PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: elperro73 on September 03, 2013, 08:27:34 AM
-
2 players are left on the river.The 1st player checks and the 2nd player bets, the 1st player calls and the 2nd player instantly mucks straight into the muck pile. The dealer is telling the 1st player who is the ONLY PLAYER left with cards, that he has to show his cards to win the pot. I was standing right next to the table and ruled that he DID NOT have to show his cards unless someone asked to see them. Am I correct??? Another Floor-person is saying that they should show his cards to avoid collusion.
-
Welcome elperro73,
You were correct...he did not have to show his hand. Collusion is not considered in cash games and certainly not when only two players are involved.
-
Nick: For the most part I agree, but I have a question.
Why do you say that collusion is not considered in cash games? I personally know of 3 individuals that used to play as a team in cash games and it was not at all uncommon for them to pull all kinds of stunts and use all kinds of angle shots against other players, especially those with little or no experience.
I think it is imperative that floor persons and dealers (but floor persons especially) protect the "rights" of all players and if there are some actions being taken or plays made that seem out of line, I certainly don't think it in the best interests of the game to let that go on.
Chet
-
I would not force the player to show their hand unless collusion was strongly suspected...in which case you would have heard about it already from the players or it was the reason you were standing at the game. So I see no problem with the ruling.
-
Tristan,
This is a cash game and any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. How do you tell the dealer to stop the action, prevent the hand in question from being mucked, tell the dealer to call the floor because you suspect there's something shady going on, and then expect to make it through the parking lot to your car after leaving the game! You have got to be kidding. ::) I always thought it rather strange that millions of viewers could see everyone's hole cards on TV...but a player that paid to see the hands, can only do so if collusion is suspected.
I don't like it for tournament poker, and I don't like it (even more) for cash games. :D
-
I don't have a problem with the call. There should be, and probably is, a house rule for the establishment on whether players can ask to see a hand.
Nick, I'm not sure if you read my responses all of the way through.
-
Tristan,
Will you please find someone else to challenge. At least I respond to questions on this Forum. If you don't know the difference between a player mucking his hand at the showdown, and the right to see a hand at the showdown...you have a serious problem.
-
I would not force the player to show their hand unless collusion was strongly suspected...in which case you would have heard about it already from the players or it was the reason you were standing at the game. So I see no problem with the ruling.
Tristan,
This is a cash game and any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. How do you tell the dealer to stop the action, prevent the hand in question from being mucked, tell the dealer to call the floor because you suspect there's something shady going on, and then expect to make it through the parking lot to your car after leaving the game! You have got to be kidding. ::) It always thought it rather strange that millions of viewers could see everyone's hole cards on TV...but a player that paid to see the hands, can only do so if collusion is suspected.
I don't like it for tournament poker, and I don't like it (even more) for cash games. :D
Who started challenging? I posted a short, precise answer to the question asked. Collusion is not a non-issue in a cash game. But absent a suspected collusion issue, I think he made the right call.
-
Hi all,as far as i know ,the player who muck his hand at the showdown lost the privilege to see the hand of his opponent , & as i remember that an uncontested hand may not be revealed to the players unless the player want to reveal it .
On the other part, if there is a suspicion of collusion, I think the floor person should be the only one who has the right to see the winning hand.
NB: just in cash games . Ty
-
2 players are left on the river.The 1st player checks and the 2nd player bets, the 1st player calls and the 2nd player instantly mucks straight into the muck pile. The dealer is telling the 1st player who is the ONLY PLAYER left with cards, that he has to show his cards to win the pot. I was standing right next to the table and ruled that he DID NOT have to show his cards unless someone asked to see them. Am I correct??? Another Floor-person is saying that they should show his cards to avoid collusion.
NOTE: I found this post by the "see recent posts" feature, not realizing it is in the cash game category. Comments below are regarding TDA tournament rules on the question. Hopefully it is still of some benefit >
Hi Perro: On the river, player 2 bets and Player 1 calls so by definition the hand is now at showdown so showdown rules apply at this point. The 2013 TDA Rules clearly do not require a single hand to be shown if all other players at showdown have mucked face down. However the rules do make allowance for a specific house rule that does require all winning hands to be shown (such as at the WSOP). Note TDA Rule 16: "....Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down. So if your house rule requires every winning hand to be shown, even when there's no other hand tabled at showdown, then it should be shown. But in the absence of such a rule the general TDA position is that it does not have to be.
Sounds like at the venue you were at there was no established house policy one way or the other so one person wants it shown and the other not shown.
There are a couple twists to this, also accommodated by the latitude of the TDA Rule:
1. You can have a venue (such as the EPT / GPTL) where the winning hand did not automatically have to be shown if nobody else tabled their cards, but another player at showdown can ask to see the hand at which point it must be shown (i.e. it's a right not a privilege to see the hand).
2. Then you can have venues that don't require the hand to be shown and if a player requests it be shown the floor may grant or deny the request (i.e. it is a privilege).
On the asking to see a hand (ATSAH) issue, the Association did agree in 2013 that the only players who have a right OR privilege to ask to see a hand are those who made it to showdown and either tabled their cards before mucking, or retain their cards face down (Rule 18).
As if that's enough to consider, another question is whether hands turned up under these different circumstances are live or not. Some venues are sticking with the "traditional" rule outlined in RRoP on the matter. Others are favoring all hands turned up at showdown, by whatever means or reason, to be live.
All of this is excellent material for TDA Summit VII in 2015 to see if further consensus can be achieved. For the time being I think it's advisable that each house clearly spell out in it's house rules A) which cards a player may ask to see by right (must be shown on request) and which are privileges to see (request may be granted or denied at TD discretion); B) Under what circumstances these cards are live or not; and C) whether the winning hand must always be shown.
-
Hello Mike,
I'm sure you know how I feel about this rule. Coming from the "old school" I can't help but wonder, when and why the rule was ever changed. Paying to see a player's hand has always been a privilege extended to any player at the table. Most often, player's don't care...so the loser surrenders his or her hand, and the next hand is dealt.
The major problems I have with what you've written is; a simple rule that was understood by all, has now become, unclear, confusing, different from casino to casino, and we must inquire as to what the policy is everywhere we play.
I also have a problem with the method that we should use, when a player that has a right to see a called hand, requests to see the winner. How do you propose we accomplish showing only a select player or two? Do we ask the other's to cover their eyes while we show the cards to the "privileged ones only?
It's poker 101...if you bluff and get caught, you should be embarrassed. It goes hand-in-hand with rules of showdown: The last aggressor shows first. If I'm in a hand and Player A raised and was called by six player's, I want to see Player A's hand first. I don't appreciate an out of turn player exposing his winning hand prematurely. This could allow Player A to muck without ever showing his hand. I especially don't like it for tournament poker. It opens too many possibilities for foul play.
What better way, to eliminate any suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown upon request. Oh, there's another issue I have a problem with...asking to see a player's hand because I think he is cheating! ::)
-
Nick: Not sure what "changes" you're talking about.
You reference repeatedly that a player who called the last aggressive bet has a right to see the hand he called. That was actually re-confirmed at Summit VI, including all board members. It just didn't find it's way into a specific TDA rule, as you say that's fairly well-established conventional poker law.
And I don't see what is so unclear and confusing... the TDA hasn't changed anything that I'm aware of, besides perhaps requiring that to ask to see a hand you have to have either tabled your own hand or retain your cards at showdown.
