PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Ricky9 on July 25, 2012, 04:48:37 PM
-
[ALERT: This post copies and pastes a test question from the TDA exam. Future threads quoting a test question verbatim will be removed. It is entirely permissible to discuss the "gist" of test topics, but please do not copy and paste or quote a test question verbatim. If you think a particular question should be re-worded please send your concerns to: tdaexam@gmail.com This is not meant to reflect negatively on the OP.]
Just had this question in the TDA exam, and it's doing my nut in :)
The AhAd wasn't tabled the question said it was "flashed", it also says that the player threw the cards onto the muck face down. "We" are not killing a winning hand the player has killed his own untabled hand. If we are now reading flashed cards does this not open up a can of worms? I was torn between A and D but shocked to see the correct answer was B??
In Texas Holdem, Player A holds Ah-Ad and B holds Qs-Ks. The board is 6d-Ac-10d-Jd-3d. At showdown B tables Qs-Kc for top straight. Player A then clearly flashes two red Aces for all to see saying "beats my trip Aces" and throws the two red aces onto the muck face down. Who wins the pot and why?
Correct answer: B)
You chose: A)
Note: This question displayed answer options in random order when taking this test.
A)
Dealer should respect A's right to muck at showdown and award the pot to Player B who has the remaining exposed hand.
B)
Player A showed the winning hand (Ace high diamond flush). We cannot kill a winning hand at showdown. Award the pot to A who has mucked his hand.
C)
Even if Player A showed a hand that could have won, A irrevocably declared his hand to be trip Aces and this is binding. Award pot to B.
D)
Players must protect their hands; this is a cardinal rule of poker. Only B's hand remains exposed and un-mucked and he must receive the pot.
-
The question states "CLEARLY FLASHES" and I think you are getting hung up on the flashes part. The fact is she turned over the winning hand so everybody could clearly see it. The fact that she miscalled it and turned them back over is irrelevant. Though that seems to be the "tricky" part of the question!
-
I'm with Ricky on this one. Flashing a card and tabling your hand are two different things. There are players that lift their cards in such a manner that they are exposed, but this is not the same as properly tabling your hand.
Here we go again, another problem created in tournament poker because all players did not table their hand at the showdown.
I've been holding off taking the new exam for a number of reasons. This is one of them.
-
Nick:
The questions in the new exam are much harder and cover situations that might really happen in the real world. You need to read each question carefully. In the example at hand, the question clearly states, "clearly flashes two red Aces for all to see". Since "All" the players were able to see the hand, I believe that Rule 15 comes into play and all players have a responsibility to ensure the winning hand is paid.
OR
Are you now suggesting that the TDA needs to develop a rule that defines what constitutes a "Tabled Hand", I hope not? Have you never misread your hand, believed you were beat, and then had another player speak up and say you had the winning hand?
I believe this type of situation is exactly the reason we have Rule 15.
As to your reluctance to take the new exam, I suggest you read the question, choose your answer(s), then before selecting those answers, read the question one or two more times to make sure you caught all the little details that might make one situation different from another.
If the questions were all "vanilla" situations, anybody could take the exam and pass the first time. I think it is a HUGE improvement over the prior exam, in that you actually need to know something and think a bit in order to get the corrects answer(s).
Chet
-
I'm with you Ricky, its a tricky problem that gets worded terribly and because of that, what i would believe to be the correct answer isnt even an option. IMO, what would be a correct answer is "While Player A flashed the winning hand, before tabling the hand he tossed it face down into to the muck. Since Player B's hand was the only one properly tabled before mucking, Player B wins the pot"
But again, this is based on what my interpretation of "flashing" a hand is. I picture it as them holding their hand in the air for a second showing the table, then mucking. The wording in the actual question needs to be changed from "Clearly flashing" to "momentarily tabling". At that point, it is a tabled hand and as such, will be awarded the pot.
-
Chet,
I guess I need to better explain myself. I am reluctant to re-take the exam because there are many situations that I know I would apply rule #1. When I joined the TDA some of the new rules were not on the books. I thought that my participation on the forum would influence...well, what I would consider to be favorable changes. That has not happened.
