Author Topic: Can anyone explain why TDA Rule #16 about All-in at showdown defies regular deal  (Read 5416 times)

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
But Bobs 7. rule says nothing about tableing cards.
Itīs just about the order to award the pots.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Steff,
 Really? Side pots are awarded in the reverse order that they are created. Can you agree with that? The main pot that the all-in player is contesting is decided last. You can handle it any way you'd like, but I can assure you the first time a side-pot winner prematurely mucks because they see a hand that has theirs beat you will remember Robert's Rules. Thanks for keeping this alive! :)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
But Bobs 7. rule says nothing about tableing cards.
Itīs just about the order to award the pots.

You are correct Steff.

According to TDA Rules, when there is an all-in player and all betting action is complete, the first obligation is to table all cards of all players remaining in the hand.  Once the hands have been tabled, the dealer can award the pots as described in RRoP.  For each pot, the dealer mucks the losing hands and awards the winning hands.  The dealer cannot muck a winning hand that was properly tabled.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 11:04:29 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,

 I know how to read and I understand what the TDA rule states. Is it okay if I don't agree with it? I'd really like to see you in action with the TDA method when there are three or four side pots. Leave it the way it is...it's perfect!

Boris

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Hey guys,

I'm digging this up because I don't understand how you made a such simple thing so complex.

3 players All-in, Main Pot & Side pot built in a identifiable way, no more action.
Dealer : "Showdown, all hands please"
All cards tabled
Dealer : "For the side pot, Player 1 wins with 3 of a kind, for the Main pot, Player 2 wins with straight 9 high"
Dealer mucks losing hand.
Dealer awards the side pot then mucks the hand
Dealer awards the main pot then mucks the hand
Wash, Riffle


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Hi, Boris

 I believe the face up for all in's is specifically intended for players going all-in on an early street. Post flop, two players...Player A goes all-in Player B calls. Both players' cards should be tabled before the deal continues.
 Yes, your answer would work if it were that simple. I don't want to rehash what's been covered over and over again...but I will. ;) The correct way to decide the winner at showdown is to decide the last side-pot created first. Why show any cards that have nothing to do with the pot they are not competing for? Eventually, all cards must be tabled.

Boris

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Hey Nick,

I understand the need of clarification while all hands are tabled but it is the dealer's job to identify which hand/player qualifies for each pot and this whatever the street is when action is over.
We do this in every possible game even in Omaha 6 cards. So yes it can be confusing for the dealer at start, but that's why dealers need to understand the game they are dealing.

The example I gave suits the side pot awards order and complies with TDA regulations.
I remember the times when PokerStars were doing table tests to enter the EPT Team. As dealer you had to identify a winning Texas Hold'em hand between 6 tabled hands while you were dealing and building the pots with the pressure of not being able to join the team if you fail =)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Boris
 I agree that a dealer should be in control and they must know who has the best hand for each pot. I was a dealer for many years and an instructor as well. My simple reasoning for showdown rules, whenever there are one or more side pots, is this. There are too many instances when players are not paying attention that they release their hand into the muck when they see a hand exposed that has them beat. It's like a knee-jerk reaction. I've actually had multiple players muck when they shouldn't have because the side pot winner had them beat. I don't know how else to explain it. Can you give me one good reason why you need to see the all-in players hand before seeing the side pot winners? If the all-in can't beat the side pot, he or she can't win anyway! I'm done with this topic. I've been trying to reason with this rule for about 10 years. I will continue to train new dealers the right way until someone can convince me otherwise. If your reasoning is to be certain that the all-in can't surrender his hand without showing it, that's fine. However, it should be shown after the side pots have been awarded.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Having the rule does a couple things.

1 - When there is any question or hesitation, a dealer can correctly state that every hand must be exposed. It's much simpler than saying, OK, you two first, etc., and avoids the accidental muck problem.

2 - Even when everyone is prompted to show, there are slight delays. During that delay, a side-pot player might see an all-in player's better hand and fold their hand, even though they might have won the side pot. Because of the rule, the dealer can correctly try to prevent the folded cards from mixing with the muck pile and becoming unidentifiable.

3 - If mucked cards do become unidentifiable, and the player then complains about it, the floor person can say "That's why you should follow the dealer's instructions / know the rules."
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
Having the rule does a couple things.

While I agree with what Dave said in 1, 2, & 3, lets not forget the All-In aspect of this rule.  As Mike B. said earlier:

The explanation is this...

When a "tournament life" is on the line, all players in the event have an interest in the outcome of the hand. We want to make sure:

A. That the all-in hand is tabled so that if it truly wins, it is not mucked by mistake and the player knocked out of the event.

B. That all competing hands are also tabled so that a hand that might beat the all-in hand is not mucked in error. Also that no collusion occurs where a better hand is deliberately mucked so the all-in can remain in the event.

Regarding a side pot, consider this situation: 2 hands are competing for the side pot, Player A tables trips and Player B mistakenly mucks a flush face down. Then for the main pot, Player C tables a straight and beats Player A's trips. However, if all hands were required to be tabled, Player C would be knocked out by B's flush.

Hope this helps.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
I'm afraid this issue will never be resolved. I will paste David Millers example
2 - Even when everyone is prompted to show, there are slight delays. During that delay, a side-pot player might see an all-in player's better hand and fold their hand, even though they might have won the side pot. Because of the rule, the dealer can correctly try to prevent the folded cards from mixing with the muck pile and becoming unidentifiable.

 If you hold off on exposing the hand that's not contesting that side pot, the problem you speak of can never happen! I'm done with this subject. I've been doing it my way for 60 years and nobody ever conceded their winning hand to an all-in player not contesting a side pot they didn't pay to compete in. It's very easy for any dealer to prevent an all-in player from prematurely mucking...They can't...they have to show.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Does this make anything clearer? I understand the procedure but the rule can only cause confusion. It goes against every showdown procedure for all-ins that I've ever heard of, or taught, or learned when I went to poker dealing school many years ago. This TDA rule can only create a situation that could induce a player, holding a winning side pot hand, to muck by mistake. Make a rule that demands the all-in must always show their hand to preserve the integrity of the game...however, it should be shown when the pot they are contesting is being decided. That is the only way that makes any sense at all.




BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
If you hold off on exposing the hand that's not contesting that side pot, the problem you speak of can never happen!

This statement is obviously false.  It is also the most important point of the rule.  The crux of the rule is really quite simple:  A hand that is properly tabled cannot be killed if it is a winner. So, table all hands at showdown when there is an all-in player. Those hands cannot be killed when they are a winner of any part of the pot. 

The exact opposite of the above quoted statement occurs.  Any hand that is not properly tabled can easily be discarded by a player or errant dealer.  It is blatantly false to declare it can never happen.  To the contrary, it does happen and often enough that a majority of voting TDA members around the world have decided upon this very rule as a measure to prevent the undesirable consequences of errant dealers and players that muck winning hands that have not been properly tabled.

Of course, not all TDA members agree. 
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 10:03:42 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3295
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
If you play out all of the scenarios we have discussed you will have a better understanding of what I'm saying. I guess we will have to disagree on this one.