PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Luca P. on December 03, 2012, 06:12:20 AM
-
Hello guys,
I'm writing here because last night I argued with an IPT (Italian Poker Tour) floorman regarding rule 12: showdown order
A lot of players get confused when they play in my tourneys because when they played in a IPT, the use the following rule:
showdown order - if there is no action on the last betting round, who took the last aggressive action must show first, regardless the round of betting
I said that this is completely no sense to me, since there's a clearly written rule about it on TDA which should not be messed up.
But it seemed to me that Pokerstars usally tends to mess with TDA and drastically change some ruling.
So, my question is:
is it possible to completely change a rule, or a TD shouyld built his own house rules starting from TDA (so not messing it up)
-
After further evaluation of the question from the most recent similar post, I realize that more than one topic needs to be addressed. In a non-all-in situation does the order of showdown only apply to the final betting round, or does it revert to the last aggressive action from previous bets when the last round is checked by all?
Example: After the turn Player's A & B check and Player C bets. Both player's call. If there are no further bets after the turn and river:
Player A is first to show.
Or;
Player C because he was the last to initiate a bet?
I know the correct (current) answer is Player A but I can recall (years ago) when the last aggressor, from the first or second round was first to show even if the final round was checked.
I'm not exactly sure when it changed but I believe the reason was; it caused more confusion in many cases when player's (and dealers) were expected to remember who initiated a bet, on a previous round. In 18 years of dealing in Las Vegas, the rule that the Italian Poker Tour is using, is what we used from 1979 through 1997.
-
Nick: In the example where there is no action on the last betting round, ie., check, check and check, Player A is correct IF, Player A is the first player to the left of the dealer still in the hand. That is a most important point. If there is action on the last betting round, then the Player who made the last aggressive action, ie., bet or raise, shows first.
The TDA rule is pretty clear, at least to me. Why the IPT and PokerStars want to do things differently, who knows. Maybe it is easier for PokerStars Programmers to just store the player with the last aggression and if there is no further action in a hand, refer back to that "trigger". That said, I don't think the IPT is using programmers, so their possible reason is less understandable.
Chet
-
Hello Chet,
Thanks for your response but I wasn't looking for an explanation of TDA #12, I understand what it says. I would like to know if that has always been a TDA rule because the rules for showdown always used to be the way Linker described it. Was the current rule always on the books for the TDA? Or was it changed at a prior Summit?
The rule is very clear but I was trying to point out that on the last betting round, with no all-in player, the first player would have had to check...well, first. Therefore that player would be the one to show their hand first.
The current rule states: If there was no bet in the last round, the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise.
The way I see it, the first player had to check on the final betting round. So I think it would be less confusing if we wrote the rule a little different. In case you are interested, I prefer the TDA rule to the way it used to be...I just wondered when it was introduced.
Where is everyone??? I'll repeat what I wrote on a prior post on this subject:
In TDA #12 do you think it might be more clear if we specifically stated; In a non-all-in showdown, the player that initiated the last aggressive action on the final betting round will be first to table their hand. If there is no bet on the final round, the first player that checked will show first, and so on clockwise.
This would apply to all games; stud and razz as well as all button games.
-
Chiming in because there's an apparent emergency :o ;D
To my knowledge, in which my poker career began in 1997, in the U.S. the rule has always been that which is TDA rule #12. Have always played that way and have always supervised that way.
However in Europe it has always been the opposite. Last aggressor was to show first no matter the betting round. If there were no bets, simply a pre-flop call, then checked all the way down, the button showed first. Or better said, the person with best position showed first. This is how the EPT (PokerStars) does it and how World Poker Tour does it outside the U.S..
Again, this needs to be repeated more and more these days, the TDA Rules are purely supplemental to any house rules. Any.
As accepted as the TDA rules have become, there's been more and more house modifications and adaptations and incorporation of the TDA rules into the house rules these days. In fact, I can't remember the last time I worked a tournament where the house solely used the TDA rules as their tournament rules.
