  This, in my opinion, removes any question about ethical play.

Chet
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 11:07:25 AM
As I remember it, Antonio asked the attending floor, I think it was Jack Effel, if he could fold and the response was yes, but he would have to show his hand.

I think it very important that he asked before acting.  This, in my opinion, removes any question about ethical play.

I guess... As long as he doesn't say "never mind then, I check"... And then check-raise!  ;)
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
In any case, I'm pretty sure that accepting Antonio's fold when fold is not an option, and having both players turn up their cards is not an explicit WSOP rule, but is done for transparency.  If the fold was allowed and the hand simply moved on, viewers would be wondering what the heck just happened there, isn't that soft play, etc..1:

The only potentially related WSOP rule/policy that might be considered is that at showdown, if a player wins the pot because the opponent decides to fold (e.g. it goes check-check and 1st player mucks before other player shows, or it goes bet-call and the bettor folds before caller shows), the remaining person must still show his complete hand in order to win the pot.  In contrast, in some other non-WSOP tourneys, you may not need to show one or both cards to win the pot so long as you are the "last man standing" at showdown.  2:

Perhaps Jack is effectively treating this situation as check-check-muck, thus Einhorn at least would need to show anyways.  And showing Antonio's hand would temper any accusations of soft play.  ET is right that if the action actually went check-bet-muck, 3:

1: Right. The WSOP 2012 Rule #82 specifically makes a fold when facing no bet subject to penalty, consistent with TDA Rule 45 "Non-Standard Folds". Requiring Antonio to reveal his cards can be seen as a mild penalty with a view towards ensuring against collusion.
2: Because there are these two camps: i) the must show every winning hand (if hand moves to showdown) camp and ii) the camp that allows a winner not to show in the case of an "uncontested showdown", there was a significant change from TDA 2011 Rules Version 1.0 and 2.0. Version 1.0 formally recognized an uncontested showdown as the standard. In order to keep the TDA a large tent association, the uncontested showdown language was changed in Version 2.0 in favor of the language in Rule 14: "Except where house policy requires a hand to be shown...", so that the policies of both camps can be accomodated.
3: Yes, in the case of check-bet-muck, Antonio would be folding when facing a bet, the hand would not progress to showdown, and the winner would not have to show his cards.

This is a great case to look at, thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 04, 2012, 01:57:12 PM
I wrongly assumed that everyone else also watched the broadcast.  To clarify, here is the situation.

The river card has just been dealt.  Antonio is first to act (of two players).  Before acting, Antonio asks the TD whether he can fold (instead of check or bet).  The TD then says that Antonio may fold, but that both players would have to show their hands.  So Antonio then tabled his hand and folded, which forced Einhorn (the other player) to also table his hand.  Showdown was never reached.

My curiosity about this ruling lies in the fact that Player A may exploit this situation by folding (instead of checking or betting) in order to force a gain of information (Player B's hand) that he ordinarily would not receive if he acts (checks or bets) as normal.

I understand that obviously by forcing both players to table their hands, it may expose chip dumping.  What I want to know more specifically, if anyone here knows, is

1.  Is this actually a rule?  Or did the TD come up with this ruling on the fly?
2.  Other than to expose chip-dumping, was there any other possible reason that the TD required both players to show their cards?  (Not that exposing chip-dumping isn't enough of a reason by itself.)

The reason I ask the above is I have never seen this rule applied in a non-showdown situation before, and I am curious about its origin and purpose.  I'd like to hear others' opinions on whether the benefit of exposing chip-dumping outweighs the consequence of players exploiting the rule by open-folding in situations when they have no intention of check-calling on a river they think their opponent will likely bet.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 04, 2012, 02:18:31 PM
I didn't see MikeB's response before I posted my last response.

So then it sounds like, MikeB, you were implying that a WSOP TD may allow players to violate WSOP rule 82, even if it wasn't in the best interest of the game or in the spirit of fairness?

Based on the reasonings for the ruling I have so far, I think a better response by the TD would have been to rule that Antonio may not open-fold, and that he must check or bet.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 02:32:42 PM
I didn't see MikeB's response before I posted my last response.

So then it sounds like, MikeB, you were implying that a WSOP TD may allow players to violate WSOP rule 82, even if it wasn't in the best interest of the game of in the spirit of fairness?
How did I imply that?

