PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Pete F on September 29, 2012, 08:53:14 PM
-
BB is all in for the BB. There are 4 players betting out for the side pot and none of them are all in. Why force those players to show their hands for that pot? Why Expose their play? There's no chip dumping to the all in player. Thoughts???
Pete F
-
I believe the impetus for the rule was that whenever there is a situation where one player can potentially be eliminated from the tournament, it is of overriding importance to make sure that the pot be awarded to the proper winner. This is to protect all players in the tournament. To ensure that this is the case, all the hands must be shown. As an example, if BB is all-in, and A, B, C, and D are contesting the side pot, but only B's hand beats the BB and B misreads his hand and folds, then the BB may not be eliminated when he should have been. At least this is my understanding of the purpose behind the rule.
I'm sure Nick will chime in here as well - he is of the view that if you're going to have a rule such as this, perhaps the rule should also apply to non-all-in showdowns as well, since many of the same considerations would apply.
-
Nick is chiming in :D, but my requests fall on deaf ears. I don't know what more I can say, that I haven't already said many times over. The all-in player is the last hand to be shown because he is not in for any side pot. Why they all must be turned is something you'll have to ask someone else.
I just hope they don't try to tell you how it protects the integrity of the game! ::)
-
If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play. The side pot should be played out normal and all hands should be shown for the main where the all in is. I guess if there was a mountain of chips in the main pot and a minor side pot it would make the misreading of a hand a big deal. Thanks for the input.
Pete F
-
I appreciate your point, Pete, and I do know that players get ticked off when they can't just concede the pot and muck in these situations.
Although if you had to balance the goal of "the best hand wins the main pot" and not "exposing everyone's play", I do think in tournament poker, I'm pretty sure you would get a lot of TDs that would say that the first goal is of paramount importance. It is not so big of a deal in cash games, since there is no one else other than the players involved to protect.
The interesting thing is that if one of multiple players contesting the side pot will actually beat the BB, then the issue of not eliminating the BB when he should have been eliminated becomes moot, and in that sense, one may question whether or not it is necessary for everyone else to show their hand in that case. I also agree that there is typically less of an issue when there are many players contesting the side pot. From a practical perspective, however, I suspect that having one catch-all rule to apply to all situations is more manageable than having to make individual exceptions. However, as Nick suggests, the debate is ongoing and suffice it to say, not everyone agrees that all hands ought to be exposed in your situation or if they are exposed, that they should be only in all-in situations.
K
-
I personally feel that using a side-pot example here just muddies this. If there are 5 players in a pot and 1 player is all in, with no side-pot, should all of them have to show their hand when the action is complete? I think the answer is yes. And in your scenario, it is really the same thing. Just because there is a side-pot does not mean that things change for the main pot.
-
Tristan:
You raise an interesting point: A six handed game, with one player all-in but with no side pot. You must turn them all, as you stated...but why? This rule, for all-in's, is similar to another long standing rule that (is fading away) and changing the game, that is: Taking away the right for any player at the table to see a called hand.
I will attempt to break down the rules so we can get a better understanding of the differences between cash, and tournaments.
Tournament: One player all-in at showdown; with a side pot. Side pot winner must be determined first (even though TDA # 11 does not specify this). The all-in player must still show his hand, even a loser. All player's must table their cards, winners and loser's alike.
Cash game, One player all-in at showdown: First player shows his winning hand and everybody mucks, and we deal the next hand. If the all-in has the best hand, he will show his winning hand and be awarded the main pot. The only time a loser must show his hand is if someone asks to see it. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should remain.
I agree with Pete F
-
11: Face Up for All-Ins
All cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by
all other players in the hand is complete.
That seems really clear to me. It is nice having a clear-cut rule. And yes, while certain circumstances might make you want to go other than 'by the book', we don't want/need a textbook with Rule #13, paragraph 8, subsection b, pertaining to number 3. All of that is offset by having clear rules and then having rule #1 in place. That way it gives you a general guideline with enough wiggle-room in order to make a different decision if you deem it necessary.
What if the main pot is 50k and the side-pot is 2k? There is plenty of opportunity to dump chips in that circumstance. Do you think they should all have to show then?
