Author Topic: Question about rule #23  (Read 18061 times)

pokerfish

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 93
    • cardplayercruises.com
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2009, 03:24:59 PM »
This actually is an interesting scenario as it gives an opportunity for chip dumping... If I know that a player is doing this, I will see if his hand is the winner and if he wins the pot but has left, perhaps take the chips out of play and caution him the next time he plays in an event. If you aren't there for the entire event, please don't enter. This type of play isn't fair to the players. Also, if someone calls off their chips with no hand, no draw, and no potential to backdoor something or have a high card, I likely would have a chat with them before they play again. This is unfair movement of the chips and especially if he has a relationship to the recipient of the chips. Even if it is random, it should not be allowed.
My 2c
Jan Fisher
Cardplayercruises.comhttp://
Jan Fisher
TDA - Board of Directors
http://www.cardplayercruises.com

madkiwi9

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2010, 03:41:43 AM »
The senario presented is a VERY easy one in my book.

Rule No1 the spirit of the game!
Player A in this case is all in for his tornament life, he hasn't left the area but he has stood up from his seat - he's nervous! only a TD who has never played the game would censure him in this case!
Has his standing up in this case caused an adverse effect by delaying the game, he's all in so NO, has it disrupted other players at the table - if anything it gives player B be an advantage by leaving him in peace to decide, so again NO!

In my mind this particular case is easy!

Often when players go all in they stand up! TV or no TV.
Russell Miller
Southern Cross Poker

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2010, 12:16:11 PM »
The senario presented is a VERY easy one in my book.

Rule No1 the spirit of the game!
Player A in this case is all in for his tornament life, he hasn't left the area but he has stood up from his seat - he's nervous! only a TD who has never played the game would censure him in this case!
Has his standing up in this case caused an adverse effect by delaying the game, he's all in so NO, has it disrupted other players at the table - if anything it gives player B be an advantage by leaving him in peace to decide, so again NO!

In my mind this particular case is easy!

Often when players go all in they stand up! TV or no TV.


Rule 23 does NOT require the player to be seated, only that he/she be 'at the table'.  I have no problem with players who stand in an all-in situation.  I have a problem with players who leave the table and are not present if and when the action is back on them. 

madkiwi9

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2010, 04:48:21 PM »
What consitutes "at the table", going to the bathroom does not, i'm assuming that the rail is close, so that he can open his cards.

My strongest belief is that the spirit of the game is the most important rule!

Rules are made to ensure a fair game is played but if missused can destroy a game "poker, football, nfl etc..." doesn't matter what the sport but a fair/good umpire or ref is one who understands from the inside out and NOT the outside in!

I believe my success comes from the fact that i started this game as a player and got sick of the inconsistancies and "liberal" interpretations that were made to suit....

Every question that is asked has many senarios and each one has a slightly different outcome, the one asked here is simple (in my mind) but add a slight veriation and the answer may be very different!

yes i believe and know my views are strong however.....!!!!! they are moveable!!


Russell Miller
Southern Cross Poker

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2010, 06:22:31 PM »
Hello to all

   I actually thought that I was responding and sticking my "two cents in," too much. I can't help it I'm getting addicted to this forum. A couple interesting issues; If a player has one minute to respond after being put on the clock, then maybe we can insist that a player that acts on their hand and walks away must return to their seat within the same timeframe. As far as turning over the cards of an absent player, unthinkable! A good dealer is trained to never expose a hand that is face down on the table, unless it is at the explicit request of the owner of the hand (who is absent), or at the request of the would be winner of the hand. I think that these celebrity players, with TV cameras rolling, have bent the rules a little too much. It's kind of like trying to impose executive priveledge on us mortals. Nixon and Clinton tried and lost, maybe we need to insist that the rules are for all who play the game. Players must  stay close to their seat, please lets not put a distance on it or the next thing you know we'll be passing out tape measures to our floor persons and TDs.
  I like rule #23......stay in your seat.

Nick C

Mike Lorne

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2010, 08:51:02 AM »
This is the main reason why in all my tournaments a dealer cannot turn over any cards at all, this is covered in many rules concerning a player to protect their hands if the player is not there to turn over the cards the cards go into the muck dead and the present player will win.


