PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: WSOPMcGee on June 04, 2013, 02:09:33 PM
-
Hi All,
Been a while but I'm back just in time before the summit!! (Hope I can make it). So here's a situation that happened recently at the WSOP. The game is 2-7 lowball.
8 handed game. Button is in seat 3. SB seat 4. BB seat 5. Seat 6 is sitting out. Seat 7 folds, Seat 8 calls, Seat 1 folds, Seat 2 calls, action is stopped because Seat 5 realizes he has 4 cards and not 5. You, the supervisor come over and verify that all other players were dealt complete hands and that no other player has less or more cards than a complete hand AND that no cards are on the floor or under the rail etc, etc.
Please vote how you would rule and then please explain why? I have found that most supervisors here at the WSOP are of one mind and I am the lone ranger. I ask them why and they say because "Rule X says" one of the answers listed in the poll. So then I present my case that "Rule Y says" another answer listed in the poll.
So doing the research that I do to found out "WHY" we rule things one way and not another way, I have yet to find ANYONE to give me a good argument against the ruling that was made. Also during this research I discovered another anomaly that "Rule Z says" it should have been ruled yet a different way and for the life of me I can't even imagine anyone today making such a ruling.
In discussing this with Dave Lamb, I expressed my concern for the argument against ruling in favor of "Rule Y" because it seems to me that most poker rules are enforced by assuming that everyone is a card cheat, an angle shooter, or just a dirtbag. I can see that argument being viable in a "Cash" game because there is immediate gratification and possible profitable return in a cash game. In Tournament though, which is my expertise, this is not the case. Any player trying to gain an angle must fade several players and floor staff rulings to make any profit at all. Cash profit. I'm not trying to diminish any chip equity that may be gained, but any that would be gained is extremely minimal, especially here at the WSOP. [STANDING ON SOAP BOX NOW] I don't like we as supervisors sometimes presume players to be guilty of angle shooting in an effort to enforce certain rules. I much prefer to presume the players are innocent and that a dealer simply make a mistake and try to correct errors when at all possible to try and keep action moving.[STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX].
This poll will be up for 30 days. I'll check back and give you my argument for "Rule Y" then. I was going to say something else, but I forgot. Haha.
-
I remember what I was going to say now!
All of the polling answers are correct. The goal of the poll to try and determine which one is the best of all.
-
This is tough, because what I would rule is probably not what I would want to rule.
Without saying what I voted for, I'll lay out the reasoning for what I think are the top two options.
Dead hand - This is the way you would most likely rule it in a cash game and the more you differentiate between cash and tournament, the more confusion you run into with staff and players. Also this option has the least perceived damage both in amount at risk and in the player's minds. It is not often that you would have anyone really upset with this ruling.
Allow the player to get a card before the draw and complete the hand - You could argue that the card that player gets is out of order, but to be honest, a lot of cards were out of order in the initial deal depending on when the player was skipped. The other advantages to this call are that the Seat 5 does not have to make a decision based only on 4 cards (penalized for no fault of their own), and all of the draw cards are in proper order as exactly 5 cards have been delivered to each player before the draw. This leaves the hand the most intact it can be.
-
Thomas and Tristan:
I don't know much, probably less than any one else on this forum about lowball. So you can take that into consideration, if you would.
I don't believe that you can call a misdeal, per TDA 32 because no matter how you look at the action it fits the TDA definition of "Substantial Action", so I cannot support option 4.
I also don't believe that it is "fair" to rule player 5's hand dead. The problem was brought to the attention of the dealer before action went around the table, so I can easily see where player 5 stopped the action as soon as he noticed there was a problem.
So we are left with option 2 or 3. Since there has been no further action other than 2 calls and players 3 and 4 have yet to act, I am inclined to let those two players act, call or raise or whatever. When it comes back to seat 5 he can fold or call, if there has been a raise and get another card, or he can check if there has been no raise and get another card.
I would require that he act based on the 4 cards in his hand, fold, check or call (I would not let him raise). If he calls or checks then he gets the 5th card and the hand moves on from there.
Chet
-
Interesting case Thomas.
The best answer here is "it depends on the Lowball misdeal language in effect at this venue":
1: IF you're using RRoP-type lowball language, then IMO the best answer is to allow the player to continue with 4 cards and draw to a complete hand of 5 on the draw. Because substantial action has already occurred, I don't think it's proper to deal a player not on the button a 5th card before the draw (this would be an option if no action had yet occurred).