Do we want to teach dealers that if there is 3x as much in the main pot than the side pot, they must make all players show? Or if not, then only 2 hands must be shown...1 to take the side and then the all-in hand? Many dealers struggle to do their job properly now! I dunno about you, but I don't want to stand by each table to rule on if side-pot hands should show on a case by case basis! :P
-
If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play. The side pot should be played out normal and all hands should be shown for the main where the all in is. I guess if there was a mountain of chips in the main pot and a minor side pot it would make the misreading of a hand a big deal. Thanks for the input.
Pete F
Pete: Consider this situation: 1) THE with 3 players (A-B-C) in side pot and D all-in in main pot with 9d-8s-7c-2d-3d on board. 2) Player A insta-shows 5x, 6x for a straight and B and C muck face down. C misses that he had a flush with 10d-5d in his hand; 3) Player D then shows 10x-Jx for a higher straight and takes the main pot. If all side pot players were held to the TDA Rule here, Player C would have won both pots and eliminated D in the process.
Conversely, give player D the 2 diamonds. If he wasn't forced to table his hand after all betting action is complete, he might miss the flush and be bounced from the tournament erroneously.
When a player is all-in, these potentialities must be avoided for the interest of all in the tourney... to make sure that the correct hand wins when a "tournament life" is on the line and, as previously discussed, to eliminate chip dumping. The only way to achieve this is as set forth in the TDA Rule which has been in effect for at least 6 years.
-
Tristan:
I don't know how you can say that TDA #11 is a clear cut rule. Are we to assume that all players will understand that the all-in must show, but not at the same time as the side pot players?
Mike, based on your last post, are you saying that this "protection" for Player D should only apply when there is an all-in player? Shouldn't the best hand always win, when in for all bets?
This is the perfect post for the answer I've been looking for.
-
Mike, based on your last post, are you saying that this "protection" for Player D should only apply when there is an all-in player? Shouldn't the best hand always win, when in for all bets?
The protection should certainly apply to all hands tabled at showdown. The all-in showdown is the only situation for which all hands must be automatically tabled when all betting is complete under TDA rules. Whether a house takes it further and requires all hands in non all-in showdowns to be shown is a matter of house policy. Also, under TDA rules presently if in a non all-in showdown a player(s) mucks face down without revealing his hand, the lone surviving player wins the pot and there is no TDA rule expressly requiring the surviving hand to be shown. Some venues do require the surviving hand in this situation to be revealed, again as a matter of house policy (hence the distinction between contested and uncontested showdowns in TDA 2011 Version 1.0 was dropped in Version 2.0).
Why have the TDA rules not expressly required all hands to be shown in non all-in showdowns? ... Historically players have argued that they want the option to muck face down without tabling their hand in non all-ins and this has generally been respected by the association (it was specifically re-affirmed in 2009)... However, note that language was adopted at the 2011 Summit to the effect that players mucking face down at showdown lose any right they may have to ask to see a hand that otherwise they do not have an express right to see. Among other reasons, this language is intended to encourage players to table their hand at showdown for as you say this is the desired outcome: the membership affirmed that we want to encourage players to table at showdown to increase the probability that the best hand wins.
-
Mike B,
In my 50 plus years of playing poker, there was a protocol at the showdown that was understood by all. It went like this: If you were the first bettor on the final betting round, or the last person to initiate the last raise, you showed your hand first. There were many occasions when a player was bluffing and once he was called, he would surrender his hand to the muck and say "you win!" He new he was beat and elected not to show his hand. He was "caught bluffing" one of the consequences was showing his "bluff" if a request were made by one of the players in the hand.
The principle (I would say) was: any player that called all bets "paid" for the right to see any called hand at the showdown. I don't know when, or why this changed. I understand that the game has evolved and change is necessary. However, I believe there were some changes that were not for the better, and this is one.
The games I speak of, were primarily cash games. Tournament poker involves all participants so I understand that it is necessary to assure that the best hand wins. Therefore, I suggest that the TDA should seriously consider taking the option to muck away from any player in for all bets at showdown.
Mike, I'd also like to comment on what you wrote: "players mucking face down at showdown lose any right they may have to ask to see a hand that otherwise they do not have an express right to see." Among other reasons, this language is intended to encourage players to table their hand at showdown for as you say this is the desired outcome: the membership affirmed that we want to encourage players to table at showdown to increase the probability that the best hand wins.