-
Thomas,
Now it's even more confusing ???. I've never heard of the button being forced to show first...never. Is that what you're saying?
I never thought that this subject would create such controversy. If I bet, and you call, I show first. If you bet, and I call, you show first. The only possible question that we should face is who shows first, when all player's check the final betting round? Either the last aggressor from a previous round, or the first player that checked on the final betting round. That's it.
Most of the time, it is not an issue because any player might turn their hand at the showdown. However, there are times when player's stall and wait for the other guy to show first. When that happens, player's are expected to follow the specific order for showdown, according to house rules.
I have never heard of the button showing first, in Europe, or anywhere.
While we're having this discussion, why do we specify non all-in situation? Doesn't the order of showdown still apply for all-in's?
I also want to say; whether you agree or disagree with the IPT ruling, it is very clear and easy to understand.
K-Lo, Where are you? :)
-
While we're having this discussion, why do we specify non all-in situation? Doesn't the order of showdown still apply for all-in's?
Not in TDA rules... TDA Rule 11 applies to all-ins, TDA Rule 12 applies to non all-ins...
It's very cut and dry: Either there's an all-in bettor or there isn't. If there is an all-in bettor, use Rule 11..... if there isn't (and players don't voluntarily table at showdown), then use Rule 12...
-
Thomas,
Now it's even more confusing ???. I've never heard of the button being forced to show first...never. Is that what you're saying?
I never thought that this subject would create such controversy.
There's no controversy.
In plain terms:
U.S. showdown rule: See TDA #12. In case of a showdown, 1) If there was a bet on the last betting round, the last aggressor shows first, 2) If there was no bet on the last round of betting round players show clockwise beginning with the player in first / worst position.
European showdown rule: In case of showdown, 1) If there was a bet on the ANY betting round, the last aggressor shows first, 2) If there was no bet on any round of betting round players show beginning with the player in last / best position (including the button).
These rules are very clear. I don't see what issue you have with them Nick? ??? I've had no trouble with these rules whatsoever with players whether Europeans playing in the US or US players playing in Europe. In addition, not to leave out the rest of the world, Latin America (Central and South) all follow US style. Not sure about Australian Rules or Asian Poker Tour rules regarding the showdown order.
-
Mike,
Will you explain the difference to me. I know that TDA #12 is written specifically for non all-in's. Even when any player is all-in, there is still a designated player that shows first, correct? The last aggressive bettor will still show first. The only difference is all player's must table their hands.
Thomas,
I have little interest in how the European Poker Rules are written, but don't tell me there is no controversy. If there wasn't, Linker_Split would not have brought the question to the forum. I am curious, however as to how their rules would be so different from ours when all rules originated from poker in the USA?
I've never heard of the button showing first. If that is the case, why is the Italian Poker Tour different?
Contrary to what everyone seems to think, I am not against every damn rule that is written. I even said that I prefer the TDA rule over others.
Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better? I suggested;
The first player had to check on the final betting round, that's why that player shows first. We define the aggressor as the player that initiates a bet or raise. Yet a player that checks in turn has also acted. It is passive but, the player has legally acted on their turn to bet, therefore, on the final betting round, when all players have checked, the first player that checked shows first.
Thomas, one more question. Do you have any written European Rule Set that supports your claim that the button must show first if no bets are made on the final betting round?
-
For what i know, there's no "European TDA" other than "EPT rules".
Also i always thought that TDA rules came first before all other set of rules.
Seems to me that this is not true anymore...
Regardless this fact, I've based my italian set of rules (2Poker TDA rules) upon TDA
#Edit
Oh, btw, I'm Linker_Split :)
Just changed my nickname with my real name, Luca Palmieri
-
K-Lo, Where are you? :)
Hullo all! Excuse my absence, but I was on a long cruise through the Panama Canal. Getting back into the swing of things now... what'd I miss???!! :)
I'm not sure where to jump in here or whether it would be helpful even, but briefly, I think most modern rule sets are purposely silent as to who must show 'first' in an all-in situation. My guess is that the rule assumes that since everyone must show eventually, that should be enough, and there is no need to designate an order of showing. Should an order be enforced even in cases where everyone must show their hands? Perhaps it wouldn't hurt... But that might simply make the problem worse as the last player in the showdown order would then have more reason to wait before showing.
