PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on September 02, 2013, 07:11:57 AM
-
Hello,
Without all the outside elements than can for sure change a ruling, can you please give me your GENERIC answer in the following situations:
1) A player at BB don't pay attention and folds while a few players only called him - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
2) A player bet postflop and don't realise he is only called and folds - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
3) A player bet postflop and don't realise there is a last player to act - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
My recent habits (but I can change):
1) Dead hand (Fold instead of check is penalized but bidding)
2) Hand back (obvious absurd situation)
3) Hand back (obvious absurd situation)
TY - GG
-
1) A player at BB don't pay attention and folds while a few players only called him - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
I let them keep the hand. In our cash games we encourage dealers to do that for the player...so it follows our house rules.
2) A player bet postflop and don't realise he is only called and folds - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
Player keeps their hand in this one too. I feel this is very similar to #1, so they should be be ruled the same.
3) A player bet postflop and don't realise there is a last player to act - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
Player keeps their hand.
-
Hi GG:
If we are talking tournaments, I agree with all three of your rulings.
With respect to #1, I have been arguing (in a different thread), that the hand should be returned to the big blind if he folds his option by mistake. With novices, I may still do that, but I believe at the Summit it was agreed that the hand should be dead as a non-standard fold in turn. Where the dealer could stop the hand is if the player was all-in and began to fold unaware that another player was still in the hand (but if the hand did get mucked, the player has no recourse). I am also fine with giving the hand back in #2 and 3.
Someone can correct me if I am not remembering this discussion at the Summit correctly.
-
I can't remember the specifics on that from the Summit either.
K-Lo, why would you rule 1 dead but then not 2? In both cases the player was only called when they tried to muck. I'm trying to understand why that would be viewed differently.
-
I agree with Tristan on all counts. There was mention of not returning the BB in the first situation, but I could never bring myself to doing that. Is it really in the best interest of the game? I don't think so. Now, if a player consistently folds his BB (when not facing a raise), I would have no problem killing his hand.
-
GG: Thanks as always for a thought-provoking post... comments in red.
Hello,
Without all the outside elements than can for sure change a ruling, can you please give me your GENERIC answer in the following situations:
1) A player at BB don't pay attention and folds while a few players only called him - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
I prefer a binding fold here in a "major" tourney environment. I'm fine with protecting a newbie in a "daily" tournament, and from memory, the very old but very venerable LV Hilton's Book of Poker Rules actually had a rule that you should stop the muck in this situation. But the TDA rule is clear for a major I think, it's a binding fold.
2) A player bet postflop and don't realise he is only called and folds - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
Same as 1 above.
3) A player bet postflop and don't realise there is a last player to act - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
At TDA Summit VI the members in attendance tried very hard to come up with a super-majority consensus on this and just wasn't able to. There are great arguments on both sides. I personally favor preserving the hand.
My recent habits (but I can change):
1) Dead hand (Fold instead of check is penalized but bidding)
2) Hand back (obvious absurd situation) How is this different than 1 though?
3) Hand back (obvious absurd situation)
TY - GG
-
Hello,
First TY for those first answers.
Thoses questions seems simple but in fact are very important for a TD to understand the "general spirit" of the TDA and all my TD mates!
I mean it's here the spirit or PROTECTING OR NOT THE PLAYERS IN SITUATIONS THAT MAY BE AT 99% ERRORS OF ATTENTION -
I don't defend that! I just want to "feel" the general "fashion" about this protection in the spirit of the TDs?
Mike asked me the difference between case #1 and case #2: THAT'S THE POINT: THE ONLY DIFFERENCE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES!
I mean: do we want to protect the players against absurd errors?
YES? NO?
Whatever YES or NO: Up or Down to what amount & consequences?
Do you protect a 5$ error?
Do you protect the same 5.000 error?
Do you protect the same 500.000 error?
Because when I write a rule in the heat of my confortable home ---> MY WAY IS TO ALLWAYS IMAGINE THIS SPECIFIC RULE TO BE APPLIED AGAINST GUYS LIKE PHILL HELLMUTH OR DANIEL NEGREANU IN A POT OF 500.000$! (LOOOL)
I do not pretend to rule those guys for sure (lol) but I want to be honest with myself and my players.
Sorry for my english -
GG
-
I have other situation too.
1- Player A shows 88 and Player B muck (in front of him in a forward motion)... Players B realize that he had 99 and take back his cards... Muck or Hand still Live ?
2- Player A Bet and muck thinking is alone... then he realize another player is in the hand, do we give back his cards ?
My answer, to see if I'm right ?
1- It's a muck, I will only give back his cards if Player A announced the wrong hand or dealer announced the wrong hand.
2- I'm always giving back his cards unless they are unretrievable.
Are you agree ?
-
Hello,
First TY for those first answers.