There never was, to my knowledge, a firm rule regarding the "winning" hand... need it be shown if there's nobody else either asking to see it or tabling their hand? If there's a long-standing conventional rule on that somewhere, let me know.
I never suggested that only certain people get to see a hand exposed on request... of course if that request is granted by right or privilege the entire table sees it. That does leave open the question under which circumstances the hand is live or not.
You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise.
If you're in the hand with 6 players who all called the last aggressor, Player A on the final street, you want to see A's hand first. While I understand that, IMO the more well-established poker convention is that ALL hands should be ideally spontaneously tabled at showdown. And it's generally considered bad etiquette to slow-roll a monster hand although IMO at least the monster hand is in the right to hold back and ask to see the hand he called. But back to the ideal showdown: all hands are simultaneously tabled. The "order of show" (last aggressor first) is there for situations where players are reluctant to show their cards. Then the TD can ask for the cards shown starting with last aggressor. This all said, ANY player who called that last aggressor, in the opinion of 99.9% of the Summit VI attendees, has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand they called. The sticky question however is, what if that hand is not in the player's possession at the time a request is made to see it? Is it still live? EVERYONE agrees that if the last aggressor retains his cards and he's asked to show, the hand must be shown and is live, but what if he's mucked it towards the center table?
"I want to see Player A's hand first..." As I read your post you seem to be saying that in every case you want the last aggressors cards exposed. Well, that fits within the house rules exception "... except where house rules require a hand to be shown...". But back to "poker 101", I don't know of a conventional rule that requires the last aggressive hand to be exposed everytime at showdown, even if nobody asks to see it, but if you know of one please link me to it.
"What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it.
Thanks for raising these important questions!
-
Mike,
First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to cover this subject. I will say that this would probably reach more members if it were moved from cash games to tournaments.
When you said: "You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise."
I agree, to a point. The problem that I have with this is: When the aggressor (who was probably bluffing), ditches his cards quickly, says "you win," and quickly ditches his cards. You say this is acceptable...so do I, but if the other player's request to see the mucked aggressors hand, they have the right! That is poker 101.
I also do not understand all cards being tabled simultaneously at the showdown. :o If I bet, and you call, I will show first...If you bet, and I call do not ask me "what do you have?" I promise, you will never see my hand until yours is buried in the muck, or you've shown me your hand first!
Even our TDA rule for all-ins should follow the "standard" procedure for; Order of Showdown.
Your next quote: "What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it."...How can you say; "nobody disputes that?" Every single discussion we have on this forum (regarding showdown) leads to the same arguments. So, once again, we have a controversial subject that; is not universal, and could be corrected by the simple old standard that can be found in Robert's Rules or The LVHRB, Rules of Poker by Chuck Ferry, R.O.P.E. written by our distinguished member Thomas McGee, and on and on.
Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand! That's it! We enforce this rule (the TDA)...but only when an all-in situation exists. I don't get it.
-
Mike,
First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to cover this subject. I will say that this would probably reach more members if it were moved from cash games to tournaments.
When you said: "You say poker 101 is the last aggressor shows first, fair enough, that's the TDA rule (PROVIDING that there was aggressive action on the final street, of course)... however, do players have the option to muck their cards rather than show? The TDA says yes, unless house rules are otherwise."
I agree, to a point. The problem that I have with this is: When the aggressor (who was probably bluffing), ditches his cards quickly, says "you win," and quickly ditches his cards. You say this is acceptable...so do I, but if the other player's request to see the mucked aggressors hand, they have the right! That is poker 101.
Everyone agrees with that. At Summit VI there were EXTENSIVE discussions about all aspects of asking to see hands, what hands are live, what hands must be shown, rights vs. privileges, etc. etc. One of the few things that EVERYONE agrees on is what you said above. It didn't find itself into a rule this year because for one, it's a fairly common conventional rule but more importantly after the dust settled the rule as written was just too cumbersome with rights and privileges and at the end of the day there wasn't super-majority support for which cards are live and which are dead if shown...
Another problem, if the TDA just said "if there is aggressive action on the final street, any player calling the last aggressor has an inalienable right to see his cards on request"... the problem is that might leave the impression that there aren't any other conditions where a player has a right or privilege to ask to see, so it was basically dropped until it can be comprehensively reviewed at Summit VII.
I also do not understand all cards being tabled simultaneously at the showdown. :o If I bet, and you call, I will show first...If you bet, and I call do not ask me "what do you have?" I promise, you will never see my hand until yours is buried in the muck, or you've shown me your hand first!
Even our TDA rule for all-ins should follow the "standard" procedure for; Order of Showdown.
True, but the Order of Showdown really comes into effect if players do not spontaneously table their cards. We don't want to have to go through the order of show every showdown if players are forthcoming on their own.
Your next quote: "What better way to eliminate suspicions than to insist all called hands be shown on request".... this was absolutely confirmed in all the Summit VI tapes on the matter. It just didn't find it's way into the rules but as you say is a long-standing concept that you have a right to see the hand you called... nobody disputes that and there's nothing in the TDA Rules to contradict it."
...How can you say; "nobody disputes that?" Every single discussion we have on this forum (regarding showdown) leads to the same arguments. So, once again, we have a controversial subject that; is not universal, and could be corrected by the simple old standard that can be found in Robert's Rules or The LVHRB, Rules of Poker by Chuck Ferry, R.O.P.E. written by our distinguished member Thomas McGee, and on and on.
Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand! That's it! We enforce this rule (the TDA)...but only when an all-in situation exists. I don't get it.
See above, I don't know anyone who thinks you don't have an inalienable right to see the last aggressive hand if there was action on the final street. That was discussed over and over at Summit VI. If someone is confused about it I don't know why because it's just common sense. As Jack Effel said from the podium "that's information you paid for". It was further confirmed on video that if you play 50 hands in a row and each hand there is action on the river, and you call the last aggressor and each one of those 50 times you ask to see the hand you called, you have the right to see in each of those 50 hands... that's a right not a privilege.
NOW, what isn't so certain is the following situation: A bets on the river and B, C and D call him. At showdown B and C spontaneously table and B has the better hand. A and D then toss their cards face down towards the center table. NOW, if B, who is the presumed winner, asks to see the discarded hand he called (A's hand), most of us would agree the hand is live. But what if C (the tabled losing hand) asks to see the hand he called (A's hand). Well if A retains his cards most of us would agree that A's hand is live. But A didn't retain his cards here... he tossed them. So now C (the loser) asks to see A's discarded cards. Are they live and can they beat B? "Classic" RRoP reads as though they are dead in that situation. However there's a large contingent within the TDA that would like to see ALL HANDS TABLED AT SHOWDOWN BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE LIVE.... We just couldn't reach super-majority consensus on that one at Summit VI, and there were great arguments on both sides.
Yes this thread should probably be moved to tourney board. Will do so shortly.
-
Mike,
There is a specific procedure that dealers are taught to comply with showing of hands at the showdown.
Step by step: The aggressor (or first to act on the checked final round) must show first. This process continues clockwise. When player's have a hand that is beat, they generally muck their cards. They do not keep their cards, they are surrendered to the dealer or released in the direction of the muck. If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!