As far as the definition of a properly tabled hand, I would be very much in favor of the TDA establishing exactly what it means: A Tabled hand is face-up horizontal on the table for all to see. Not a hand that is flashed, or noticed by a floorperson walking by.
In the test example, would you award the pot to the player if they flashed the Ace of diamonds only? Tabled means, on the table face-up.
-
Personally, I liked this question and am with Chet and Jasper. If the question used the specific word "tabled", then the answer would be obvious right (because that word is used in the Rule)? The point here is, IMO, what is the key property associated with "tabling" a hand... it's not whether the cards are physically lying on the table.
I agree with Chet that the most relevant fact in the question is that all players at the table were able to see the hand clearly; so regardless of whatever one pictures as the action suggested by the word "flashed", the action would in my view, be equivalent to tabling the hand. I would not read "clearly flashed for all to see" so restrictively as "showing the hand for a millisecond so it could not clearly be seen by all". If everyone can see that Ah-Ad was the winning hand, and we want the winning hand to win the pot wherever possible as a general principle, we should not be killing the hand just because the player didn't physically lay the cards on the table.
FWIW, I would not award the pot to the player if they flashed only one card -- one card does not constitute a hand. I would also be reluctant to define "tabled" so narrowly as meaning on the table face-up. I think it would definitely cause more problems than it would solve. (e.g. Player A holds the cards face-up on the table, the back of her hand is on the table, but the cards are not touching the table, does that count?)
-
K-Lo:
The player thought they had a loser. They intentionally surrendered their hand (or attempted to). It happens all the time. Tabling your hand is not showing it to your neighbor, or any number of players at the table. The purpose is to show the dealer too, along with the other players. I see nothing complicated about defining a tabled hand.
Let's just say I don't like the question, either.
By the way; let's not forget to issue a penalty. I'm sure he didn't raise with his exclusive nut hand, before he clearly exposed his hand :o!
-
To those who disagree or think the question was improperly worded.
You are taking an exam based on the facts, situation, circumstances given in the example. You may not like the example, you may not think the question is worded properly and so forth, but the the fact remains you have to answer based on the example as given.
It is my belief that some of the questions were worded the way they were to simulate extreme situations that are outside of the normal. They were intended to make sure you read the example correctly and completely and then had to "think" about what the correct answer is based on the whole example.
Would it be much of a question if it said Player A tabled his cards then picked them up and tossed them into the muck? That doesn't make one think very hard, does it?
-
The purpose is to show the dealer too, along with the other players.
Agreed. That's my point... if you read the question carefully (and not with a mind trying to misunderstand, and I don't mean you specifically but the reader in general) I think it is actually pretty clear that your purpose, as you've noted, is achieved.
It also helps if you clue into what the question is attempting to test here before answering it, thinking of an exam setter's perspective. Yes, generally a "mucked" hand is a mucked hand as you've noted, except in circumstances such as this where Rule 16 applies.
-
Chet:
The idiot was mucking the exclusive nut hand, if the dealer saw the hand it wouldn't have reached the muck.
Good night...we can continue round two tomorrow :D
-
I did spend ages on this question btw, as I couldn't find the answer I wanted also I was trying to determine what the question was trying to get at.
There are so many reasons why I think the answer is flawed (I am not whinging that I got a question wrong either, I am just questioning myself and rulings I have made in the past)
Although they were flashed for "all to see". Did "ALL" see, does everyone have to confirm what they saw?
The player that tabled the top straight that has been waiting for a waitress has just acknowledged her and tipped whilst these cards were "flashed" and heard the words "beats my trip aces" looked back at the table to see only his cards and the board readable and the pot going to someone else without cards on the say so of the locals.
Lets say it wasn't the nut hand "flashed" lets say it was a black and red king, it's gone check check on the river and the kings are flashed for all to see. He then says your ace must be good and mucks. Do we now go to rule 14 or does the fact he has revealed his cards mid air mean that it is now a contested pot even though he has mucked? Or in the same scenario, he flashes his kings and mucks after the player shows his broadway. One player suggests that he had a king flush with his Kd the broadway says no it was Kh, dealer saw 2 kings one red one black but can't remember what suit, is it majority rule?