Based on the reasonings for the ruling I have so far, I think a better response by the TD would have been to rule that Antonio may not open-fold, and that he must check or bet.
Ahhh, I see your point. Interesting view. TDA Rule 45 was initially intended to clarify what happens to an out-of-turn bettor who folds out-of-turn. There had been some question prior to the rule that like an out-of-turn bet, the out-of-turn fold could be retracted if the action changed. Rule 45 clarifies that the out-of-turn fold is binding, whether action changes or not. The association then extended the rule to include situations where a player folds in-turn when not facing a bet. In both cases the rule was focused not so much on prohibiting these folds but in declaring a) that they are binding and b) that they may be "subject" to penalty at TD's discretion. So in that sense I think explaining to a player what the ramifications of a contemplated action are (in this case you must show your cards) is within the spirit of the Rule. The phrase "may be subject to penalty" places this action more in the category of being strongly discouraged than strictly prohibited IMO... perhaps a strict prohibition should be discussed at the next Summit?
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 04, 2012, 02:36:48 PM
My mistake and my apologies, MikeB.  I read too fast and thought I read rule 82 as saying folding when facing no bet was not permitted.  I didn't see until just now when I reread it that it is actually subject to penalty -- in which case the TD did not make a contrary ruling at all.

I blame it on being awake for the last 32 hours.  Again, my apologies.  Thanks for citing the rule and the explanation.  That was actually the info I was searching for when I made the original post.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: EbroTim on July 04, 2012, 02:55:55 PM
I didn't see MikeB's response before I posted my last response.

So then it sounds like, MikeB, you were implying that a WSOP TD may allow players to violate WSOP rule 82, even if it wasn't in the best interest of the game of in the spirit of fairness?
How did I imply that?

Based on the reasonings for the ruling I have so far, I think a better response by the TD would have been to rule that Antonio may not open-fold, and that he must check or bet.
Ahhh, I see your point. Interesting view. TDA Rule 45 was initially intended to clarify what happens to an out-of-turn bettor who folds out-of-turn. There had been some question prior to the rule that like an out-of-turn bet, the out-of-turn fold could be retracted if the action changed. Rule 45 clarifies that the out-of-turn fold is binding, whether action changes or not. The association then extended the rule to include situations where a player folds in-turn when not facing a bet. In both cases the rule was focused not so much on prohibiting these folds but in declaring a) that they are binding and b) that they may be "subject" to penalty at TD's discretion. So in that sense I think explaining to a player what the ramifications of a contemplated action are (in this case you must show your cards) is within the spirit of the Rule. The phrase "may be subject to penalty" places this action more in the category of being strongly discouraged than strictly prohibited IMO... perhaps a strict prohibition should be discussed at the next Summit?

Yes, if we are discussing the merits of the rule, I do think that altogether prohibiting folding when not facing a bet is a better option than to allow it and face only a penalty of exposing your own hand.  I think either the penalty should be stiffer, or it should not be allowed at all.  My reasoning is as follows:  Player B will know that Player A doesn't have a strong hand either way -- whether he check-folds or whether he open-folds.  Player B doesn't really gain any information by the application of the rule.  Player A, however, does gain information by the application of the rule since he does gain knowledge about Player B's holding when he open-folds, and not when he check-folds.  Am I making any sense at all??  I can elaborate, if you want.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 04, 2012, 05:50:31 PM
Gentlemen:
 
  We are in a discussion about an action that; #1 you probably wont see again and #2 It is highly unethical, that is, to fold without facing a bet. What is the reason for such an action? If not collusion or soft play, why would any player muck instead of check?

 I think Mike is correct about discussing this further at the next summit, I just hope we don't spend too much time on the subject.

 The more I think about it, the more ugly it becomes. I propose that any player attempting to fold in this situation will be forced to check without the option to raise. They should also be subjected to a  penalty.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 06:32:12 PM
I understand completely what you are saying ET, and I have to say that if I had to make the ruling at the time, I would have simply told AE that he could not fold; his options are only to check or bet.  IMO, I really don't see any benefit in trying to be creative with the rules in this situation. 

Subsequently, if DE checks behind, AE could fold without showing, and DE would have to show (under WSOP rules) to claim the pot.  If DE bets, I would not allow AE to raise if he tried, and of course, he could then fold. 

Perhaps Jack was feeling pressured that he had to accommodate the "star" to avoid complaints etc., so came up with this solution on-to-fly so as to avoid making a big deal of the situation and allow the game to move onto the next hand quickly.  I can accept that.  On the other hand, I would like to think (hope) that players at that level could understand and accept the simple explanation that fold is not an option when first to act, and just play out the hand. 
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 04, 2012, 08:01:00 PM
K-Lo,

 I like the bet or check rule with no option to fold.