The exceptions are when a player (not last to act) only calls, hoping for a raise because he has a nut hand. In this situation, it is logical for the nut hand to show first, rather than waste time. However, this does not exclude any player from requesting to see one, or all of the losing hands. I don't know the difference between a right or a privilege, but if a player requests to see a hand at showdown, in for all bets..to me they are entitled!
Tournament poker should offer more protection for all contestants. That's correct, protection...from mucking a winning hand, to chip dumping...or anything that will award the pot to the wrong player! To me, this is inexcusable and can easily be corrected.
The only time we have a guarantee that the "rightful" winner is awarded the pot, is when an all-in player is involved in a hand. Period! Beyond that, with our current methods for showdown procedures, the wrong player's are awarded the pot every day, whether by accident, or (even worse) intentionally.
-
Nick,
They do not keep their cards, they are surrendered to the dealer or released in the direction of the muck. If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck.
Tournament poker should offer more protection for all contestants. That's correct, protection...from mucking a winning hand, to chip dumping...or anything that will award the pot to the wrong player! To me, this is inexcusable and can easily be corrected.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what you are saying.
What if:
There are 4 players in for all bets on the river;
B flips up a straight;
A tosses their cards forward but they do not go into the muck;
C says they want to see A's cards;
Dealer taps A's cards to the muck;
Dealer reveals A's cards;
A has a flush
Would you let A win the pot?
Do you think the dealer should or should not tap the cards to the muck in that situation?
Or are you saying that players should be protected from mucking winning hands in tournaments but not in that situation?
What if the dealer had not tapped them to the muck?
??? ???
To me, it appears you are saying that you prefer the rules to not change because you are from the old school, but you are wanting it to change (further?) by making all cards be exposed. Maybe I'm just reading it all wrong.
-
Tristan,
You missed the important part of the proper procedure. I said: "If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!"
I do like the old rules, for cash games, which is where this thread originated. My concern for tournament poker is different because it affects every single participant and we need a guarantee that the pot goes to the player with the best hand. I'm not a big fan of many that have the twisted belief that "the player should know what he's doing or he shouldn't be playing or, if he can't read his own hand, he has no right to the pot."
-
When player's have a hand that is beat, they generally muck their cards. They do not keep their cards, they are surrendered to the dealer or released in the direction of the muck. If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!
So what you're describing above is basically "classic" RRoP treatment for asking to see a hand. The reason the TDA cannot adopt this is that there is a significant number of members who believe that all cards tabled at showdown, whether by the player, or by request are live. SO, for the moment the TDA does not take a position on it one way or the other.
The exceptions are when a player (not last to act) only calls, hoping for a raise because he has a nut hand. In this situation, it is logical for the nut hand to show first, rather than waste time. However, this does not exclude any player from requesting to see one, or all of the losing hands. I don't know the difference between a right or a privilege, but if a player requests to see a hand at showdown, in for all bets..to me they are entitled!
So you will show the cards upon request everytime, not just based on suspicion of collusion, or based on it being a request to see the last aggressive hand on the river. For you, any player at showdown can ask to see the cards of any other player at showdown and you will grant that request 100% of the time. So that's your house rule, no problem. There certainly are other TDA members who agree with that. But there are those also who feel that endlessly asking to see hands is a potential etiquette violation so they make it a privilege, not an absolute right. Yet others will only allow showing of a non-tabled hand for cause such as suspicion of collusion.
THEN, to compound it, some who agree with you that any hand must always be shown disagree with the idea of tapping it to the muck to kill it if the request is from other than the presumptive winner... they will make ALL cards tabled at showdown live...
So you can see this is an area where more work needs to be done IF POSSIBLE to get a tighter consensus. For the moment each house needs to have it's rules for these areas not yet covered by TDA guidelines.
Tournament poker should offer more protection for all contestants. That's correct, protection...from mucking a winning hand, to chip dumping...or anything that will award the pot to the wrong player! To me, this is inexcusable and can easily be corrected.
The only time we have a guarantee that the "rightful" winner is awarded the pot, is when an all-in player is involved in a hand. Period! Beyond that, with our current methods for showdown procedures, the wrong player's are awarded the pot every day, whether by accident, or (even worse) intentionally.
Keep in mind there's also the school of thought that mis-reading your hand is part of the game. If I misread my hand and muck it face down at showdown, too bad. Remember that famous hand on the final table of the WSOP that Phil Ivey misread... from memory he didn't realize he had a flush and mucked his hand face down when an opponent showed ... a straight was it? Your writing seems to indicate you favor every hand being turned up at showdown every time. And there's definitely a contingent within the TDA that favors that... so this option becomes part of the on-going debate.
-
Allow me to add to this thread my interpretation of what WAS agreed to at Summit VI regarding asking to see a hand, and what cards are live or dead at showdown.
1. To ask to see any hand, you must have either tabled your hand or retain your cards face down at showdown. From TDA 2013, Rule 18.
2. If there is aggressive action on the final street of a hand, the players who call the last aggressor have an absolute right on request to see the hand they called. This was confirmed over and over in the debate at Summit VI. It's not yet been put into a written rule for reasons covered in earlier posts.
3. If the hand that is requested to be shown is still in the possession of it's player, the hand is live if shown. This wasn't extensively discussed at Summit VI, but Jesse Hollander called attention to it from the floor and there was no counter-argument to it. It is classic RRoP and I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with this. It also partially solves the tricky question of whether a hand is live if a tabled losing hand asks to see it... Answer: if the hand is still in possession of the player, it's live. What happens if it's been discarded is one of the areas of disagreement (see below).
4. If the presumptive winner asks to see a hand that has been discarded, that hand is live. This was confirmed in TDA debate at least as far back as 2009 and is also classic RRoP, so again I'm presuming that the vast majority of the Association support it.
EVERYTHING ELSE: whether the winning hand must always be shown even if uncontested, whether other discarded hands other than in 4 above are live or not, whether asking to see a hand other than in 2 above is a guaranteed right or a privilege that can be denied... all those things are matters of house policy for the time being, so far as I understand.
-
Mike,
What I said was "the cards are retained by the dealer until the pot is awarded." Therefore, there is no pot to contest. The player who voluntarily surrendered their hand...already has a dead hand. It is a way to prevent a player from mucking, simply because he doesn't want to show his bluff, or weak hand, or how he plays!
I mention protection for all tournament players. My thoughts: Why allow an undeserving winner, who has suddenly amassed an enormous chip lead, the firepower to eliminate you on the next hand?
The mistake you mention is not possible when a player is all-in, correct? In an all-in situation, all cards must be tabled and the best hand gets the pot. You said "Keep in mind there's also the school of thought that mis-reading your hand is part of the game." If I misread my hand and muck it face down at showdown, too bad. Remember that famous hand during the WSOP that Phil Ivey misread... from memory he didn't realize he had a flush and mucked his hand face down when an opponent showed ... a straight was it? Your writing seems to indicate you favor every hand being turned up at showdown every time. And there's definitely a contingent within the TDA that favors that... so this option becomes part of the on-going debate."
Let's take a deeper look at Phil Ivey's hand. If there were an all-in player in that hand, Phil would have won the hand. Phil would have had more chips and the player that was awarded the pot...should not have! My guess is, it could have had a serious impact on the final outcome.
Now this is another serious issue to consider: Could Phil have intentionally dumped his chips? I would say that based on his integrity, he did no such thing. However, if it were another player this could have easily been the assumption. I might be digging a little too deed here but, I will always be in the "camp" of those that favor the best hand winning, when in for all bets...at least for tournament poker.