Personally, I think the rules are generally fine as they are, but it would be nice if TDs were more inclined to penalize delays in showing hands at showdown as "delay of the game" violations under rule 54. I'd like to see any delays at showdown, in all-in situations especially, met with a warning and then escalating penalties.
The difference in the EP and US rules do not surprise me. I could be wrong, but my recollection from the early 90s is that most people understood the rule to be something to the effect that the last aggressor must show first, but nothing was said about the last bet being on the last betting round or sometime before that. The interpretation was left open. I believe that even older poker books suggested that in any showdown, all hands were required to be exposed immediately or the players would risk a penalty. So at that time, the idea of a showdown order had not even been developed. No surprise then that different interprations would emerge. It would be interesting to see some old versions of Robert's Rules to figure out when he clarified that section.
Anyways, if some European cardrooms interpreted it one way, different from the way it is done in most places in the US, it doesn't surprise me that they've stuck to their own way for this long. Heck, what is up with that minimum double-the-amount raise in France and Ireland (?) still? Chalk it up to tradition. And as Thomas noted, they're free to do so, regardless of whether they choose to adopt other TDA rules. But hopefully, as Luca noted, they will eventually come around to the TDA's way of thinking. I think TDA is still often thought of as an "American" organization rather than an international organization though, and this can only impede progress. (Maybe TDA should have some non-US representation on the Board... I'm just saying ;)
All this being said, I do agree with one of the points Nick noted in support of his proposal to amend rule 12 to replace "the player to the left of the button" with "the player who checked first" (i.e. in the case where there is no bet on the final round), because then it could be more universally applied, in particular, to games that do not use a button such as Stud. Also, I think there is a possibility that we may someday institute a rotating button to keep track of hands played in Stud (but the button still does not determine who acts first on a given round), and if that does happen, then the rule as currently written would certainly be inaccurate and only serve to confuse TDs directing Stud-type games.
-
Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better?
I think many of the TDA rules should be rewritten to make the grammar and understanding of the rules better. But that's not my place to determine. I'm not a board member. Although I am a TDA member, I think the board should determine to word things.
Thomas, one more question. Do you have any written European Rule Set that supports your claim that the button must show first if no bets are made on the final betting round?
Here's my thread on links to rule sets (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg221#msg221) of different tours. It needs updating.
But......
=======================================================================================================
EPT Rule 50. Showdown - After all action is completed, the player who made the last aggressive action must show first and it proceeds clockwise. Whether that was on the river, the turn, flop or pre-flop. In Stud games, the same rule applies going back to 3rd street if necessary. If there was no aggressive action on the entire hand, the player to the left of the button (for Flop games) or the third street bring-in (for Stud games) must show first and it proceeds clockwise.
Players may refuse to show their cards in turn and are allowed to fold, thereby relinquishing their claim on the pot.
Players who refuse to show their hand or fold will be subject to the actions from Rule #51b.
FIDDPA RULE 71 SHOWDOWN
71-1.
If all betting has been completed and no further action is possible, players will be in a “showdown” situation.
71-2.
The player who made the last aggressive action on the final betting round must show their hand first. In situations where all players have checked the last betting round, the player to the left of the “dealer button” must shows first and shall continue in a clockwise direction.
a) In Stud games, the player with the high board must show first.
b) In Razz, the lowest board shows first.
c) “All-In,” if a player is “all-in” and no further betting action is possible, the dealer must stop all action and instruct the players to turn their cards “face up,” players will be in a “showdown” situation. Dealers must ensure that all cards are exposed before continuing with any action. If a player is “all in” or any player involved in the “showdown,” accidentally or intentionally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned “face up,” the dealer must immediately bring this to the attention of a Floor Person or Tournament Director. Management reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards, if the cards are clearly identifiable. Venues/ House Rules that are governed by juridical gaming laws pertaining to a retrievable rule shall apply.
d) If there is a “side pot,” players involved in the “side pot” should show their hands first. “Side pots” will always be awarded before the main pot.