We could then go on to fouled hands, If I am in seat 10 with 3 cards I now know how to play them if they are favourable.
-
I just think if any of those "exceptions" to the fact scenario applied (e.g. the caller didn't see the hand, the players couldn't identify the cards exactly, the hand had 3 cards), then those facts would have been explicitly raised in the question. If you read too many "what ifs" into a given fact pattern, you could successfully change the nature of every question on the exam. The question when read as-is is more likely to suggest to the reader that all players clearly saw both cards, rather than the other circumstances that you described.
Is there another way that you would prefer to see the question worded that doesn't involve ("Player A tables the hand and says...")?
Maybe we were better off asking questions like "where was the WSOP held this year", or "who won the Players Championship in 2007", or "who was inducted into the Hall of Fame last year"...? LOL
-
2 red aces are easy to read when flashed. All I am saying if it was Omaha Hilo can players be certain that a winning hand was flashed.
It has to be tabled to eliminate my questions.
The question could have been less ambiguous if the question said the hand was tabled and then the player picked his own cards up and mucked them.
And since when is a situation Black and White?
Thanks for the sarcasm btw
-
I was in a situation a few months ago, where upon a break I went to the media room. I witnessed a hand "LIVE" with hole cards very similar to this where the last man checked and folded face down a small flush against a players shown 2 pair. Should I have run out of the media room and awarded the pot to the flush. (I can prove to the table what he had because it was taped).
I also train my dealers to never read an untabled hand. Should I now re word my training?
-
I was in a situation a few months ago, where upon a break I went to the media room. I witnessed a hand "LIVE" with hole cards very similar to this where the last man checked and folded face down a small flush against a players shown 2 pair. Should I have run out of the media room and awarded the pot to the flush. (I can prove to the table what he had because it was taped).
The hand was folded face down, so the hand was not seen by all players. Rule 16 does not apply.
I did not mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did. I was serious when I asked how would you reword the question, because if you really think it is misleading, you can always ask Mike B to have it changed and provide him with the suggested wording. If enough people feel it is unclear, I'm sure he will change it. Using the word "tabled" explicitly in the question though, IMO, makes the question too easy. My point is actually consistent with Nick's previous comment - the term "tabled" is not defined in the Rules; so until it is, we have to make a decision as to whether the described action is equivalent. I respect your opinion and Nick's, but I expect that the majority of TDs who are writing would think that it is clear enough. In any case, we can always agree to disagree.
I completely agree with you that no situation is black and white. Perhaps if the exam was in a "short answer" format, it would be easier to assess for candidates to give a more complete answer (e.g. if "flashing" means this, then my answer would be this, but if "flashing" means that then my answer would be something else).
I am also sorry if you took the last sentence as sarcasm - it was not meant to be directed towards you. That was actually directed to Chet and his earlier comment that "the questions in the new exam are much harder and cover situations that might really happen in the real world". I agree wholeheartedly with Chet. I like the new exam -- it is much, much better than the old exam. Those who wrote the old exam would get the inside joke, because you may recall that those type of questions in my last post were actually asked in the old exam, and in my view, didn't test much of anything.
-
You're the TD, you're standing right behind the dealer.... Two players have made it to showdown in a hand of Texas Holdem and it's time for cards read (the standard at showdown).... One player shows a straight and the other clearly shows you both of their downcards (two red aces) for top flush and the nut hand. What are you going to do ? Award the pot to the straight, or to the flush ?
BTW: future threads that copy and paste test questions verbatim will be disallowed, but certainly the "gist" of any test question topic is permissible.
-
Mike, I'm sorry but your example of the floor standing behind the dealer and witnesses the winning hand being mucked is not good enough for me. That's what other penalties are for; like chip dumping, and possible collusion. If we are going to go that far in tournament poker, then tabling all cards at the showdown should be mandatory.
Problems solved! Why is it only when a player is all-in? I've been asking for a reasonable answer for a long time, with no response.