Mike, This is one of the problems: You wrote: "If there is aggressive action on the final street of a hand, the players who call the last aggressor have an absolute right on request to see the hand they called. This was confirmed over and over in the debate at Summit VI. It's not yet been put into a written rule for reasons covered in earlier posts.
-
.... yes, and it's not been put into a rule mainly because it is just one piece of the equation. Covering just that one circumstance under asking to see a hand could easily leave the impression that is the only circumstance when there are so many other important possibilities. Better to try and cover it all in one comprehensive rule. Hopefully progress can be made on that in 2015.
-
Tristan,
You missed the important part of the proper procedure. I said: "If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck.
Not true Nick. You didn't read my whole post. I started off with that exact quote from you...I even bolded it! ;)
-
Tristan,
When a player surrenders their hand, the hand should be DEAD. When another player asks to see the hand, the dealer will not turn the hand over until the pot has been awarded. Therefore, there is no pot to contest. However, the hand is still exposed. If the player who is about to receive the pot asks to see the folded hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins. Is that more clear?
-
When a player surrenders their hand, the hand should be DEAD
If the player who is about to receive the pot asks to see the folded hand, both hands are live
Not really! :D
In all seriousness Nick, I am really asking you your opinion.
3 players in the hand at showdown. Player A bet, B and C both called on the river.
Player A surrenders, the cards are forward but not in the muck pile.
Player B shows a straight.
Player C asks to see A's hand before revealing. (For example's sake lets say C has a higher straight)
Does C have the right to ask since they are in for all bets and want to make sure they have all of the info before revealing their hand?
Should the dealer expose A's hand?
If the dealer does and Player A has a flush, who wins the pot?
Should the dealer tap them to the muck and then expose them?
If the dealer taps them to the muck and exposes them and A has a flush does the pot still go to C?
Should they tell Player C no they can't see it?
Should Player C have to expose their hand first?
What are your opinions on these? These are some of the core thoughts behind right vs privilege and I would like to hear what you think.
I know that a lot of this could be prevented by the dealer mucking those cards right away...but in this case they didn't.
-
3 players in the hand at showdown. Player A bet, B and C both called on the river.
Player A surrenders, the cards are forward but not in the muck pile.
Player B shows a straight.
Player C asks to see A's hand before revealing. (For example's sake lets say C has a higher straight)
Does C have the right to ask since they are in for all bets and want to make sure they have all of the info before revealing their hand?
Should the dealer expose A's hand?
If the dealer does and Player A has a flush, who wins the pot?
Should the dealer tap them to the muck and then expose them?
If the dealer taps them to the muck and exposes them and A has a flush does the pot still go to C?
Should they tell Player C no they can't see it?
Should Player C have to expose their hand first?
These are some of the core thoughts behind right vs privilege....
I'd like to hear all opinions on Tristan's example above.... as he says it contains alot of questions related to right vs. privilege, it also includes a sub-plot on two players who called the last aggressor on the river, etc... very good example...
Opinions please...
-
By now, I think most of you know that I am of the school that all cards that are not in the muck should remain live. I never liked this artificial tapping cards to the muck ritual. And I feel it's really artificial to enforce -- a dead hand if someone other than the pot winner asks, live if the pot winner asks (though I can appreciate that this has a basis in tradition).
In my view, I prefer that either you don't allow people to see the exposed hand at all (except at TD's discretion) or you allow players (in the new rule this is limited to players that have exposed their own hand or still have a live hand) to see it if requested and the cards play.
Will the player who thought he won the pot be pissed because someone else who potentially misread their hand ends up winning the pot because the third opponent asked to see the hand? Yes, perhaps. But in a tournament setting, I find it hard to justify giving the pot to a player who I now know does not in fact have the best hand. To protect others in the tournament, I'd rather give the pot to the player with the best hand, and a corresponding (severe) penalty if there's any possibility of chip dumping.
-
Tristan & Mike,
The example Tristan gives is a perfect example of what's wrong with tournament poker rules. In a cash game, at showdown, the dealer would ask Player A to show first. If Player A elects to muck, he may...that's it... the hand is dead! In Tristan's example, Player C has a right to see Player A's hand but, the hand is tapped to the muck and dead...he can only have a live hand if Player B (holding the presumed winner with his straight) asks to see Player A's mucked hand.
There is an obvious difference, (as it should be) between cash and tournament play.
Cash poker allows for player's to throw winning hands away, any time they want!
Tournament poker should protect all of us from any pot ever being awarded to the wrong player, if the best hand is in for all bets!
I don't like the idea that the only player that has to show his hand is the winner...It opens the door for every kind of collusion, and chip dumping imaginable.
Forcing all player's to show their hands at showdown, for tournament poker, is the only answer.
Tristan, if this will help you better follow the point I'm trying to make; The excellent example you gave should be the best argument for showing all hands at showdown in tournaments...there is no issue, no problem, no question about the winner, no thought of chip dumping, and no opportunity for undisclosed collusion. The best hand gets the pot!
One more explanation; in your example, If Player A were all-in...the situation you describe is impossible.
I hope I've explained it better this time. If you need more on dealer procedure in this situation, I'll keep trying.
Thanks for the great example.
I just read Ken's reply and I'd like to say that I do not agree. In cash games, you can muck your hand. When you do...it's dead. In a tournament, we must be allowed to see every called hand at showdown...just the way we do when there's an all-in.
-
I just read Ken's reply and I'd like to say that I do not agree. In cash games, you can muck your hand. When you do...it's dead. In a tournament, we must be allowed to see every called hand at showdown...just the way we do when there's an all-in.
Now I am confused. Nick, I know that you would like all hands at any showdown to be shown, even non-all-ins, and I think Jack Effel would be on your side about that one! I'm not necessarily against that, although that isn't the current rule.
My reply was directed to Mike's/Tristan's question - where he is asking (I think) what should you do under the current rule if a hand that isn't in the muck gets turned over. So my answer is how I feel the current rule should be applied to those situations. Namely, if someone asks to see the hand, and it's not in the muck, the hand should be live (unless you have an overriding forward motion folding rule).
I think you guys need to be clear whether you are talking about how the current rule should be applied, or whether we are simply critiquing problems with the current rule, before others jump into the conversation. :-*
-
Good point. I actually would like to hear both! What you would do currently and how you think it should be. :)
-
I think you guys need to be clear whether you are talking about how the current rule should be applied, or whether we are simply critiquing problems with the current rule, before others jump into the conversation. :-*
For me it's most interesting to discuss individual house policies here because not all of Tristan's example (or any example) is fully covered by TDA at this point.
To summarize Tristan's example: A bets, B and C call, B shows a straight, A releases his cards face down towards center table but still identifiable, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. So this involves alot of issues.
#1: Does C have a right or a privilege to ask to see A's hand. It's not a written TDA rule, but all the dialogue at Summit VI confirms that C has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand he called on the final street, so no debate there. BUT...
#2: A has released his cards, so if they are turned up here are they live or dead? Per RRoP they are clearly dead. [Update / clarify: Dead if C's hand proves to be weaker than B's] ... However, many but not a super-majority of TDA members at Summit VI think all cards tabled at showdown should be live.... The TDA does not take a position on this as of yet. What's is everyone's house rule here?