=========================================================================================================
As far as button showing first.... doesn't appear that is the written rule. But thats what the unwritten rule appears to be, because that's what the players do.
For the life of me I can't figure out why the button player would even think of showing first but that's what happens in real play more often then not.
-
K-Lo and Thomas,
Thanks for your replies.
Thomas, I'm going to guess that the player's on the button that show first, (after a final round of checking) do it, just because. I'm glad you were unable to find it in a written rule. I also like the mention of the all-in player's showing their cards last, or when the main pot is being decided. TDA #11 does not mention that.
Ken, thanks for recognizing what I was saying about the "checked" final round.
-
Mike,
Will you explain the difference to me. I know that TDA #12 is written specifically for non all-in's. Even when any player is all-in, there is still a designated player that shows first, correct?
Important question... answer is no... there is no order of show if Rule 11 applies (i.e. at least one player is all-in and no remaining betting is possible). Once these conditions are reached, regardless of where you are in the hand, per Rule 11 "All cards will be turned face up without delay". No player should refuse to turn their cards up once Rule 11 conditions are reached... they have bought into the tournament knowing that this rule is in effect.
Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better? I suggested; The first player had to check on the final betting round, that's why that player shows first. We define the aggressor as the player that initiates a bet or raise. Yet a player that checks in turn has also acted. It is passive but, the player has legally acted on their turn to bet, therefore, on the final betting round, when all players have checked, the first player that checked shows first.
Indeed Rule 12 has the effect that it is the player who checked first in the last possible round of betting who is required to show first in a non all-in showdown if there's no bets in the last round (and if players do not voluntarily table their cards at showdown). We could also say that it's "the player who would be first to act if this was a betting round and not the showdown". Now, are either of these wordings better than the current language? Well, what we'd end up with in writing the rule with either of these variations are examples to make things perfectly clear (i.e. "the first player to the button's left in board games, the high hand showing in stud, and the low hand showing in razz"). Since the current rule already has these illustrations it's a more economical use of language not to further stipulate a rationale... On the other hand I can see some utility to adding a few words on an agreed-upon reasoning if the association feels it's useful ("it's the guy who checked first on the last round", "it's the guy who would be first to act")... these are memorable shortcuts that would apply to any type of game.
-
Mike,
I appreciate your input and I'm hopeful that the BOD will consider using; the first player that checked on the final betting round, as opposed to the more lengthy version that we currently use.
Mike, I don't agree with your answer to my important question. I asked if there is a designated player that must show first in an all-in showdown and you said, no. How do you handle a situation when some player's want to stall and wait for other's to show first?
I thought that is what the rule is for. When I worked the floor, whether a player was all-in or not, the last player that initiated the final bet, or raise, or check would show first. Never a problem.
As far as TDA # 11...well, you can take a look back at prior posts to understand how I feel about that one. I don't believe, in an all-in showdown, we can expect all player's to expose their hands simultaneously, in fact, I find it comical ;D. Besides, the TDA is the only set of rules that doesn't mention the all-in's showing their hands after the side pots are decided.
Nick, I think I deleted some of your post by mistake, hopefully the essence of it is retained above. I hit the "modify" button when I intended to hit the "quote" button. Remind me never to post before noon :) MB
-
Mike,
I appreciate your input and I'm hopeful that the BOD will consider using; the first player that checked on the final betting round, as opposed to the more lengthy version that we currently use.