Rick, whatever you do, don't reword your dealer instructions. A dealer should never assist a player that does not properly table his hand. Please don't let me think I've won the pot only to have a floorperson turn over a mucked hand that has me beat.
-
Mike, I'm sorry but your example of the floor standing behind the dealer and witnesses the winning hand being mucked is not good enough for me. That's what other penalties are for; like chip dumping, and possible collusion. If we are going to go that far in tournament poker, then tabling all cards at the showdown should be mandatory.
Problems solved! Why is it only when a player is all-in? I've been asking for a reasonable answer for a long time, with no response.
Rick, whatever you do, don't reword your dealer instructions. A dealer should never assist a player that does not properly table his hand. Please don't let me think I've won the pot only to have a floorperson turn over a mucked hand that has me beat.
I take it your answer is you're awarding the pot to the straight after you and everyone else at the table just clearly saw a nut flush.
-
What I'm saying is the player did not properly table his hand. How much protection are we going to offer to players that don't comply with the simple rules of showdown...put your damn cards face-up on the table, if you don't you will be subjected to any number of penalties that apply.
This is not to criticize the test, I know that a great deal of time and effort was put into improving the required test for certification. The problem I'm having now is the same one that I've had since joining the TDA, that is; the way some of the rules are written.
If a player, at showdown, that is in for all bets can not muck his hand, or announces that he is folding, then the hand must be tabled. So why not just make it mandatory?
While we're at it. How do you handle the penalties for the player that; thought he had a loser... conceded the hand...and is then given the pot. And how do you convince the second best hand, that possibly didn't see the brief flash of the better hand, that he lost the pot. Like I said earlier; how much protection are we going to give these offenders?
-
Ricky, I have to go with K-lo here. You are working too hard at the language of the question. the word "flashed" is messing with your head. The rest of the sentence is "clearly, for all to see". Obviously that means that he wasn't just showing his neighbor or just showing the dealer, he was clearly showing all players. For me, that is tantamount to a tabled hand. Hey! Look everybody I have two red Aces! As was pointed out, I think that a careful reading of a question WITHOUT trying to read anything into it yields the best results when coming up with the correct answer. If they weren't written to trip you up they would be no fun at all and would prove nothing.....
I suppose the question is designed to do two things: What does constitute a tabled hand in the view of the TDA and what do you do if someone tables a hand and then tries to muck??
I read that the hand was tabled and we can't muck a winning hand
No you shouldn't run out to tell the players that a certain player has the winning hand because you saw it on the video - they have to show it clearly for all the players to see. Though, not every player has to see it when it is clearly shown!
I hope you weren't seriously offended by K-lo's sarcasm.... he has the lowest level of intentional ornery sarcasm I've seen...
-
if i had a player flash a winner and throw it in the muck the guy with the tabled hand would win the pot.
what ever happend to one player to a hand,
if you seen him muck the nuts and think he is dumping chips give him a penalty
-
Interesting that Mike Savage had this recent reply to a tweet:
Matt Savage @SavagePoker
MT @JamesStHilaire: A calls river bet. A shows B best hand, then throws hand in face down, dealer mucks cards.<~If not tabled hand is dead.
-
Rocky: I presume that in the illustration, A does not reveal the hand to the rest of the table, only to B and then makes the fateful decision to muck his hand face down before it can be read by the house. In that case the hand would be dead, yes?
-
I would presume that A must have also shown the dealer to just show B and muck would be pointless. Further to the point without asking for clarification MS said if not "tabled" hand is dead. At best the question in the exam is flawed. PS got that question wrong but passed the test.
-
MMM.. have to agree with MikeB. Savage's tweet clearly says "A shows B". There doesn't seem to be a mention of the dealer, let alone A showing the hand so that everyone at the table can see it.
The question comes back to what does it really mean to have a hand "tabled"?
Does it mean, literally, lying on its backside flat on the table? Or should an act in which all players at the table (including the dealer) can clearly see the contents of the hand, such that each player is able to determine whether the hand is a winner or a loser, be sufficient, despite the hand not being physically let go and laid to rest flat face-up on the table? I know there is some disagreement on this, and I think the more "liberal"-minded would accept the latter interpretation, while others insist on a very strict literal interpration.