#3: Add another dimension, what if C has turned up a lesser hand than B? So you have a known loser asking to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor, a hand he has an inalienable right to see... does this affect whether A's hand is live or dead per your house rules? RRoP again is clear that the hand is dead because it was discarded AND being shown at the request of a known loser.
#4: Yet another dimension... it's checked around on the river. So B shows a straight, A discards, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. A was not the last aggressor in this example, so do you show his cards? By right or privilege? If by privilege how do you decide when to and when not to show? Will you accommodate the first few requests then consider it an etiquette violation? Or will you only grant the privilege if you suspect collusion or? Are A's cards live or dead in this variation? What if C had first shown a losing hand then asked to see A's cards, would that make a difference?
So the question is really about how your house fills in the blanks not yet covered by TDA rules on the matter.
-
Mike, This is how I feel these situations should be handled.
You wrote:
"For me it's most interesting to discuss individual house policies here because not all of Tristan's example (or any example) is fully covered by TDA at this point."
To summarize Tristan's example: A bets, B and C call, B shows a straight, A releases his cards face down towards center table but still identifiable, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. So this involves a lot of issues. Any player that releases his or her hand has no right to the pot! If cards were not properly tabled, the hand is dead.
#1: Does C have a right or a privilege to ask to see A's hand. It's not a written TDA rule, but all the dialogue at Summit VI confirms that C has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand he called on the final street, so no debate there. BUT... According to Webster's Dictionary; a privilege is not different from a right. The noun right is described as; that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
#2: A has released his cards, so if they are turned up here are they live or dead? They are not live if they were surrendered by the owner. This is very basic poker...Player's must protect their own hand! Intentionally mucking your hand is the action of a player having no interest in competing for the pot. Per RRoP they are clearly dead. However, many but not a super-majority of TDA members at Summit VI think all cards tabled at showdown should be live.... The TDA does not take a position on this as of yet. What's is everyone's house rule here? In my opinion the TDA is sending mixed signals. We need to clearly define the proper procedure that must be followed at every showdown. Think about our discussion?...currently, we can make any ruling that we want. The hand is ruled dead if surrendered, or it can be deemed live if the TD wants to see it! (I won't even get into who is going to turn over the released hand, that's another sore spot for me).
#3: Add another dimension, what if C has turned up a lesser hand than B? So you have a known loser asking to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor, a hand he has an inalienable right to see... does this affect whether A's hand is live or dead per your house rules? RRoP again is clear that the hand is dead because it was discarded AND being shown at the request of a known loser. The key here is "requests to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor." If Player A did not release his hand, it should be turned over by the owner of the hand. He must turn over the hand, or surrender it to the muck. This is why it is so important for the proper order of showdown to be followed. If Player A releases his hand, the order of showdown commences in clockwise fashion. The dealer will read each exposed hand...muck the loser and award the pot to the winner. At this time, the request to see the mucked hand will be carried out.
#4: Yet another dimension... it's checked around on the river. So B shows a straight, A discards, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. A was not the last aggressor in this example, so do you show his cards? Only if requested, and not until the pot is awarded....On a checked round, Player A is responsible to show first, just as if he initiated a bet. His first action of "check" does not change his obligation of "first to show." The only exception is if there is a house rule that insists on the last aggressor, (from a previous round) acts first. By right or privilege? We are confusing the issue with "right" or "privilege" If by privilege how do you decide when to and when not to show? We must follow "order of showdown." Will you accommodate the first few requests then consider it an etiquette violation? If the same players are obviously abusing their right to see a called hand, that privilege may, and should be taken away from any player deliberately using the request as a form of irritation. Or will you only grant the privilege if you suspect collusion or? I am against asking to see any hand because you suspect collusion. Are A's cards live or dead in this variation? Let's go back to the proper order of showdown. If Player C turned his hand first, the dealer should request that Player A show his hand, If he shows and has the best hand, he wins! If Player B is still in the hand, it now depends on what action Player A takes; If Player A mucks...he loses and his hand will be exposed after Player B takes in the pot. If Player A is in head to head against Player C's losing hand...Player A wins! What if C had first shown a losing hand then asked to see A's cards, would that make a difference? No, as I just explained.
So the question is really about how your house fills in the blanks not yet covered by TDA rules on the matter. Do you realize how easy this is to fix for tournament poker?
-
Mike, This is how I feel these situations should be handled.
You wrote:
"For me it's most interesting to discuss individual house policies here because not all of Tristan's example (or any example) is fully covered by TDA at this point."
To summarize Tristan's example: A bets, B and C call, B shows a straight, A releases his cards face down towards center table but still identifiable, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. So this involves a lot of issues. Any player that releases his or her hand has no right to the pot! If cards were not properly tabled, the hand is dead.
Nick, thanks for taking the time to go through these situations one-by-one.... So it seems from answer above that you have a forward motion / mucking line rule at showdown that says if an untabled hand is released forward at showdown it is instantly dead and even if identifiable it's owner cannot then table it. This is covered by TDA Rule 14-B. Also important, what if when it's my turn to show I still have my cards (but haven't tabled them) BUT I say something acknowledging defeat such as "I fold" or "you win" or "take it", will that also instantly kill my un-tabled hand under your house rules, or can I change my mind and still table my cards in my possession after declaring that my hand is a loser?
#1: Does C have a right or a privilege to ask to see A's hand. It's not a written TDA rule, but all the dialogue at Summit VI confirms that C has an inalienable right to ask to see the hand he called on the final street, so no debate there. BUT... According to Webster's Dictionary; a privilege is not different from a right. The noun right is described as; that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
Okay, so what's being discussed here are two possibilities: a non-revokable or inalienable right, versus a revokable or deniable right that can be granted or denied at TD's discretion (that's what is called a "privilege", though privilege may not be the best term...). So, in this circumstance player C asks to see A's hand, the last aggressive hand on the river. Does C have a non-revokable or revokable right to see the cards under this circumstance at your venue?
#2: A has released his cards, so if they are turned up here are they live or dead? They are not live if they were surrendered by the owner. This is very basic poker...Player's must protect their own hand! Intentionally mucking your hand is the action of a player having no interest in competing for the pot.
So again, you confirm that you have a mucking line or forward motion rule at showdown, yes? Push your non-tabled cards forward and they are instantly dead at your house, even if within reach of the player who otherwise could reach out and table them, yes?
Per RRoP they are clearly dead, [unless Player C has a stronger hand than B]. However, many but not a super-majority of TDA members at Summit VI think all cards tabled at showdown should be live.... The TDA does not take a position on this as of yet. What's is everyone's house rule here? In my opinion the TDA is sending mixed signals. We need to clearly define the proper procedure that must be followed at every showdown. Think about our discussion?...currently, we can make any ruling that we want. The hand is ruled dead if surrendered, or it can be deemed live if the TD wants to see it! (I won't even get into who is going to turn over the released hand, that's another sore spot for me).
Well, currently you can make any ruling that your house rules permit. The TDA does recognize some variance in house rules on the matter of whether forward motion instantly kills a hand, and whether all hands tabled at showdown by whatever means are live, or only certain hands are live. Until a super-majority of the "poker world" comes to a consensus on this, the TDA must recognize these variances, no? It's not the TDA saying "do whatever you want", it's the fact that a consensus has not yet been reached, so until that time house rules still do apply in certain situations, hence this discussion.