If we want to encourage it, why not just make it a rule? As far as a player that mucks, losing the right to ask to see another players hand ??? What does that accomplish?
I guess I just don't understand how asking to see a called hand is any different than being forced to table my hand because a player is all-in ::)
-
In my 50 plus years of playing poker, there was a protocol at the showdown that was understood by all. It went like this: If you were the first bettor on the final betting round, or the last person to initiate the last raise, you showed your hand first.
The principle (I would say) was: any player that called all bets "paid" for the right to see any called hand at the showdown. I don't know when, or why this changed.
Nick: To my knowledge it hasn't changed: see TDA Rule 12 "Showdown Order".... If Player A makes the last aggressive action on the final betting round, and I call him, per TDA rules I can wait for him to show, precisely as you describe above...
.... if he bets on the last round then attempts to muck once I call him, I can still ask to see the hand.... Then house rules kick in. Note that in most venues if the presumptive winner asks to see a competitors mucked hand at showdown, the competitors hand is live and can win the pot, so players must beware of what they ask for.
-
Mike B,
I guess I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across. I still don't quite understand exactly TDA rules #11, #12, and #14. There is no indication for must show at showdown except for all-in situations, and that puzzles me (and a few others).
I also don't think that suspecting collusion should be the only reason to request seeing a player's hand at the showdown. You say it hasn't changed, but I believe it has, considerably. There is a big difference between asking to see a player's hand without condition, as opposed to calling the floor for permission because you suspect he's cheating. In my not so humble opinion, I don't think the floor should be burdened with that decision. If I call all bets, I should be able to see all hands without creating tension with other player's by accusing them of foul play.
For those that don't want to show their poor hands, (after a failed attempt at bluffing), I say; That's the price you pay. You gambled and lost! You got caught!
-
This thread baffles me! ??? :o ??? :o ???
Pete questions why people should have to expose their play.
Why force those players to show their hands for that pot? Why Expose their play? There's no chip dumping to the all in player.
Then Nick chimes in, seeming to agree that he doesn't think they should have to.
Why they all must be turned is something you'll have to ask someone else.
I just hope they don't try to tell you how it protects the integrity of the game! ::)
Pete again makes a point about how he doesn't necessarily like people having to expose their pley.
If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play.
Nick then confirms his stance, agreeing with Pete.
The only time a loser must show his hand is if someone asks to see it. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should remain.
I agree with Pete F
Now Nick points out that his stance is that all players should have to expose their play at all times!
Therefore, I suggest that the TDA should seriously consider taking the option to muck away from any player in for all bets at showdown.
and
If I call all bets, I should be able to see all hands
I'm sorry Nick, but you are right...
I guess I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across.
-
Tristan,
If you can't understand the point I'm trying to make maybe you can explain why tournament poker demands all cards MUST be tabled when a player is all-in but not for any other showdowns. What's the difference? Don't we want to guarantee the best hand (in for all bets) wins every hand?
I prefer cash game rules but if we insist that tournament showdowns should be handled different then I think we should do it the same whether a player is all-in or not.
Are you still baffled? Or are you going to try to convince me that TDA #11 is perfect and covers everything?
You are relatively new to the forum, and a welcome addition if I say so myself, but if you want to know how I feel on these showdown issues, I suggest you take a look back over the past two years and you will see that my feelings haven't changed.
-
Hey Nick:
Tell us how you really feel... ;)
(Tiptoe-ing away)
-
K-Lo,
Thanks, I needed that. I'd like to (tell you how I really feel) but it would be censored! ;D
-
Lets see if this helps Nick to understand this rule better, especially why it is more important in tournaments than in cash games --
In a cash game, if you are "all-in" and lose the hand and later realize you mucked the winning hand, you can go back to the bankroll, get more chips and continue in the game. You are not out standing on the rail or on the sidewalk (assuming your bankroll hasn't been depleted). In a tournament, same set of circumstances, you are "all-in", lose the hand and later realize you mucked the winning hand, you cannot go back to your bankroll and get more chips to continue in the game (assuming any re-buy period has ended). You are done, finished, gone.
A long time ago the TDA determined that it was in the best interests of the game to do whatever was reasonable to ensure the pot was awarded to the player with the real winning hand. The membership decided the best way to ensure a player was not eliminated incorrectly was to enact rule #11 and require all hands to be shown in an "all-in" situation.