2: IF you're using generic substantial action and misdeal language (i.e. a hand is dead if it has an improper number of cards after S.A. has occured), then I think the best ruling is dead hand b/c SA has occurred (seat 7 folds and 8 calls).
In neither 1 or 2 does declaration of a misdeal seem right. It might be correct under non-TDA rules that don't put SA into effect until the initial betting action has gone around the table once (in order to "give every player a chance to look at their cards in turn").
Just taking a cursory look at WSOP lowball rules I don't see the distinctions listed in 1 above. In the absence of that specific language, I would tend to favor dead hand since SA has occured. What was the actual ruling made?
-
Give the player a card so he has a complete hand before the draw. The card should be the top card of the deck.
Substantial action has taken place and the proper cards remain for the draw.
-
Five card draw rules allow the player to have a live hand and draw to the full 5 cards when his turn to draw assuming there's been significant action. Misdeal if not, but not the case here. If he has the wrong number cards after a draw then his hand is dead.
-
In draw games, there is no problem with allowing the player to "use" one of his draws to top up his hand to the correct number. The reason for ruling the hand dead in a non-draw game is to prevent a player from hiding a card and giving him a free second chance to gain a better card and to hold it. In a draw game, this is not an issue even if he hid a "bad" card as he must use one of his draws to replace it. Allow to call and draw to the correct number of cards - count the deck at the end of the hand.
-
It's looking more and more like I need to brush up on my draw rules! ;D
-
I still like #2.
Mike, I have a question for you. What do you mean "generic substantial action?" IF you're using generic substantial action and misdeal language (i.e. a hand is dead if it has an improper number of cards after S.A. has occured), then I think the best ruling is dead hand b/c SA has occurred.
I don't believe we ever established that a hand is dead when a player is bypassed by substantial action, unless the next round of betting, or the next street begins?
Ken, I haven't played draw in years but, I find it hard to believe that any player could get away with holding an extra card so he can have a one card advantage. If the extra card helps his hand, he still has a problem ditching the extra before the showdown. Plus, the original question indicates that the player was clearly short one card.
Tristan, don't let others change your mind! You had it down to 2 choices and (I know) you were close to deciding with me, but...
Chet, At least you eliminated #1 & #5. So you're in the ballpark. ;D
-
Thomas, You're not really going to keep us guessing til July! Are you?
-
Nick: I am simply saying that the underlying reasons why we kill hands that do not have the right amount of cards in a game such as holdem after substantial action occurs do not apply to draw games in the same way. Killing a hand that is short (especially on the button which is common) in draw games pre-draw is overkill.
That being said, since there are likely very few TDs with extensive live draw game experience, I am willing to bet that most TDs would simply kill the hand and rely on the rule that they are most familiar with in the Holdem sphere. And players are probably less likely to complain if they are primarily Holdem players. Although killing the hand may be the most popular approach now, it is not necessarily the most principled IMO.
-
Mike, I have a question for you. What do you mean "generic substantial action?" IF you're using generic substantial action and misdeal language (i.e. a hand is dead if it has an improper number of cards after S.A. has occured), then I think the best ruling is dead hand b/c SA has occurred.
I don't believe we ever established that a hand is dead when a player is bypassed by substantial action, unless the next round of betting, or the next street begins?
You're right, that wasn't established (though it was proposed but didn't get enough votes). What was established is that if SA occurs, a misdeal can't be declared. If I'm using "generic" misdeal / SA rules (i.e. one standard for all game types), then the hand has an improper number of cards. After SA, you can't declare a misdeal so generically a hand with the improper number of cards is usually dead.
If the house uses lowball-specific rules which permit drawing to a full hand of 5, then I'd favor that. I just don't find it in a cursory scan of the WSOP rules. Just because it doesn't appear verbatim in the house rules, BTW, doesn't mean a floor person can't rule to draw to 5 here, basing the ruling on "standard convention". The problem with having different standards for different games that are not in print is that you open yourself up to inconsistent rulings as not all staff are likely to be equally familiar with such a relatively obscure rule.
-
Thomas, You're not really going to keep us guessing til July! Are you?
No... the poll, the poll will be available to vote for 30 days. Then it will close. I do like the thought provoking discussion going on though. I see some people clinging to the "norm" and some people trying to think of reasons why the "norm" is what it is.