#3: Add another dimension, what if C has turned up a lesser hand than B? So you have a known loser asking to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor, a hand he has an inalienable right to see... does this affect whether A's hand is live or dead per your house rules? RRoP again is clear that the hand is dead because it was discarded AND being shown at the request of a known loser. The key here is "requests to see the discarded hand of the last aggressor." If Player A did not release his hand, it should be turned over by the owner of the hand. He must turn over the hand, or surrender it to the muck. This is why it is so important for the proper order of showdown to be followed. If Player A releases his hand, the order of showdown commences in clockwise fashion. The dealer will read each exposed hand...muck the loser and award the pot to the winner. At this time, the request to see the mucked hand will be carried out.
Okay, so per your house rules A's hand is dead in this situation.... What if C turned up a better hand than B, are A's cards still dead or are they live then?
#4: Yet another dimension... it's checked around on the river. So B shows a straight, A discards, and C who retains his cards asks to see A's hand. A was not the last aggressor in this example, so do you show his cards? On a checked round, Player A is responsible to show first, just as if he initiated a bet. His first action of "check" does not change his obligation of "first to show." The only exception is if there is a house rule that insists on the last aggressor, (from a previous round) acts first. By right or privilege? We are confusing the issue with "right" or "privilege" If by privilege how do you decide when to and when not to show? We must follow "order of showdown." Will you accommodate the first few requests then consider it an etiquette violation? If the same players are obviously abusing their right to see a called hand, that privilege may, and should be taken away from any player deliberately using the request as a form of irritation.
Okay, several things here:
i: "...obviously abusing their right to see a called hand..." An inalienable right can't be "abused", you always have it. Whereas a revokable right (which I call a privilege but perhaps that's not the best term) can be denied. If we're talking about a called hand of the last aggressor on the river, do you show that always to any requesting caller, or only if you think they aren't abusing a revokable privilege?
ii: it also seems that your house rule is that for every showdown, the order of show must be followed, rather than permitting spontaneous tabling and mucking, yes?
[/color] Or will you only grant the privilege if you suspect collusion or? I am against asking to see any hand because you suspect collusion.
So under your house rules, it sounds like:
i: even if I called the last aggressor on the river, I don't have an inalienable right to see his cards on request, because if I abuse this request you may deny it...
ii: you won't grant a request to see a hand based on a stated suspicion of collusion...
So the question returns to under what conditions for your house rules does a player have an inalienable (irrevokable) right to see a hand on request, and when do they have only a deniable or revokable privilege at your discretion?
Are A's cards live or dead in this variation? Let's go back to the proper order of showdown. If Player C turned his hand first, the dealer should request that Player A show his hand, If he shows and has the best hand, he wins! If Player B is still in the hand, it now depends on what action Player A takes; If Player A mucks...he loses and his hand will be exposed after Player B takes in the pot.
Okay, so again you have a forward motion rule to kill A's hand, and B (the presumptive winner) didn't ask to see A's hand (C, the loser did), so this is a form of a forward motion rule plus RRoP "if the loser asks to see the discarded hand it is dead")...
BUT, what if C, the requesting player, has a better hand than B.... A has mucked.... and after you push the pot towards C you discover that A had a better hand than C... do you still award to C because A voluntarily discarded his hand? OR do you award to A because C (the presumptive winner) asked to see A's discarded hand and it's live if the presumptive winner asks to see it?
Here's my summary understanding of your house rules, LMK if the following is accurate:
1. Every showdown should follow the order of show. Each player in turn may choose to table or to discard. IF they discard, their hand is immediately dead by forward motion.
2. If any player at the showdown asks to see a discarded hand, the house may or may not grant the request. The house reserves the right to deny any request, including the request by a player who called the discarded hand of the last aggressor on the river.
3. The only live cards at showdown are cards tabled in turn, by their owners, during the order of show.
Is that an accurate summary or?
-
Mike,
Let's start by looking at our own TDA rules:
Pots / Showdown
12: Declarations. Cards Speak at Showdown
Cards speak to determine the winner. Verbal declarations of hand value are not binding at
showdown. However, deliberately miscalling a hand may be penalized. Any player, in the hand
or not, should speak up if he thinks a mistake is being made in the reading of hands.
13: Tabling Cards & Killing Winning Hand
A: At showdown, a player should put all cards on the table so the dealer and players can read
the hand clearly. “All cards” means both hole cards in holdem, all 4 hole cards in Omaha, all 7
cards in 7-stud, etc. I would prefer using the word "must" put all cards on the table....but the message is very clear to me. Dealers cannot kill a hand that was tabled and obviously the winning hand.The hand we speak of was not tabled...a clear violation of our rules. © Copyright 2013: All Rights Reserved, Poker Tournament Directors Association. See use policy at http://PokerTDA.com.
B: If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his
own risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules that the hand could not clearly
be read, the player has no claim to the pot. The TDs decision on whether a hand was
sufficiently tabled is final. Different situation, but not tabled at all.
14: Live Cards at Showdown
A: If the house does not have a mucking line or forward motion rule at showdown, pushing nontabled cards forward face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind
and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. However, the cards are at risk of being
killed by the dealer when he pushes them into the muckpile. Two points of interest: #1 There is a definite need for a muck line, and #2 The dealer should kill any hand surrendered by the owner of the hand unless another player requests to see the hand. I've explained the proper procedure, so I won't repeat it.
B: If a mucking line or forward motion rule is in effect at showdown, house standards apply.
15: Face Up for All-Ins
All cards will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other
players in the hand is complete. See Illustration Addendum. I like the idea of all cards being tabled but, I don't like the standard order of showdown is not enforced.
16: Showdown Order
In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order
of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If
there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round
must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low
hand showing in razz, etc.). This is perfect! We need to enforce our own rule. Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the
order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down.This part is unacceptable to me. How can we protect players from collusion and chip dumping, if player's can muck at will? Knowing that their hand may be exposed upon request, is the best way to assure the rightful winner is awarded the pot. Tournament poker is not the time to allow the wrong player, in for all bets, to get the pot!
17: Playing the Board at Showdown
When playing the board a player must table all hole cards in order to get part of the pot.
18: Asking to See a Hand
Players not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down at showdown without fully tabling their hand lose any rights to ask to see a hand. Not sure I understand what this is trying to tell me. If you are not in possession of your hand, you have mucked! ??? Why would you muck without seeing a better hand first? This rule also implies that I may see any player's hand, as long as I still posses mine, or have properly tabled mine prior to mucking.
One more important question that everyone keeps avoiding...please tell me, if insisting all player's table their cards at showdown, wouldn't be the best solution?
-
Nick, thanks. So to repeat from prior post, here's my summary understanding of your current house rules:
1. Every showdown should follow the order of show. Each player in turn may choose to table or to discard. IF they discard, their hand is immediately dead by forward motion.
2. If any player at the showdown asks to see a discarded hand, the house may or may not grant the request. The house reserves the right to deny any request, including the request by a player who called the discarded hand of the last aggressor on the river.
3. The only live cards at showdown are cards tabled in turn, by their owners, during the order of show.
***** If the above is reasonably accurate, then IMO none of this is a flagrant violation of TDA rules as currently written:
1. Your first rule is consistent with TDA 14-B, for venues using a mucking line at showdown...
2. You consider ALL requests to see a hand to be a revokable privilege, again 100% permissible under implications of Rule 18.