This is my understanding of the basis behind this rule.
Furthermore, it is my belief that in the situation where there is a player "all-in" for the main pot and other players involved in one or more side pots, the ONLY time hands need to be tabled are those involving a pot that has at least one "all-in" player. If a side pot does not have an "all-in" player, the hands for that pot are treated exactly the same as they would be for any other pot at the showdown, they do not need to be tabled.
Chet
-
Chet:
Are you saying that the all-in player is the only player the rule pertains too? I think that makes sense but, I'm willing to wager enough for a nice "buy-in" that's not what the rule suggests.
I actually like your idea. Here we go: New suggestion for TDA #11 Face Up For All-In's. The all-in player's hand must be turned face-up immediately after the side pot winners are decided.
This will guarantee that the all-in is not "chip dumping" or mucking a winning hand. That's it...you fixed it Chet!
-
No, No, No and NO!! The rule applies to each and every player involved in the pot in which one or more players are "all-in". In other words, if there is a main pot and one or more side pots, the rule applies to each pot in which at least one player is "all-in".
For example, there is one player "all-in" for the main pot, pre-flop, with several players remaining with live hands, so any further betting will result in one or more side pots. On the flop, player B bets 100 and is called by the remaining players, but there are NO "all-in" players. These chips create side pot #1. On the turn, Player B goes "all-in" and is called by players C, D, E and F. These chips go into side pot #1. On the river, player C bets 100 and is called by player D, player E and player F, none of which are "all-in", this is side pot #2.
Since there are no "all-in" players involved with side pot #2, TDA Rule 11 does not apply and the showdown proceeds as usual, with player C showing his hand first (last aggressor on this betting round). There is no reason for players D, E or F to show unless they believe they have player C beat. Those players can fold and muck if they so choose since they obviously cannot win any of the remaining pots.
Next, I would have players B and C table their hands, player A's hand remains concealed. Side pot #1 is awarded to the winning hand between B and C, with the losing hand mucked.
Finally, I would have player A table his hand. The main pot is awarded to the winning hand between player A and the player that won side pot #1 (either B or C, depending upon which player won side pot #1.)
OK?
-
Chet,
You've got to be kidding me ???...and if you're correct, the rule is worse than I thought it was. Where's Tristan when you need him, he'll sort it out.
I always like to define multiple pots as follows: Pot A (main), Pot B, Pot C, etc., etc.
-
Hi Chet:
I understand what you are saying, and that approach (i.e. players in a side pot do not have to show if the all-in player is not eligible for that pot) would be one way to go about it. But I'm 99.99% sure that is currently not the TDA's "official" stance; as I understand it, they want all players in the hand to show their hands when any player is all-in in that hand, i.e. all players eligible for the main pot or any side pot must show, even if an all-in player is not entitled to a given side pot. Put another way, once a player goes all-in, everyone who is left at showdown for that hand must show regardless of who is eligible for what pots.
I gave an example earlier in this thread, as did Mike B, similar to the one you give below, so I'll point out what I think the issue is. Suppose in your example, F folds thinking that he cannot beat C, but in fact he has the true winning hand that beats everyone, including A & B. However, F screwed up (intentionally? unintentionally?) and his untabled is voluntarily mucked. Under your interpretation, F can do so, because no one that was all-in was eligible to win chips from side pot #2. However, C's hand is not good enough to beat either A or B, resulting in both A & B potentially surviving when they really ought to have both been eliminated. Allowing F to muck here without showing fails to ensure that the pot is awarded to the player with the real winning hand. As I understand it, it's not only about ensuring that a player is eliminated incorrectly, but also to ensure that players who should have been eliminated, are. So I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Rule 11, at least with respect to the side pot issue.
As far as Nick C's issue, I know what button he is pressing (and he's been slapping that button for some time now). ;) At the risk of putting words in his mouth, Nick is basically saying if we force everyone to show when someone is all-in according to Rule #11, why stop there? Why wouldn't we force everyone to show at showdown for each and every "normal", non-all-in showdown? If we think it is so important for the "correct" winner to take the pot, why limit the rule to only all-in situations? Or alternatively, if we don't force people to show in every "normal" showdown, why don't we just scrap rule #11 and not force people to show ever, regardless of whether someone is all-in or not?