 In your next sentence are you saying that if the first player to act checks, and the next player checks, that the first player can muck without showing? In addition, the winner must expose his hand? If you are correct, how does that protect the integrity of the game?

 I was always one who thought that poker, whether tournament or cash, were similar with a few differences. Now that I've been addressing so many issues that happen in tournament play, I have to say, it's like two completely different games!
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 08:14:59 PM
Technically, if it goes check-check, the first player should show first under standard showdown rules, but if he just throws his hand into the muck and the other player doesn't care to see it, I'm not going to enforce a penalty.  This happens all the time.  And if that happens, under the rules of many venues, the second person will win the pot and does not need to show because he is the last person with a live hand;  at the WSOP though, the winner must show his hand so I would have to apply those rules.

I know you want to see the rules changed to have both hands shown at showdown even in non-all in situations, and I agree that probably better protects the integrity of the game.  I'm not disagreeing, I was just simply saying how I would have ruled in the given situation under the current rules.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 08:20:46 PM
Here's my problem with the TD saying "you cannot fold, it is prohibited"...   if that were true, then if instead of asking, Antonio had merely opened the betting round by saying "I fold", then wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule, the rule is that if he declares a fold here, it is binding; the only question is what, if anything will be the penalty for doing so.

Given a strict interpretation, might the "optimal" (or most literal) response to Antonio have been: "If you declare fold here, it is binding, and you may be subject to penalty"? The TD in this specific case gave a slightly different response: "If you declare a fold here, it is binding, and here's what the penalty will be"....

Very interesting thread, definitely worthy of further exploration at the next Summit.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 08:41:19 PM
I don't think the focus was on the "penalty" aspect, frankly.  I find it strange that he would "penalize" Antonio by showing his hand, and then forcing the other person (who did nothing wrong here) to show his hand when he wouldn't have had to if he had the opportunity to bet.  He probably just wanted to find some way to let Antonio fold and move the game forward.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 08:51:47 PM
I don't think the focus was on the "penalty" aspect, frankly.  I find it strange that he would "penalize" Antonio by showing his hand, and then forcing the other person (who did nothing wrong here) to show his hand when he wouldn't have had to if he had the opportunity to bet.  He probably just wanted to find some way to let Antonio fold and move the game forward.
Then there's the other issue of maintaining the integrity of the game by ensuring against collusion, given that folding in the face of no bet from one view has the strongest appearance of soft play. Requiring the two hands to be shown here might be justified for that reason alone, quite apart from strictly the issue of folding to a check. Perhaps the TD saw the ruling not as penalty (i.e. he allowed the soft fold w/o a penalty), but required the mutual show for game integrity.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 04, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
 Do you rule any different if there are three players in the hand instead of heads-up? If so, can you explain the difference?

 What if three players were involved but one player is all-in on the flop, leaving two players with chips and the player wanted to fold instead of check?

 I'm only trying to shed some light on a few different scenarios that seem to fall into the same category.

 Tournament poker should demand all cards be tabled at the showdown, or at least upon request. I see no better way to solve the great number of problems that are created every time these showdown questions are asked.

 Mike, I don't believe every subject is governed by a specific rule. The subject we speak of is poker etiquette. It is highly unethical to fold when you have an option to check. I like what you just wrote;..." wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule.

 That's correct it isn't a rule. However, mucking in that situation must never be an option...never.

 
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 09:17:43 PM
Question for those of you in the "fold to a check is prohibited" camp:

1) is an out-of-turn fold also generally prohibited or is it binding or is it subject to the same binding/not binding conditions as any other OOT action (such as an OOT bet, raise, check)? Does it make a difference whether the OOT fold occurs when the current action is a check or a bet?

2) When the BB folds on his option when there's been no raise, do you push the cards back to him and tell him he can't fold, it's prohibited?
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: MikeB on July 04, 2012, 09:48:08 PM
Does anyone have a clip or link to a clip of this situation, btw? Would be good to have for any future discussion of it.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 04, 2012, 11:08:22 PM
Then there's the other issue of maintaining the integrity of the game by ensuring against collusion, given that folding in the face of no bet from one view has the strongest appearance of soft play. Requiring the two hands to be shown here might be justified for that reason alone, quite apart from strictly the issue of folding to a check. Perhaps the TD saw the ruling not as penalty (i.e. he allowed the soft fold w/o a penalty), but required the mutual show for game integrity.