3. Is again consistent with TDA 14-B...
I assume that you do not allow players who have discarded their hands at showdown without tabling them to ask to see any hand (TDA Rule 18)....
So, as far as I can tell your house rules are not in conflict with TDA rules regarding showdown... you do enforce order of show everytime, which is TD's right to enforce order of show (Rule 16), you do it a bit more frequently than other venues, but still not out of line with Rule 16...
*************
It's also not 100% clear to me whether any discarded hand which is subsequently shown by request is ever live per your house rules. You indicate the procedure for a discarded hand is to hold it to the side, award the pot to the best tabled hand, THEN reveal the discarded hand. What if the person asking to see the hand was the presumptive winner? Is the discarded hand then live or does it remain dead since you've already the pot? And do you allow the "winner" to pull in the pot and merge it with his chipstack before revealing the cards?
What if the person asking to see the hand was not the presumptive winner?
*************
Lastly, you would like to see the tournament poker world come to agreement that ALL hands reaching showdown will be tabled, which would dispense with alot of these other issues. That may be a ways off, if ever, so in the mean time we have to find agreement where we can, and allow houses enough latitude to work their own rules as long as they are not in flagrant conflict with anything specified in TDA...
Note that again, this disparity of procedures is not coming from the TDA, but from the poker world itself where different houses cling to their different ways of doing certain things and have not yet found super-majority consensus. But we can and should keep working on it to find agreement where possible.
Thanks again for outlining your recommendations.
-
Mike,
I will copy and paste what I wrote earlier. I don't know how to say it any better than this:
You missed the important part of the proper procedure. I said: "If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!"
I do like the old rules, for cash games, which is where this thread originated. My concern for tournament poker is different because it affects every single participant and we need a guarantee that the pot goes to the player with the best hand. I'm not a big fan of many that have the twisted belief that "the player should know what he's doing or he shouldn't be playing or, if he can't read his own hand, he has no right to the pot."
Somehow, I don't feel that I'm in compliance with the TDA rules. I don't see it that way, and I don't care for the TDA showdown rules at all. I believe every player has the right to see every called hand at showdown...that's it. You should not be allowed to ditch your hand, if another player requests to see it...they PAID to see it. I don't like the idea that I might have to suspect collusion before I can ask to see a called hand.
Once again, my comparison to all-in situations is ignored. That's all I have on this subject. Change is needed.
-
I said: "If another player requests to see the discarded hand...the dealer should kill the hand by touching it to the muck. The cards are retained until the pot has been awarded to the winner, and then the cards are shown. In the event, the winner of the hand requests to see an opponents mucked hand, both hands are live and the best hand wins!"
Nick, great, this clarifies your CURRENT house rules further and I did miss it the first time around, of course there is ALOT of material to wade through. So here's how I understand your current house rules at this point:
1. Every showdown should follow the order of show. Each player in turn may choose to table or to discard. IF they discard, their hand is immediately dead by forward motion. The ONLY way the hand may be revived is covered in 3 below.
2. If any player at the showdown asks to see a discarded hand, the house may or may not grant the request. The house reserves the right to deny any request, including the request by a player who called the discarded hand of the last aggressor on the river.
3. If a request to see a discarded hand is granted, the cards will be set aside, once the pot winner among the remaining players is determined, THEN the discards will be shown. If the pot winner asked to see them, the discards are now live. If any other player asked, the discards are dead.
NOW, does that cover your CURRENT house rules ? Or is there anything else to add, or is any part of the above wrong?
********************
NEXT, I'm hearing that you would like to switch these rules to require all hands to be shown at every showdown. Fair enough, of course that is a complete departure from the first set of your house rules above. Is one set for cash games and another for tournaments?
If you were to institute a required showing of all hands reaching showdown, then you would be covered under TDA Rule 16 "...Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down." So your house policy would simply be to require ALL hands to be tabled during the showdown, fair enough. That subject was broached at Summit VI, it will be interesting to see if enough consensus has developed by Summit VII to adopt it.
Nick's done a great job of presenting his views.... Would anyone else like to step up and present their house rules related to Tristan's example?
-
Here's my house policies on the subject of this thread... btw, my policies aren't one bit better than anyone elses, but they are what I enforce based on my sense of the best interest of the game, traditions of the game, players preferences, and the specific rules cited. I truly believe that there are philosophical differences in this area that may not ever be 100% resolved .... and therefore they will become part of the corners of the large tent of the TDA.... At this point there is no super-majority consensus on SOME of these issues, I accept that and in the mean time:
1. At showdown, ALL PLAYERS are encouraged to spontaneously table their cards for all to read.
2. If nobody tables, then the order of show will be enforced per TDA Rule 16
3. I do not use a mucking line / forward motion kill at showdown (so I'm TDA Rule 14-A not B). If you choose to release your non-tabled cards towards the center table, they are killed when the dealer buries them in the muck (which dealers are instructed to do promptly). "I don't want you arm-wrestling with the dealer" (have to credit Jack Effel for that great quote) but technically if you change your mind and can still reach and table your cards, I will consider them live. But this is 100% at your risk, I'm not looking to protect any player who has tossed his cards (see 7 below).
4. I do not honor any verbal declaration at showdown. Saying "I fold" or any other words or gestures of capitulation has no meaning at showdown, only cards speaking for themselves matters. This is my use of TDA Rule 12, though some may not take it quite that far, I respect that. I'm an unapologetic absolutist on cards reading for themselves.
I do not want to be required to decipher what some "utterance" at showdown means. It's enough of a challenge to read the cards right. If I do that, nobody should complain.
5. The only player with a 100% inalienable right to see any hand on request is a player asking to see the last aggressor on the final street. To do so, that player must have either tabled his cards or retain them face down at time of request (TDA Rule 18). I will grant this request 100 times out of 100 requests (Summit VI: 99.9% agreement though no rule written). If the hand is still in possession of the bettor, then the hand is live regardless of who asks. If the hand has been discarded then it is live if the requesting player holds the best hand among the remaining players, otherwise it is dead. RRoP, see below.
6. Any other request to see a hand will be granted at my sole discretion (TDA Rule 18). The requesting player must either have tabled his hand or retained his cards face down (TDA Rule 18). I tend to respect a player's wishes to muck his hand face down (except in 5 above), so unless there's suspicion of collusion or some other best interest of the game involved, I tend to not honor the request. IF HONORED, again if the cards are still in the players possession they are always live. If they have been discarded then if the best remaining hand requests it, the cards are live, otherwise they are dead. RRoP see below
7. Players playing games or trying to shoot angles with my rules do so at their own peril. The play of hands is the place for gamesmanship, not the showdown. Dealers are encouraged to take control at showdown. [ A rule I would love to see !!!!! Been hoping for something along those lines since the DeWolfe v. Reinkemeir fiasco :) ]
Note Re RRoP: My house policies are strongly influenced by, but not identical to RRoP Version 11, Section 3, General rules, Showdown sub-section, paragraph 5. The main difference being I don't consider requests to see a hand from anyone other than players fitting TDA 18 whereas RRoP grants it to "any player who has been dealt in". RRoP also does not distinguish between asking to see the last aggressive hand on the river vs. any hand. Per TDA Summit VI, asking to see the last aggressor's hand on the river should always be granted... but there is disagreement whether it's always live or not. Per my house policy, if it's still in the player's possession or if it's been discarded and the presumptive winner asks to see it's live, otherwise dead.