What I think Nick is essentially arguing for is uniformity: we should apply the 'all-show' rule to all showdowns, or no showdowns, as the same principles (preventing chip dumping/collusion, etc.) presumably apply. Furthermore, by not expanding the Rule to apply to "normal" showdowns as well, when combined with the new rules that make it more difficult for a player to ask to see a mucked hand, this arguably encourages collusion rather than prevent it.
In that regard, Nick, I definitely think your heart is in the right place, and I hear you. But I'm also a bit of a realist, and practically, I do not see that the TDA community would ever come to a consensus for such uniformity, either way. There are many people who think that all-in situations are different because there is a direct elimination that can result, and will not dump the current Rule 11. And although the underlying principles might also apply to "normal" showdowns, I don't think you'll get enough broad support for that because there will be TDs fearing it will simply slow down the game way too much, and also players that will be upset that they are giving up too much information in situations where chip dumping and collusion are theoretically possible, but not real concerns.
I can't predict the future, but I really don't think it will be a winning battle... the current Rule 11 is probably the best compromise we can expect, and I'm sure the likely response is that one can always implement a house rule to force hands to show at all showdowns if the house felt strong enough about that, just like some house rules may or may not force the winning hand to show both cards in order to win the pot in a normal showdown.
Nick: I know that it won't stop you from trying, but please, make sure you save some energy for Accepted Action.... ;)
K
-
I would be very interested in what Mike B has to say about the history behind this rule and so forth.
Again, I think the big difference here is that in tournaments, awarding the pot to the player not having the best hand in an "all-in" situation, will incorrectly result in the elimination of that player from the event, when that should not occur.
K-Lo: I understand what you are saying and I can support that, BUT, I think that in those few situations where there are multiple side pots, having to show all hands involved as soon as the betting is complete, can be very, very confusing. In my limited experience, to make that work right, you need to have experienced dealers and experienced players to ensure things are done in the proper order.
Chet
-
...
K-Lo: I understand what you are saying and I can support that, BUT, I think that in those few situations where there are multiple side pots, having to show all hands involved as soon as the betting is complete, can be very, very confusing. In my limited experience, to make that work right, you need to have experienced dealers and experienced players to ensure things are done in the proper order.
Oh yes... 100% in agreement there!
I can't remember who said it on this forum, but he/she said it best: All hands must be shown, but not necessarily simultaneously! I tell my dealers that although everyone must ultimately show, you can still start with the hands eligible for the last side pot, and work your way back to the main, in order to ensure that the pots are awarded correctly.
-
K-Lo,
Thanks! I couldn't have said it better myself. I have no objection to you speaking on my behalf, especially when yours is the only "voice" that understands what I'm preaching.
First of all, if you tried the all-show at showdown, you might be surprised at how much faster and smoother the hands play out.
As far as players getting upset because; they are giving up too much information ??? What about the players competing for huge side pots, that would be allowed to muck under normal showdowns, but because there is one player all-in with his last chip, all players must show their hands ::)
Finally, K-Lo, do you really feel that TDA #11 should remain as is?...Really?
Chet, your confusion only confirms my argument. I will rest my case...for now :D
-
I would be very interested in what Mike B has to say about the history behind this rule and so forth.
See my first post in this thread, on page 1.... especially the last paragraph.
-
Finally, K-Lo, do you really feel that TDA #11 should remain as is?...Really?
I just feel that there will not be an appetite to change the rule again. Could the rule be improved upon in wording or in content? Possibly. But I suspect many will just say it's OK the way it is.
I'm personally OK with leaving this one alone if it means spending more time working on things like e.g. Accepted Action, the flipped cards but not all-in situations, clarification of the balancing rule, etc. Didn't MikeB say that next year's summit is going to be two weeks long??? :D
-
K-Lo,
I know you would like to see TDA #11 tweaked a bit, too. After all, you were the TD that experienced (first hand) side pot players folding because the all-in showed first.
To me, it appears to be an easy fix. Accepted Action, however...now that's a different story.
-
Hi Chet:
I understand what you are saying, and that approach (i.e. players in a side pot do not have to show if the all-in player is not eligible for that pot) would be one way to go about it. But I'm 99.99% sure that is currently not the TDA's "official" stance; as I understand it, they want all players in the hand to show their hands when any player is all-in in that hand, i.e. all players eligible for the main pot or any side pot must show, even if an all-in player is not entitled to a given side pot. Put another way, once a player goes all-in, everyone who is left at showdown for that hand must show regardless of who is eligible for what pots.
