Raising and going away from the table with action pending

[MrPick80]

this is another unusual situation:
Player A is chipleader of the table, raise 250K (not All-in) and is going away from the table. Player B call all-in 90K. What is decision to make?

[MikeB]

Per 2013 TDA Rule 30: A player must remain at the table (whether he's all-in or not) as long as betting action remains on the hand. Player A should not leave the table while B is contemplating his bet.

[MrPick80]

Player A is going away before any player make any action. He must pay 90k (all in of player b) without playing the hand? 
Any other suggestions?

[MikeB]

Player A has bet, and has B's 90 all-in covered... so A's hand isn't dead. But A may be penalized for leaving the table.

[K-Lo]

Player A has bet, and has B's 90 all-in covered... so A's hand isn't dead. But A may be penalized for leaving the table.

Agreed. Who are these people who just take off in the middle of a hand and why isn't the dealer trying to stop them?

[BillM16]

I agree with MikeB and K-Lo.  Player A is in violation of #30 but still has a live hand.  He is denying the remaining players the opportunity to get a read on him while sitting at the table.  Interestingly, he is also failing to protect his hand.  As has been discussed in the forum on other occasions, merely placing a card protector on your cards is not necessarily considered protection. 

[Nick C]

I also agree...I don't know about you but if I'm all-in, I'm hanging onto my cards for dear life! There's no way I'm going to leave my hand unprotected!

[MikeB]

Player A is in violation of #30 but still has a live hand.  He is denying the remaining players the opportunity to get a read on him while sitting at the table. 

This is an important unstated rationale of rule 30, but the association has not found agreeable language for including it. Twice "must remain at the table and face his opponents" has been shot down. Not the best language, but it addresses the idea

 ... perhaps something like > "Leaving the table is incompatible with protecting hands, following the action, and allowing active players to observe one another"

Thoughts?

[Uniden32]

I don't think it's something that needs to be addressed by the TDA to be honest.

Any televised final table will have people walking away from the table when they're all in to go be with the rail crowd.

[Nick C]

I agree with Uniden...not a good rule for poker. There are far too many great players that have emerged from online poker. I doubt staring at a player, or watching him squirm helped them in any way.   Being seated is mandatory to protect your hand. That should be good enough.

[Nick C]

We are almost always discussing hold'em or Omaha, but in stud, hole cards are considered "protected" by the up cards. Making a rule, that insists on active players remaining in their seats during the showdown. This is when I'd support "at your seat" 

Just thinking out loud!

[BillM16]

The rule is very clear and I cannot think of anything to add that would have a chance of passing a majority.  Unless Player A makes this move often he is unlikely to be penalized and probably never if the camera is rolling.  His actions are louder than anything that Player B could observe had Player A remained sitting calmly at the table.  In a tournament Player A can count on his hand being tabled whether or not he is in his seat.  If he has a protector on his cards, it is hightly unlikely that his hand will be mucked.  He's putting Player B to a very tough decision while grand standing.  Player B could have the floor called to evaluate the situation regarding #30 while he is making what could be his final decision.  But, unless he calls Player A bet with his all-in move and wins the pot, that would probably have little to do with the future actions of Player A.

[Nick C]

Bill,

 How can you say the rule is very clear and then say that unless Player A makes his move often he is unlikely to be penalized? He left the table before Player B went all-in. I will assume the action was head to head. After the all-in, Player A gets 160K returned to him and the cards must be tabled, correct? Who tables Player A's cards if he does not return immediately? Don't tell me it's the dealer, because no dealer should ever turn over a players cards.

 Forget that bull about "He is denying the remaining players the opportunity to get a read on him while sitting at the table."  I see player's wearing costumes to hide their eyes and their beating hearts! Now that's something for discussion.

 If you leave the table, with action pending, you indicate a lack of interest in the game! You should be penalized just to discourage the same from becoming a regular occurrence.
Isn't that the purpose of TDA #30? Let's look at it again: A Player with a live hand must remain at the table. Why not just say: A player with a live hand must remain at the table until the showdown is complete!

[MikeB]

Forget that bull about "He is denying the remaining players the opportunity to get a read on him while sitting at the table."  I see player's wearing costumes to hide their eyes and their beating hearts! Now that's something for discussion.

Sorry, it may be bull to you, but most players would prefer contemplating a bet against a player present at the table rather than one who is nowhere to be seen.

Why not just say: A player with a live hand must remain at the table until the showdown is complete!

That is what the new language reads.

[BillM16]

Who tables Player A's cards if he does not return immediately? Don't tell me it's the dealer, because no dealer should ever turn over a players cards.

I'm pretty sure Player A would return after the action is complete.  But still, to provide a couple answers to your question please see: 
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director3/player_leaves_table_when_all_in