-
K-Lo,
I would hate to think that a tabled hand must be released. I would say, the hand should be turned face-up, visible to all. It is not a good practice to let go of your live hand.
I still don't understand how, or why, tournament players can muck their hands in these situations?
-
It sounds pretty clear.
"clearly flashes two red Aces for all to see"
If it was clear, and everyone saw it...what is the question? We are muddying the waters by throwing intangibles in that do not exist. What if it not clear? What if everyone didn't see it? That does not apply here because it was clear for all to see!
-
Probably the most interesting discussion that I've read in quite some time. It does give me pause to think of what is the best course of action. I am on the side of Nick C and Ricky9, in that, I don't like the way the question is worded. The question asks one to presume that because the cards were "flashed for all to see", that all the players, and more importantly the dealer, actually were able to read these flashed cards. Furthermore, the question also asks one to read the board for player A, prior to the hand being tabled. Clearly player A has the best hand, BUT they have also misread their hand. When did we stop people from misreading their own hands?
I was waiting for anyone to reply with the response "One player to a hand" and finally diz475 put it out there.
if i had a player flash a winner and throw it in the muck the guy with the tabled hand would win the pot.
what ever happend to one player to a hand,
if you seen him muck the nuts and think he is dumping chips give him a penalty
So far everyone has ignored this response. Why? It's certainly relevant to the question.
Too many of the replies so far in this thread have posed "what if" responses. Very few to none have tried to use the rules of the game to come to their conclusion. By answering with the question with more "what ifs" does not lead the answer to the question. Answer the question.
Many have tried to use TDA Rule #15 to answer. 15: Killing Winning Hand
Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled and was obviously the winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that an error is about to be made.
The first half of this rule states Dealers cannot kill winning "Tabled" hands. Pretty cut and dry. The question arises, as Nick C stated, what constitutes a tabled hand. I think term "Tabled" is pretty self explanatory. At least I thought it was until I read some replies here. Tabled to me means: Two cards face-up (or all hole cards depending on game variation) on the table for the dealer to read and all other interested players before the pot is pushed.
The second half of this rule I think is being misinterpreted as to its real intention. It asks players to assist in reading "Tabled" hands if an error is about to made. I believe this to mean; assist the dealer if the dealer misreads the hand and begins to push the pot to the wrong player. I don't take this to mean assist the player in reading their hand simply because they flashed it.
I can tell you for 100% certain that if this situation happens in a cash game, especially in underground games, that if the dealer or any player for that matter pipes up to tell player A "Hey you don't have trip Aces, you have a Flush" and tries to stop them from mucking their hand, there would be hell to pay.
Some brought up chip dumping, rule #53. A concern to be sure. But no one has brought up rule #48, Protecting your own hand. In this situation player A clearly mucked of their own volition. Also there's rule #51-3: Players "may not" read hands that have not been tabled. This rule alone means that the TDA must address what constitutes a tabled hand.
Then of course there's rule #1. The trump rule of all rules. This rule allows us to look outside the norm and make decisions in the best interest of the game. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think protecting player A from mucking a winning hand in more in the best interest of the game because they flashed it? OR Do you think protecting player B who tabled their hand to be read by the dealer and thereby protected their right to pot is more in the interest of the game and to let player A misread their hand and muck because it wasn't tabled.
Personally, not only do I think the latter is the best answer but I think it's more in line with established rules #48, #51-3, #15 and it is also what we teach our dealers. If the TDA Rules are going to use the language "Tabled" hand within the guidelines then we as a group need to come to a resolution as to what a "Tabled" hand is. I know that doesn't sit well with Chet and possibly others, but I think it needs to be done now that we've adopted the term into so many rules.
I think use of the word "Flashes" leads one to believe they were briefly viewable. I think a better term to use to make the question just as problematic and not easy to answer is to use the term "Exposed". When you have exposed something, that leaves less doubt as to whether it was viewable rather than saying they flashed something.