So far the most interesting quote is from MikeB The problem with having different standards for different games that are not in print is that you open yourself up to inconsistent rulings as not all staff are likely to be equally familiar with such a relatively obscure rule.
What MikeB said is truly the heart of the matter.
Keep the thoughts coming guys. We've barely scratched the surface here IMO.
-
Thomas,
I believe every player has a right to begin with a complete hand. If the same player were skipped in the button position, he would have been given his fifth card...no problem.
Too many cards, (i.e. 6) would warrant a dead hand, not too few.
I remember (long ago) replacing a card with the second card from the bottom of the deck when a player was skipped his "proper card." The idea, was to preserve the deck stub for the next round. Allowing the player to "draw-up" to his 5 card hand will alter "proper cards" to any player drawing cards.
This is why I chose #2.
-
I wrote what I did above based on my own thoughts on the subject and without looking up anything.
I have to say though, I still like the thought of giving that player a card prior to the draw.
I don't feel that the player that is innocently missing a card should be penalized by having to make a decision based on 4 cards. Nick has a point by saying that if they were the button, they would have gotten another card with no questions asked. Are we saying that the person on the button is more trustworthy and less likely to cheat than they are? I also really like that the draw cards are intact. If we give them the extra card during the draw, then the cards are out of order during the initial deal AND on the draws. Two wrongs =/= right. Obviously, use proper procedure during the draws and count the deck down at the end to make sure things were legit.
If it is discovered before substantial action happens, misdeal.
This is just my opinion on how things should be. I would like to hear reasoning behind why they should be other ways.
-
With respect to holdem, suppose the dealer forgets to deal the button his second card. The player does not say anything until everyone has folded to him. Would you still give the player the card at the top of the deck, despite substantial action having occurred? Does the player not have some obligation to protect his own hand by ensuring that he has the correct number of cards at the beginning of the deal and bringing it to the attention of the dealer?
If you are willing to give a player another card before the draw, then you should be just as willing to give any player who claims to have only been dealt one card, a second card anytime before the flop is dealt in Holdem. I don't think this is right. i think the player needs to check that he has both of his cards, and that his hand is not fouled for some reason, asap and most preferably before substantial action has occurred.
Not killing the hand at draw, and not automatically giving him a top up card for failing to draw attention to his hand being short a card, but allowing one to use up one of the draws to complete the hand on the first draw is a reasonable compromise. The angle at draw does not necessarily have to be hiding a card to be brought out later - it can be as simple as the BB looking at one of the cards, and if he doesn't want it, he leaves it out to be mucked by UTG with the UTG hand. Even when not used as an angle, with so many cards dealt, it is easy for one player's card to be picked up with folded cards headed for the muck. #3 is a reasonable compromise, which allows the player to continue and eliminates the possibility of giving the angle-shooter a second chance at a better card.
But if everybody wanted to just treat holdem and draw games the same way to avoid having an exception that most TDS will not be able to remember, I suppose we gotta do what we gotta do.
-
Ken,
I think there are many players that don't look at their cards until it is their turn to act. Therefore, I believe there is a difference from game to game. When a player is deprived of a complete starting hand, through no fault of their own, they should be given either the top card of the deck, or a randomly selected card from the bottom of the deck.
There will always be other factors to consider, i.e. the player who says nothing and action passes him by.
In case I haven't answered your first question, I will say that the player on the button is entitled to a card, at any time before the next round begins. The top card belongs to him.
Players in other positions, not the button, create a situation that has altered the proper card distribution to others. The question becomes; what is the best way to correct this dealer error? I believe all players are entitled to a complete starting hand, substantial action, or not.
-
As a side story to this thread, I'd sure like to see lowball (and other non-board games) catch on. While I like playing holdem in public games and tournaments it's one of least favorite private games. I play at least as much NL 5 stud as THE in one private setting. It's an awesome game that was really the first of the great tournament formats (Moss vs. Dandolos). http://www.bluff.com/magazine/nick-the-greek-vs-johnny-moss-9890/ Benny Binion used the heads-up 5-stud tourney to attract attention to the Horseshoe even prior to hosting the WSOP there. Note that Moss and Dandolos also played lowball and 7-stud variations but no THE !
Certainly when and if these overlooked games become more popular we absolutely should spell out their unique misdeal and other characteristics.
-
I don't think the games should be treated as the same. With so many more cards dealt, it is much easier for a dealer error to occur. In hold'em it is easy to determine that the next card off the deck belongs to the button. But, in a draw game, can we really determine that it was the button's last card that was skipped and not their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th? And unless we are absolutely certain, how can we hold that player to a different standard than others?