-
Mike,
First of all...I want to thank you for all the time you spent on this important subject. I will now try to condense what I'd like to see for tournament poker.
#1 I would like to see all cards (of active players) tabled at showdown. The way the TDA rules for all-in's at showdown
#2 Last aggressor, or first to check final betting round must show first, this order of show will begin immediately, there will be no stalling. There is no option to muck without showing your called hand.
If the above rules are not adopted;
I would at least request that any player (dealt in that hand) be allowed to see any player's hand...upon request.
Now, to answer your questions:
1. Every showdown should follow the order of show. Each player in turn may choose to table or to discard. Under current rules (allowing the option to fold), if they discard, yes...their hand is dead. IF they discard, their hand is immediately dead by forward motion. The ONLY way the hand may be revived is covered in 3 below. We can make a case for the player that is quick enough to retrieve his hand before the dealer muck's it. Remember, we are not making reference to a hand that was properly tabled, the hand was voluntarily surrendered by the owner and he should have no redress if his hand is dead! This is very rare, however. Most player's do not release the winning hand, they are quick to attempt to muck just because they don't want to; expose their bluff, or poor play, or give too much information, etc., etc.
2. If any player at the showdown asks to see a discarded hand, the house may or may not grant the request. Not really, I would allow every request to see any hand as long as the player involved is not using his right as a form of irritation. The house reserves the right to deny any request, including the request by a player who called the discarded hand of the last aggressor on the river. I've read this sentence 5 times, and I'm getting tongue tied trying to decipher it's content. :P I will say, the house should always be allowed to have the final say, on any decision. However, my idea of a reason to deny the request is; when a player (usually involved in prior confrontations with a specific player), tells the dealer that he wants to see every single called hand that "Jason" is involved in. This is usually done in anger, and probably because Jason asked to see his hand. I hope you can follow this because it is actually very common. In fact, the right to ask to see a called hand has been taken away from player's in one of our local casino's.
3. If a request to see a discarded hand is granted, the cards will be set aside, Yes, but touched to the muck first once the pot winner among the remaining players is determined, THEN the discards will be shown. If the pot winner asked to see them, the discards are now live. Yes If any other player asked, the discards are dead. Yes.
-
Hello again. Mike, I'll copy your opening statement from your most recent post:
Here's my house policies on the subject of this thread... btw, my policies aren't one bit better than anyone elses, but they are what I enforce based on my sense of the best interest of the game, traditions of the game, players preferences, and the specific rules cited. This is interesting...I'm sure that the most experienced player's or the celebrity player's will have a much greater impact on your decision making. Meanwhile, the newer player's are left in the dark (so to speak). I guess it's part of the beginners syndrome they will have to deal with...kind of like an initiation, until they become seasoned and respected at the tables. I truly believe that there are philosophical differences in this area that may not ever be 100% resolved .... and therefore they will become part of the corners of the large tent of the TDA.... At this point there is no super-majority consensus on SOME of these issues, I accept that and in the mean time:
Mike, can you agree (without making any commitment, or implying that you would approve), that insisting all cards be tabled at showdown would solve all of these issues?
#1 There would be no argument over cards not being shown... because they MUST.
#2 We would never have to worry about the wrong player getting the pot!
#3 All suspicion of collusion would be eliminated.
#4 Chip dumping would be eliminated.
#5 Tournament director's and Floorpersons would be spared making any calls that might be unpopular, or inconsistent.
#6 Dealers will have the authority to insist all cards are tabled, preventing any player from an attempted muck.
We must agree, assuring the rightful winner gets the pot, is certainly in the best interest of the game...isn't it?
-
Obviously it would solve all those. But it would also fundamentally change the game, IMO.
1: Just speaking as a player, I don't like to be forced to show my hand at showdown if I choose to muck it; unless of course I was the last aggressive bettor on the river in which case I understand that my bet was called. I think the vast majority of players feel this same way. I know we would all like to see everyone's hand, but in general we don't want to show ours.
2: It also changes the factor of mis-reading your hand. While I do in general want the best hand to win I believe that being able to read your own hand is a virtue in the game and if someone fails at that and mucks a winner that is part of the game.
3: It would definitely slow the game down
So it's a matter of weighing the costs and the benefits of any rule. For the reasons above, 1 being most important to me, I personally don't favor a switch. This is also an area that would require alot of player support to put through I think... but to the question, yes it would resolve alot of stuff.
-
Mike,
I'm going to quote you again, and then high-lite my response, again.
1: Just speaking as a player, I don't like to be forced to show my hand at showdown if I choose to muck it; unless of course I was the last aggressive bettor on the river in which case I understand that my bet was called. I think the vast majority of players feel this same way. I know we would all like to see everyone's hand, but in general we don't want to show ours. Too bad! You bet, you show...that's poker! I'm going to try this one more time. Can you explain why we insist on exposing all hands at showdown, only when a player is all-in?
2: It also changes the factor of mis-reading your hand. While I do in general want the best hand to win I believe that being able to read your own hand is a virtue in the game and if someone fails at that and mucks a winner that is part of the game. Mike, that's fine for cash games...but not for tournaments. How can we, in good conscience, think that awarding the pot to any player, other than the winner, would be in the best interest of the game?
3: It would definitely slow the game down. On the contrary, we've had this discussion on other threads and insisting all cards are tabled in showdown order, will prevent a lot of the stalling tactics that we see in every tournament.
So it's a matter of weighing the costs and the benefits of any rule. For the reasons above, 1 being most important to me, I personally don't favor a switch. This is also an area that would require alot of player support to put through I think... but to the question, yes it would resolve alot of stuff.
Obviously it would solve all those. On this, I rest my case!;D But it would also fundamentally change the game, IMO.
-
Mike,
I'm going to quote you again, and then high-lite my response, again.
1: Just speaking as a player, I don't like to be forced to show my hand at showdown if I choose to muck it; unless of course I was the last aggressive bettor on the river in which case I understand that my bet was called. I think the vast majority of players feel this same way. I know we would all like to see everyone's hand, but in general we don't want to show ours. Too bad! You bet, you show...that's poker! But what if you CALL do you have to show? That's not poker... yet anyway..... I'm going to try this one more time. Can you explain why we insist on exposing all hands at showdown, only when a player is all-in?
There's more on the line, much more, i.e. a tournament life.
2: It also changes the factor of mis-reading your hand. While I do in general want the best hand to win I believe that being able to read your own hand is a virtue in the game and if someone fails at that and mucks a winner that is part of the game. Mike, that's fine for cash games...but not for tournaments. How can we, in good conscience, think that awarding the pot to any player, other than the winner, would be in the best interest of the game? "Other than the winner"... well, part of being a winner is being able to read your cards, and also to withhold information from players. Switching to this proposal would remove that....
3: It would definitely slow the game down. On the contrary, we've had this discussion on other threads and insisting all cards are tabled in showdown order, will prevent a lot of the stalling tactics that we see in every tournament. well you'll have plenty of disagreement on that one
So it's a matter of weighing the costs and the benefits of any rule. For the reasons above, 1 being most important to me, I personally don't favor a switch. This is also an area that would require alot of player support to put through I think... but to the question, yes it would resolve alot of stuff.
Neil Johnson at Summit VI pretty well summed up the popularity this rule would have with players "... if I could get even one player to agree to it..."