It's not the BOD that decides, it's the voting members... it will definitely be brought up at the next Summit. Personally I do like the idea of a "memorable rationale" that would apply to all games (such as you proposed)... but illustrations will still be needed otherwise there will be umpteen questions about what "first person to check in the final betting round", or some other rationale exactly means. BTW, a memorable rationale should also apply to games played where an "opener" is first to act, rather than a player to the left of the button or the best hand showing... I know this isn't common in most tournaments but it's a contingency the rule should apply to also
Mike, I don't agree with your answer to my important question. I asked if there is a designated player that must show first in an all-in showdown and you said, no. How do you handle a situation when some player's want to stall and wait for other's to show first? If you refuse to table your cards when Rule 11 conditions are met you can be cited for disruptive behavior under Rule 50...
I thought that is what the rule is for. When I worked the floor, whether a player was all-in or not, the last player that initiated the final bet, or raise, or check would show first. Never a problem. That's still the TDA rule for non all-ins under Rule 12
As far as TDA # 11...well, you can take a look back at prior posts to understand how I feel about that one. I don't believe, in an all-in showdown, we can expect all player's to expose their hands simultaneously, in fact, I find it comical ;D. Besides, the TDA is the only set of rules that doesn't mention the all-in's showing their hands after the side pots are decided.
The only set of rules? Check out WSOP Rule 68 "Face Up for All Ins". The TDA / WSOP language is clearly superior because it absolutely ensures that the correct hand will win when a tournament life is on the line (a player is all-in). You cannot ensure that if you do the side pots first. Why? Let's say you have 3 players in the side pot: at showdown one player insta-shows a strong hand and the other two muck face down when in fact one of the other two had a better hand but misread it. Then the winner of the side pot shows down with the all-in in the main pot and the all-in wins... however the all-in WOULD have lost to the player who mucked without tabling on the side pot b/c he misread his hand, or worse b/c he was chip-dumping to the all-in... Face Up for All Ins avoids all this and protects everyone in the tournament, that's why it was overwhelmingly adopted by the membership.
-
As far as button showing first.... doesn't appear that is the written rule. But thats what the unwritten rule appears to be, because that's what the players do.
For the life of me I can't figure out why the button player would even think of showing first but that's what happens in real play more often then not.
I think I know why this happens. Many times, when the final round is checked, the last player to act will just flip up their cards. Like you said, it is not a written rule, and I would be surprised if it is enforced that way if it is not written.
------------------------------------------------
When I first read rule 12, I pictured the button in the 5 seat and viewpoint as the dealer. Left of the button would be second to last to act. Caught me off-guard for a second.
My 2c on wording: On a checked final round, showdown will proceed clockwise from the button with the button the last to show.
-
Mike,
I can agree that all hands be tabled when any player is all-in. What I disagree with is all cards being tabled at the same time. That's not how it's done if there is a side pot.
WSOP The Showdown: If there is a side pot, players involved in the side pot should show their hands before anyone who is all-in for only the main pot.
Robert's Rules of Poker: The Showdown #7 If there is a side pot, The winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth. #8 If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand.
R.O.P.E The Showdown: In case of a side pot, the winner of the side pot should be determined before the main pot is awarded. In case of multiple side pots, they should be decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.
I don't understand how a player could muck his winning hand in the example you gave. The hand must be shown.
-
Mike,
I can agree that all hands be tabled when any player is all-in. What I disagree with is all cards being tabled at the same time. That's not how it's done if there is a side pot.
Nick thanks for these extremely important questions.... here are my thoughts on the rules involved:
The forum is dedicated to TDA rules. Rule 11 cannot be more clear... "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."... To illustrate this, here are two videos of all-in showdown procedure with sidepots under TDA-compliant Rules...