I can also have a lot more sympathy for a player that doesn't notice a missing card in a 5 card game. It's harder to watch the other players and look at all of your cards...plus it's 20% of your hand missing rather than 50%.
-
Tristan,
You bring up another interesting scenario; How do you handle a situation where a player notices that he was skipped his second card when the dealer is dealing the third card? If the 3 seat player notices immediately the dealer can back up the card delivered to the 4 seat, (as long as it has not been mixed in with the players other hole cards).
What about when the proper card can not be determined?
I know how I would handle it, but I'd like to hear from others.
-
Interesting case Thomas.
What was the actual ruling made?
So on this TDA morning here's the actual ruling made.
The player received a 5th card before the draw.
I'll go over all the possible rulings and why they are correct later today(ish).
-
Thomas, Thanks...
This IS the ruling I would have made if SA hadn't occurred. From my original post, if you're keeping close to very roots lowball rules I would prefer letting the guy play pre-draw with 4 because of the SA.
Which brings us to lowball-specific rules which I think most venues don't have anymore, unfortunately.
So, I think a reasonable person without a set of standing lowball-specific rules can get to the actual ruling here by using random card theory. We've accounted for all the cards, the fact is a 5th card was not dealt to this player. In that sense, filling him in before the draw then leaves you with a "correct" stub for dealing the draw cards, even if the pre-draw cards might be "out of order".
So then, we're at this technicality that it would be more traditional to play with 4 and draw to 5 due to the SA, the next closest thing I guess is to go ahead and deal him the 5th right now... and that ends up with the "cards in correct order" virtue for the draw.
BTW, just taking the pulse of people in and around the Summit this year, I feel that there aren't enough venues that care enough to adopt the minutiae of game-specific rules for game types that aren't played often enough to be financially lucrative (yet).
Thanks for sharing a very interesting case.
-
So today(ish) didn't happen. So it's tomorrow(ish).
Anyhow, going to try and cover each possible ruling individually and try to gauge any interest in adopting the above ruling for other game types, if at all possible.
Ruling #1 - Dead Hand: This ruling is possible given the obvious - Player in Seat 5 (BB) has an improper number of cards for the game type. Too few in this case. Standard rulings almost always follow the holdem / omaha type rulings governed by this rule: RRoP The hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game but fail to include this exception in their rulings (except at stud a hand missing the final card may be ruled live, and at lowball and draw high a hand with too few cards before the draw is live).
As MikeB stated, most cardrooms now do not even have these game types being played in their rooms. Therefore, it stands to reason that most would not know the exceptions for specific game types.
Pros of this ruling:
- Cut and dry. Too few or too many cards for game type is a dead hand
- Not a misdeal with Substantial action
- Prevents players from hiding cards to receive a 2nd chance at a better card
Cons of this ruling:
- This punishes the player who has an improper number of cards unduly because of a dealer error
- Allows for the incorrect / proper flop and/or in this case an improper draw.
- Is a misdeal without Substantial action
- Players in the blinds lose the right to protect and player on the button loses position paid for through the blinds
Let's briefly discuss the exceptions to the rule: "except at stud a hand missing the final card may be ruled live, and at lowball and draw high a hand with too few cards before the draw is live." Why is there an exception?
IN STUD - the reason for exception is a player with too few cards still may have a better hand then a player with 7 cards. Therefore it is allowed. Thoughts: I find this logic to be true in all game formats except for Draw games and Badugi. For example in Holdem - A player with only an Ace (one card - too few cards) in their hand may flop an Ace and beat a player with KK in their hand. However, in Holdem it is mandatory to have two cards to win a pot. Otherwise we'd just have people holding/hiding aces all the time. But in Omaha and Big O the Stud rule exception seems to hold water to me. A player with too few cards (i.e. 3 cards) should still be allowed to win the pot. It is possible for them to use two out of the 3 cards they do have and still beat a proper 4 card hand. I'll discuss this line of thought more in a separate post in Ruling #2
IN DRAW - the reason for exception is because a player may wish to draw to a full hand. If they have too few cards after the draw it is a dead hand.
The problem with exceptions is - then you may get into that there is an even exceptions for the exceptions! But overall I like exceptions if they make sense. And that's the main goal of creating and implementing rules, do they make sense. More to come.