Thoses questions seems simple but in fact are very important for a TD to understand the "general spirit" of the TDA and all my TD mates!
I mean it's here the spirit or PROTECTING OR NOT THE PLAYERS IN SITUATIONS THAT MAY BE AT 99% ERRORS OF ATTENTION -
I don't defend that! I just want to "feel" the general "fashion" about this protection in the spirit of the TDs?
Mike asked me the difference between case #1 and case #2: THAT'S THE POINT: THE ONLY DIFFERENCE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES!
I mean: do we want to protect the players against absurd errors?
YES? NO?
Whatever YES or NO: Up or Down to what amount & consequences?
Do you protect a 5$ error?
Do you protect the same 5.000 error?
Do you protect the same 500.000 error?
Because when I write a rule in the heat of my confortable home ---> MY WAY IS TO ALLWAYS IMAGINE THIS SPECIFIC RULE TO BE APPLIED AGAINST GUYS LIKE PHILL HELLMUTH OR DANIEL NEGREANU IN A POT OF 500.000$! (LOOOL)
I do not pretend to rule those guys for sure (lol) but I want to be honest with myself and my players.
Sorry for my english -
GG
I don't agree with an amount, the decision should always be the same.
-
Martin,
In your #1: If Player B did not table his pair of 9's...his hand will be dead if mucked by the dealer. If the cards are not mucked, and clearly his cards, and he retrieves them before they are mucked his hand would probably still be live. This, of course would depend on whether a strict rule applies when using a bet/muck line.
This is where; what the dealer should do, or should not do becomes the issue. In situation 1, the dealer assumes that the player with the 9's did not have a winning hand, so he appeared to muck. Therefore the proper procedure for a good dealer is to muck the surrendered hand instantly. The only exception would be an all-in situation.
Situation #2: If I were dealing...yes, I would give him back his cards because he is clearly about to make an unintentional mistake. The danger here is: If the dealer does muck the hand, the player will have no right to the pot.
There are always discussions on the Forum that put all of the responsibility on players (especially players facing a bet), when I know that the proper procedure of a good dealer will prevent the occurrence of most problems that disrupt our tournaments every day.
-
I can't remember the specifics on that from the Summit either.
K-Lo, why would you rule 1 dead but then not 2? In both cases the player was only called when they tried to muck. I'm trying to understand why that would be viewed differently.
Hey Tristan:
Maybe I am misunderstanding situation 2. In the past, for situation 1, I was personally in favour of returning the hand of the BB, but I am pretty sure this was settled at the Summit, that the fold should be binding. The argument was that players get really pissed off when a hand that someone was willing to fold voluntarily pre-flop ends up being a winner. Put another way, the BBs intention at that point was to surrender his hand, and so he should be allowed to do so. (I admit though, I still tend to follow Nick's approach - give the player the benefit of the doubt unless he keeps doing it).
The key here, I think, is the act of voluntary surrender of the hand. The way that I understood situation 2 is that he does not realize that he has been called and that there is still action to be had on further streets. In this case, it is unlikely there was any intention to abandon or surrender the hand, and I think it is part of the dealer's job to protect the muck and preserve the action. Of course, you could argue that if the Big Blind was aware that he could have checked and seen a free flop, he would not have surrendered his hand, but I definitely see a difference in degree - in situation 1, the big blind has actually shown a willingness to abandon his hand despite knowing that he has been called -- this is different from attempting to fold when he doesn't know he has been called post-flop (the 'level' of willingness to abandon his hand is IMO relatively less).
I don't think that the amounts involved should make a difference. It would be very difficult to draw the line at a certain amount.
With respect to Martin's two follow up situations, I agree with Nick's response. In both cases, the cards are live if clearly identifiable and retrievable. The difference is in the first case, the dealer knows that the action is complete and should muck B's hand ASAP. This solves all issues. Currently, forward motion alone is not, in it of itself, a binding fold. In the other case, the dealer knows that there is still action pending, so he should give the hand back instead of mucking it (but if it does end up in the muck, too bad for the player).
-
Ken,
I think this one deserves to be looked at and thought out again before Version 2.0. How can we decide (in the best interest of the game) that we will kill a players live hand? A player in for all bets...Collusion is the first thought that comes to mind. Imagine players folding around to the SB and after he calls, the BB says you win and mucks his hand.
What's the difference? Does an intentional fold warrant more, or less protection to the player folding when in for all bets? Or are we just trying to punish the mistake of the player who accidentally folds because he forgot he was already in, or thought he was the unopposed winner?
-
Hi Nick... You are preaching to the choir here, but I think it's pretty much a done deal unless it is brought up at the next summit. And while I would have liked to have seen our approach adopted (giving back the player in the BB his hand if he forgot his option), I can live with it -- at least it provides certainty.