Yes, that is what I have been saying.  It makes total sense from a game integrity standpoint.  But the ruling essentially penalizes the second player by forcing him to show his hand when he has done nothing wrong...  The second player should be permitted to act in turn, and presumably be given the opportunity to bet if checked to (and thus take down the pot without showing if Antonio folds to the bet).  

Mike, I don't believe every subject is governed by a specific rule. The subject we speak of is poker etiquette. It is highly unethical to fold when you have an option to check. I like what you just wrote;..." wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule.
That's correct it isn't a rule. However, mucking in that situation must never be an option...never.

Agreed... perhaps the problem is that it isn't explicitly stated in the rules but it should be.  Don't dealers often tell the first player to act in a betting round to "check or bet"?  They don't say, "well, you could check or bet, but you could also fold technically although it's considered poor etiquette and non-standard since the presumption is you are engaging in soft play when you fold when you could actually check and so you may be subject to a penalty, but essentially, your options are check or bet".    ;D

In my experience, the only people who insist on being allowed to fold when check is an option are players who selfishly want to get out of the hand, are not willing to wait their turn in what is a turn-based game, and who don't care about maintaining game integrity or concern themselves about how their fold might influence future action.  I am not persuaded that there is any valid reason why someone should be permitted to fold when check is an option.  We could codify this explicitly, but really, I am surprised that anyone thought "the rule" was otherwise. For me, it is a matter of common sense.  If fold were meant to be an option along with check, then that should be an exception to be set out explicitly in the rules.  I am 100% in agreement with Nick that mucking when a check is possible should never be an option, and I don't think it ever was.

Question for those of you in the "fold to a check is prohibited" camp:

1) is an out-of-turn fold also generally prohibited or is it binding or is it subject to the same binding/not binding conditions as any other OOT action (such as an OOT bet, raise, check)? Does it make a difference whether the OOT fold occurs when the current action is a check or a bet?

Before the new TDA rule came into effect, I would have ruled an out-of-turn fold the same as any other OOT action -- all options remain open if action hasn't changed.  Now the rule says that it is binding, so I have to rule the fold as binding unconditionally.  To me though, the fold being "binding" does not mean I must kill the hand immediately, or that fold is an "option" when the player could check.  

If a player (who could check) folds, I think the correct approach should be to have him take his cards back, force him to check (he cannot take aggressive action by betting now), let action around the table continue, and should the action come back to him and he faces a bet, then he must fold at that point.  That is what "binding" means to me.  His immediately penalty is that his opponents can bet knowing that he will fold (but if no one bets, IMO his hand is still iive!).  After the hand is done, the TD can assess hand and round penalties as well.  

To me, "binding" means that when the action returns to a player, and fold becomes a valid option on the player's actual turn, then the fold is enforced.  The term "binding", in and of itself, has no temporal restrictions.  If the intention was that "binding" = "kill the hand immediately" in non-standard fold situations, then I think that should have been made explicit in the new rule.

Personally, I would prefer if the rule said:  (1) A player who folds out-of-turn is bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player and the player faces a bet.  (2) A fold that has been made in turn when the player had the option to check will be deemed a check, but the player will be bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player and the player faces a bet.  In both cases, the player may not make any aggressive action (e.g. bet) while his hand remains live.  

Similarly, I would also prefer that there be an explicit rule that says if a player checks or "calls" out-of-turn in a given betting round, the player is bound by that action if action to that player has not changed (as per Rule 36), but additionally, the player has give up any right to make any aggressive action (e.g. bet, raise) in that betting round.  

Quote
2) When the BB folds on his option when there's been no raise, do you push the cards back to him and tell him he can't fold, it's prohibited?

With respect to the BB folding his option when there's been no raise, we discussed this in a separate thread.  Many believe that to avoid players from being upset by someone who intended to fold ultimately winning the pot, the BB's hand should immediately be killed.  I disagreed because I felt that this penalty was disproportionate and extreme for something that is most likely unintentional.  It is much different from being first to act on a betting round and folding out of turn;  a BB inadvertently folding his option is closing the action for that betting round and giving him back his hand when no one has raised does not affect any player's outstanding decisions for that round.  Personally, I would prefer a compromise position that would not kill the BB's hand (e.g. give the BB back his cards, and allow his hand to be live but he cannot take any aggressive action for the remainder of the hand), but I don't think this would get majority support.  
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: diz475 on July 05, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
i have to ask what happens to the pot in wsop rules if the last man with a live hand throws it in the muck, are all the chips in the pot disqualified
i know the tda does not support that the last player must show to win because of rule 14
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 05, 2012, 09:32:07 PM
I believe that Jack Effel was asked this during WSOP, and if I'm not mistaken, he indicated that the pot will still go to the person that held the last live hand, but that person may receive a penalty for not showing the hand.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 06, 2012, 08:06:05 AM
K-Lo,

 I agree with your suggestion;  The second player should be permitted to act in turn, and presumably be given the opportunity to bet if checked to (and thus take down the pot without showing if Antonio folds to the bet).