From the EPT, 2 players all-in pre-flop, Chris Moneymaker has them both covered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atl157sVRmU
From a tournament Matt Savage directed at Bay 101, again with 2 all-ins and a 3rd caller who has them covered pre-flop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyJ_WDyG6g
In both of the above videos you can clearly see that ALL HANDS, both players in the side pot and in the main pot, are turned face up simultaneously once betting action is finished.... i.e. in both cases they are turned face up pre-flop and remain face up while the flop, turn, and river are dealt and on into the showdown. All of these players know the rule, and none of them refuse to comply. There's no "order of show"... no nothing... once all betting action is complete, in these cases pre-flop, ALL CARDS are turned over at once, period.... keep it simple
WSOP The Showdown: If there is a side pot, players involved in the side pot should show their hands before anyone who is all-in for only the main pot.
What WSOP Rule is this? WSOP Rule 70 deals with Showdowns, and rule 72 deals with side pots and neither of those rules have this language. WSOP Rule 68 "Face UP for All Ins" clearly requires all cards to be turned face up once all betting action is finished. All cards... side pot players, main pot players... doesn't matter. Please see videos of this above...
Robert's Rules of Poker: The Showdown #7 If there is a side pot, The winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth. #8 If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand.
R.O.P.E The Showdown: In case of a side pot, the winner of the side pot should be determined before the main pot is awarded. In case of multiple side pots, they should be decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.
Both RRoP and ROPE say the side pot is determined / decided first, which of course everyone agrees with... they don't say that the cards of the main pot all-in(s) remain face down until the side pot is awarded.
RRoP Section 15 Tournaments, Rule 34: 34. All hands will be turned faceup whenever a player is all-in and betting action is complete.
ROPE cites TDA Rules where the author deems appropriate, and indexes them in the reference section on tournaments....
Thanks for raising these very important questions to clarify Rule 11 Showdowns!
-
Mike,
Both videos were great examples for our current TDA rule. I have always contended that the rule was perfect for an all-in situation for head-to-head. The multi-player videos made it more interesting and easy to understand. I guess I am looking for language that would support every all-in situation; multi-player activity, with players contending for side pots right to the river. In these situations I instruct the dealers to ask the all-in player, or players, to kindly not table their cards until the pot they are contesting is being decided. Training dealers is my concern and this is a very important topic that I discuss with student dealers on a regular basis.
My thoughts: I would enforce the rule whenever there was an all-in situation with more cards to be dealt, and no further betting possible. I would not burn and turn until the all-in player's showed their hands. If a player refused to turn their hand, because of some superstition or something to that affect, I would insist that the cards must be tabled before the deal could be completed. This is our tournament rule.
The concerns that I have with the videos are:
Player's have released their cards. I realize this makes for good television coverage and it gets spectators more involved.
In one of the videos, the players pushed their stacks forward and the separation of pots was not decided until all board cards were placed on the table.
Both situations were easy to resolve and didn't seem to cause any real problem. The hands that I'm concerned with are the ones when a player goes all-in pre-flop and action continues with multiple player's. There are too many times when mistakes are made at the showdown if the all-in player tables his hand at the same time as the side-pot player's. We had a situation on the forum a while ago that was created by this exact situation. The side-pot player's (both of them), mucked their hands when they saw a hand that had them beat. The bad part was, the better hand belonged to the all-in player who was not contesting the side-pot! Both player's mucked (that's another story) and the floor was called to decide how to award the side-pots.
I realize that tournament poker is much different from cash games because of all players having an interest. Cash game player's (that are all-in) usually just muck their hands at the showdown when they see a side-pot player's hand that has them beat. They don't have to show. This I understand.
When I teach dealers, I always tell them; whenever we are at the showdown, with a side pot, do not allow the all-in player to show his hand when the side pot is being decided. It can only cause problems.
Side pots should always be decided before the main pot. I just don't see that issue being covered by our current rule. I sure don't see it as "cut and dry" that's for damn sure ::)
I believe that there must still be a specified order for showdown, whether player's are all-in or not, and I'd like to see a simple addition to our all-in rule that could better suit every all-in showdown.
Thanks for all your time, Mike. It's nice to know that you're there.
-
When I teach dealers, I always tell them; whenever we are at the showdown, with a side pot, do not allow the all-in player to show his hand when the side pot is being decided. It can only cause problems.