I gave an example earlier in this thread, as did Mike B, similar to the one you give below, so I'll point out what I think the issue is. Suppose in your example, F folds thinking that he cannot beat C, but in fact he has the true winning hand that beats everyone, including A & B. However, F screwed up (intentionally? unintentionally?) and his untabled is voluntarily mucked. Under your interpretation, F can do so, because no one that was all-in was eligible to win chips from side pot #2. However, C's hand is not good enough to beat either A or B, resulting in both A & B potentially surviving when they really ought to have both been eliminated. Allowing F to muck here without showing fails to ensure that the pot is awarded to the player with the real winning hand. As I understand it, it's not only about ensuring that a player is eliminated incorrectly, but also to ensure that players who should have been eliminated, are. So I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Rule 11, at least with respect to the side pot issue.
As far as Nick C's issue, I know what button he is pressing (and he's been slapping that button for some time now). ;) At the risk of putting words in his mouth, Nick is basically saying if we force everyone to show when someone is all-in according to Rule #11, why stop there? Why wouldn't we force everyone to show at showdown for each and every "normal", non-all-in showdown? If we think it is so important for the "correct" winner to take the pot, why limit the rule to only all-in situations? Or alternatively, if we don't force people to show in every "normal" showdown, why don't we just scrap rule #11 and not force people to show ever, regardless of whether someone is all-in or not?
What I think Nick is essentially arguing for is uniformity: we should apply the 'all-show' rule to all showdowns, or no showdowns, as the same principles (preventing chip dumping/collusion, etc.) presumably apply. Furthermore, by not expanding the Rule to apply to "normal" showdowns as well, when combined with the new rules that make it more difficult for a player to ask to see a mucked hand, this arguably encourages collusion rather than prevent it.
In that regard, Nick, I definitely think your heart is in the right place, and I hear you. But I'm also a bit of a realist, and practically, I do not see that the TDA community would ever come to a consensus for such uniformity, either way. There are many people who think that all-in situations are different because there is a direct elimination that can result, and will not dump the current Rule 11. And although the underlying principles might also apply to "normal" showdowns, I don't think you'll get enough broad support for that because there will be TDs fearing it will simply slow down the game way too much, and also players that will be upset that they are giving up too much information in situations where chip dumping and collusion are theoretically possible, but not real concerns.
I can't predict the future, but I really don't think it will be a winning battle... the current Rule 11 is probably the best compromise we can expect, and I'm sure the likely response is that one can always implement a house rule to force hands to show at all showdowns if the house felt strong enough about that, just like some house rules may or may not force the winning hand to show both cards in order to win the pot in a normal showdown.
Nick: I know that it won't stop you from trying, but please, make sure you save some energy for Accepted Action.... ;)
K
Yeah, all of this! Nice summary K-Lo.
Sorry for my hiatus Nick! :P
I guess, the way I see it, the TDA is here to try to get as many card rooms on the same page as possible. It is pretty much impossible to get everyone to agree on what is best...but rules that the majority can agree on are good! (Just try to get tournament players to agree on structure, chips, or break lengths once!)
I am thankful for K-Lo pointing out to me your stance, Nick. You are right, I have not been on the forums very long, and I did not mean any offense. I only had this thread to really base my thoughts on, and it looked like you changed your argument mid-thread! :P
I do see your point about uniformity. I think though, that rule 11 is accepted by most TDs and most tournament players. I think if it was changed to show all hands at showdown without an all-in, it would be met with more opposition than accepted action by TDs and I think that players would be opposed as well. I also don't see reason that it should be taken out of TDA. So, it seems to me that the best option is to leave it the way it is.
As someone who likes uniformity, I hope you can see that the side pot situation should be uniform with every other all-in situation. If someone is all-in and all action is complete, all hands must be shown. It shouldn't matter if there is 1 main pot or 1 main pot with 6 side pots. Whoever is eligible to take money from, or lose money to the all-in needs to show.
Tristan
-
Tristan,
Just tell me that you understand the all-in shows his cards last. That's all I'm looking for...not without delay, as TDA #11 insists.
-
Yeah, I agree with that! :)