I am not that concerned with the SB/BB scenario that you raised - if there really is suspicion of collusion, you can penalize that. Penalize the collusion directly, rather than what is simply stupidity on the BBs part. You can even penalize the BB for the non-standard fold.
You also see dealers actually (properly) offering the player his option, and then he folds, not knowing what the option means. I think you just have to take the cards in, keep going, and explain the player's error after the hand,
It really is a fine line though. But I acknowledge the fact that people get really upset when a player wins with a hand that he had absolutely no intention of continuing with the knowledge that there are other people contesting the pot.
-
I have other situation too.
1- Player A shows 88 and Player B muck (in front of him in a forward motion)... Players B realize that he had 99 and take back his cards... Muck or Hand still Live ?
2- Player A Bet and muck thinking is alone... then he realize another player is in the hand, do we give back his cards ?
My answer, to see if I'm right ?
1- It's a muck, I will only give back his cards if Player A announced the wrong hand or dealer announced the wrong hand.
2- I'm always giving back his cards unless they are unretrievable.
Are you agree ?
Martin: Great great illustration. This is the subject of the new 2013 TDA Rule 14 "Live Cards at Showdown", and the answer is "it depends on whether you use a forward motion / mucking line rule at showdown or not". Rule 14-A is for houses that DO NOT use a mucking line for showdowns, and rule 14-B is for houses that do.
So, in your Example 1, the hand is live if you use 14-A (no mucking line), and "it depends on your house rules" if you use 14-B (mucking line applies at showdown).
In your Example 2, we tried very hard at Summit VI to achieve consensus on this, but there are two camps (3 actually): those that want to preserve every hand "mucked in error", those that instruct their dealers to insta-muck all discarded hands BUT WILL preserve one under these circumstances if caught in time,... and a minority school that really feels it's a binding fold.
The first two schools are by far the majorities. There was general consensus at Summit VI that IN THE EVENT OF AN ALL-IN BET the cards should be preserved. The problem with that language is it leaves open the incorrect perception that the hand should be killed in all other situations. SO, for the time being, this remains up to house discretion and will be a topic at Summit VII no doubt.
I would add that IMO the majority of houses now use 14-A, and a very large majority will return any uncalled bet amount to the mucking player in Example 2, if the cards are indeed killed / irretrievable and he has a pending uncalled bet.
Thanks again for sharing these examples, I think Rule 14 is one of the great accomplishments of Summit VI.
-
Mike ---> TY for your clarifications: I will follow you (& the TDA) for my ex.1 & ex.2 (I used to protect before)! I'll certainly still use the TDA "Golden rule" #1 for my ex.2 in the case of all-in!
About my ex.3 ---> I'll keep on protecting the hand and give it back to the player. For sure we will be very aware of any "angling" by a guy trying to exploit this protection.
But 99% of the cases are not angling and the rules must be done fore them. We must not annoy 99% of the players because of some 1% bad guys!
As we say here: "Better a guilty free than an innocent in jail!" ... (If I may) ... ;)
Martin ---> I may have misunderstood but your second example is exactly my N°3 ?!?
About your first example (it's at showdown right?): There is no "fold "at showdown for us ... only players wanting to "muck". We ask our dealers to actually muck thoses hands. But if before they can actually muck them and while the cards are still 100% retrievable, they are returned by:
A) The owner - the wind - the actual winner ---> The hand is alive!
B) The dealer - any other player (or crazy spectator etc) ---> The hand is dead!
GG
-
The way that I understood situation 2 is that he does not realize that he has been called and that there is still action to be had on further streets. In this case, it is unlikely there was any intention to abandon or surrender the hand, and I think it is part of the dealer's job to protect the muck and preserve the action. Of course, you could argue that if the Big Blind was aware that he could have checked and seen a free flop, he would not have surrendered his hand, but I definitely see a difference in degree - in situation 1, the big blind has actually shown a willingness to abandon his hand despite knowing that he has been called -- this is different from attempting to fold when he doesn't know he has been called post-flop (the 'level' of willingness to abandon his hand is IMO relatively less).
2) A player bet postflop and don't realise he is only called and folds - The dealer stop and protect his hand before calling the floor - Then?
I might have put too much emphasis on the 'only'. I took this as the player thought he was raised, but he was only called...which to me would be the same as the big blind thinking they were raised when they were only called. So basically the same situation.
I also want to add that while I am slightly in favor of pushing back hands in which a mistake is clearly being made, I am not dead set on it. It does mesh well with our cash rules though. Since the dealers push hands back to the unraised BB in our cash games, they tend to have it as a habit and so they automatically do it in our tournaments. If I then kill it, it would be spotty as some dealers/players would let me know that it had occurred, some wouldn't. Some hands would get killed, some wouldn't. Chaos would ensue. :P