Side pots should always be decided before the main pot. I just don't see that issue being covered by our current rule. I sure don't see it as "cut and dry" that's for damn sure ::)
Did we discuss this issue elsewhere already? I know which situation you are most concerned with (e.g. three players in the pot, one player is all-in, but action is still taking place between two players on the final betting round so no cards are being flipped until that round ends)... I agree that as a practical matter, it is a 'best practice' to have the side pot hands shown first and the side pot decided before having the all-in player flip, but I feel that might be best left under "Recommended Procedures" rather than trying to implement and enforce an actual rule that says it must be done that way. Certainly if the all-in player does flip up his hand along with the side pot players, we are not going to penalize him for breaking the rule.
-
Ken,
I will steal a line from Chuck Ferry's book RULES OF POKER...Scope of Rules: The rules are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure.
Almost all of the problems that we face are because proper procedures were not followed by player's or the dealer. I believe, the floor should be able to refer to our rules, and show the offending player, or player's (in writing) why we came to a specific decision or ruling.
Ken, you are correct, we have discussed this subject at great length on other threads but, when nothing is resolved I will continue to voice my opinion, especially when others recognize a need for change.
I'm not looking to penalize an all-in player for flipping his hand early. However, I do feel it important to let the player's know that they must wait until the pot they are contesting is being decided before they show their hand. This strange occurrence does not take place in a cash game because an all-in player can never win a main pot if a side-pot player has them beat! So..they just toss their hand and head for the parking lot :(
This is the very reason I am looking for a change. We are always reminded that the TDA is specifically for tournament poker, yet this rule is far different from cash games and therefore needs more clarification.
I also advocate that we insist on a specific "order of showdown" for every deal, whether a player is all-in or not.
-
I see your point, but I do like the separate "recommended procedures" document that TDA put out, which exists and should supplement the rules, and I was just thinking it may be better to put a more detailed example of the procedure for handling showdowns with side pots there. The one thing that comes up a lot in my games is the all-in player, seeing that he is beat by the winner of the side pot, wants to fold his hand without showing and then complains when I say he has to show because it is an all-in situation. I agree that it would be nice to have the procedure set out explicitly in writing somewhere.
-
Ken,
I like it. There could be a footnote or: * see procedure rule #...for a further explanation... The great majority of poker rules that apply to cash games, also govern tournament play. Therefore I believe special attention should be given to our TDA Rules, that differ from the every day cash game rules.
I do believe that all of these important issues that we have been addressing, will be addressed at the next Summit. I am confident because Mike Bishop is on the board.
Thanks to those that respond on this forum. Those that do not participate should seriously consider giving it a try. Your voice is the only way to determine how you feel about any ruling.
-
A link to this documment please: "recommended procedures" document that TDA put out
-
TDA Recommended Procedures are found here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=462.msg3987#msg3987
-
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
Posts: 1645
The following contains a few unanswered questions that I had on related issues over a year ago.
RP-1 (Recommended Procedures) I think the idea of an all-in button is great. I was wondering if anyone has experienced problems using it.
a. What happens if the all-in button is put in, by the dealer, and the player has more chips?
b. Exactly where should the dealer place the all-in button after the player goes all-in?
RP-2 I can understand how bringing-in bets can cause some confusion in multy handed pots, and I agree it is not a good dealer practice. I do think that it could be accepted when action is head-to-head. When a player makes a bet, and the other player pushes in a raise, I think that matching the players original bet and placing the equal amounts of the original bet (from each player) into the pot would make the raise amount easier to assess.
RP-4 My feelings on re-shuffle are; A scramble or mix of the cards, (not the standard shuffle) would better guarantee that no cards are exposed. The standard shuffle requires that the cards be gathered and picked-up facing away from the dealer before gathering them together for the first riffle. This would be unacceptable because it would expose the identity of remaining cards.
Your thoughts are always welcome.