                                                                                                                      Good luck, Michael Lorne :)

Mike Lorne

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2010, 10:48:01 AM »
I have a rule that i use that I think might help in these situations quite clearly "only a Player can table his /her hand if they are absent for any reason that hand can and will be considered dead" .  I have trained my dealers that they can NEVER turn over any cards or table a hand.Only when a player asks to see a folded hand and it is their right to see them , also, the players are required to do so , again never the dealers.

                                                                                                                             

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2010, 05:05:40 AM »
IMO, since the player is already all-in and has completed all the action he can, I don't think that killing his hand would be the best course.  Killing his hand leaves you with a lot of new issues to deal with.
Scenario:
Let's say that the ruling was that his hand would be dead... if the other player hadn't called yet, would you give him all the chips, or just what was in the pot already? 
Player A's hand gets killed before he calls so if you rule that Player B only wins the pot then that opens up a possible angle shoot for players.  Let's say that you go all-in on a bluff and the other guy tanks, he looks like he's going to call... you walk away from the table, your hand gets killed and now he can't bust you.
It also creates an easy way to chip dump.. go all-in, walk away and the other guy gets your chips?  Especially if you have the other guy covered and are trying to just double him up without damaging your stack too much.

Maybe some kind of time out penalty would work better as punishment here?


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2010, 02:40:13 PM »
Personally I am getting pretty sick and tired of all these "Pro's" getting up from the table and going on a "walk about" (to use a common Aussie term) while the hand is still in progress.  Granted they may be all-in and no more 'betting action' is possible, but in my opinion, part of the purpose of TDA Rule 23 is to ensure the game isn't being held up waiting for players who are absent and along that line, I believe that "live hand" includes being 'at your seat' when the hands are read. 

This past week Chris Moneymaker was all-in several times in a recent WPT event and each and every time he got up and was nowhere near the table.  I don't have a problem with players who stand up but they need to be present when decisions are made and identifying the 'winning' hand is part of that in my book.

If I was the TD for that event he would have received one warning for not be at the table when the hands were read, the next time, I would have given him a four round penalty and if it happened again, I would have declared his hand 'dead'.  It is time these guys learn that they don't get to pick and choose which rules apply to them and which apply only to the regular folks.  And as far as the event is concerned, I would have a hard time considering that venue to "follow the TDA Rules".

A lot of the problems we see in small or local events is due, in my opinion, to the shenanigans allowed in the televised events.

Let the discussion begin!!


Mrsvelvet

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Headhunter League Poker
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2010, 03:31:52 PM »
I have always thought Rule 23 is very clear in its intent but yes we do see it abused on TV and unfortunately people do copy their actions. I had to clarify this rule to some players recently and the example I used was if you can't touch your chair and the table from where you are standing then you are Not considered to be "at the table", in general I don't have anything against players standing up when they are in big hands but if a player is abusing the system then a TD should take action.

Regards Turning a players cards over, Dealers should never table cards, that is for the player to do and if they are not there to table their cards then their hand is dead. Simple.

In the instance that a player is all in and then promptly vanishes from sight the hand should play out, however that player should also receive a penalty regardless of the outcome.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2010, 03:15:10 PM »
 I find this discusion more interesting every time I read it. I thought that I would pass this along to anyone that wants something in writting, to show players that insist on walking away with "live" cards on the table.

 From the old LVH Rule Book: A 31 THE SHOWDOWN ....(letter i.) NO PLAYER OR DEALER MAY SHOW DOWN A HAND FOR AN ABSENT PLAYER, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED BY THE HAND'S OWNER. THE OWNER OF A LIVE HAND WHO IS AWAY FROM THE TABLE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW DOWN HIS HAND IF HE IS VISIBLE AND WITHIN EARSHOT; OTHERWISE, THE HAND SHOULD BE MUCKED IMMEDIATELY.

 I think, as a floorperson or TD, you can easily stop the antics of players that are inconsiderate of other players and the simple rules of the game.

Nick C
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 08:20:21 AM by Nick C »

bigstu

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2010, 06:00:30 AM »
I have witnessed even worse enforcement of this rule... Playing at the Isle in Pompano a player stood up while the cards were being dealt to pay a waitress and the floor ran in without being called and killed his hand!


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Question about rule #23
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2010, 08:41:25 AM »
IF that action is representative of the qualifications of the floor folks at that location, you might want to consider finding a new place to play.  The only other suggestion I have would be to get the room manager aside and in a NON-ACCUSATORY manor relate the circumstances.  Hopefully the manager will be able to resolve the situation so it doesn't happen again.