 I've always felt an intentional OOT should be as binding as action in turn. Your suggestions for punishment are interesting. Although, I'm not sure I would allow the offender any chance at the pot. if any player bets after the incident. Correct me if I'm wrong but, the last line of TDA rule (currently #35) Action Out Of Turn: An out of turn fold is binding. Does that not translate to; the hand is dead! This should also include TDA Rule #45 Non-Standard Folds.

 I also agree with returning the hand of the BB, after he attempts to (unintentionally) muck when no raise occurred.

 

 
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: K-Lo on July 06, 2012, 09:01:56 AM
I've always felt an intentional OOT should be as binding as action in turn. Your suggestions for punishment are interesting. Although, I'm not sure I would allow the offender any chance at the pot. if any player bets after the incident. Correct me if I'm wrong but, the last line of TDA rule (currently #35) Action Out Of Turn: An out of turn fold is binding. Does that not translate to; the hand is dead! This should also include TDA Rule #45 Non-Standard Folds.

Nick:

Yes if any player bets after an OOT fold, then the fold will be binding and the hand cannot win the pot. That's a no brainer.

However, let's say we have a three-way pot post-flop, Players A, B, & C.  Before A has a chance to act, B attempts to fold OOT.  Do you return his cards to him and tell him to wait his turn, or do you kill his hand now and continue the action heads-up (and potentially assess a penalty later)?  If you say "return his cards and tell him to wait", then if A checks, what do you do with B then?  Do you then accept his fold?  Technically, he can't fold there because fold isn't an option yet (he can check). 

Similarly, say Players A, B, & C are at the river.  A attempts to fold.  Do you kill his hand and continue the action heads-up, or do you return his cards to him and tell him to wait since fold is not an option?  If both B and C then check, is his hand still live?

Under the current rule, I think you are probably right that killing the "folding" hand right away is justified in both cases.  But if we are talking whether there's a better alternative, I would actually be OK with returning hands folded OOT or folded in-turn when they should be checked, and keeping the hand live until someone actually bets, at which time the hand is folded.  I think this approach can be applied more consistently across the various different situations that we discussed, and certainly better than killing the hand but then forcing other players who did nothing wrong to reveal their hands.


Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on July 06, 2012, 01:56:15 PM
 We are entering a real grey area. I say this because I know of players that will take your ruling too far. Intentionally tossing a hand OOT, knowing that you will give them the hand back, is not a good practice.

 This is how I see it, and this is how I make my decision: Any fold OOT, (unless it is an obvious mistake) will kill the offending player's hand. You said that it is a no-brainer if any player bets after the OOT fold. Are you counting the OOT as one of the players for substantial action?  Because if you are, IMO, I see it different. The dealer should have time to correct the action to the proper bettor and possibly salvage the hand. This is where it gets tricky, I would not allow the OOT fold the opportunity to remain in contention for the pot.

 Your example of a three way pot, post flop, where player B folds before Player A acts is not only a violation of OOT, it also goes against ethics because fold is not an option when not facing a bet.

 These rules can be very complex when we try to look at every possible scenario. I think this is when the skill and experience of a good floorperson comes into play. If a player is intentionally betting OOT, or intentionally breaking rules of poker etiquette, they must be subjected to warning, penalties, or expulsion from the tournament for repeat offenders.

  I am not disagreeing with your reasoning, only adding a few facts to consider.
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Brian Vickers on February 06, 2015, 05:10:04 AM
Anyone think this might be worth revisting at the summit?  Mucking to a check on river requires that the hand be shown but is a dead hand?  Are we going to far into this?
Title: Re: Why did Antonio have to show his cards?
Post by: Nick C on February 06, 2015, 11:25:47 AM
Brian:

 Yes, we should revisit this. If the hand is shown at the showdown, after an attempted muck, it can not be dead if it is a winner.