Author Topic: penalty controversy  (Read 17521 times)

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2011, 08:31:21 AM »
this is going to sound like a smart ass response but....cause that's the rule....

and it is TDA rule #22.  A player must be at his seat by the time all players have been dealt complete hands in order to have a live hand..."  and RROP Section 15:13 actually states the hand is to be killed immediately..

If the hand is already declared dead when the last card comes off the table then there is no reason to leave the cards loose on the table.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2011, 08:32:30 AM »
Again, there are Different Rules depending upon the house you are playing in.  This is why it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to have a complete set of HOUSE RULES.  

I play in different places that use different rules.  The TDA Rule is that you have to be "at your seat" by the time the last hole card is dealt.  One local House Rule requires players to be "at their seat" at the time the first hole card is dealt.  

As to your latest question, the reason for the dealer 'scooping' the hole cards of missing players IMMEDIATELY upon completion of the deal is to prevent a late player from claiming those cards.  For example, in a NL game, the button is in seat 9, SB in 10 and BB in 1.  Player 8 is missing.  The deal is completed and player 8 is still missing.  Player 2 folds, Player 3 says raise and while Player 3 is counting out the raise, Player 8 returns and grabs his hole cards.  The dealer does not notice that Player 8 has returned.  Players 4, 5, 6 and 7 fold.  Now it is up to Player 8.  He says "all-in".  Player 9 says, "His hand is dead, he wasn't here on time" and a huge controversy erupts that should have been prevented by the dealer scooping Player 8's hole cards right away.  See the point?

W0lfster

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2011, 08:36:08 AM »
That is a very good point Chet! I will remember that, Thank you all for your responses :)

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2011, 08:39:04 AM »
better explanation as to the why's and wherefore's for mucking the missing player's hand, Chet, thanks.

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2011, 12:45:41 AM »
For many years we did allow the cards to be live until it was your turn to act. Some practical issues that are resolved by having the player at the seat when all players have a completed starting hand are:
1) It eliminated the rule that says, "You may not call time from the rail".
2) It made it less likely that a player could get a peek at some of the other players' cards as they rushed back to be "in turn".
3) It eliminated the unfair circumstance where players were not at their seats, action was taken by the seated players and suddenly one or more players now show up. You should know how many opponents you are facing in any given hand before you commit chips to a pot.
4) There was a safety issue from players rushing back from a break, running to get seated before it became their turn, sometimes creating floor decisions resulting from that behavior.

In short, the rule to be "at your seat" seems to have been a good solution to a myriad of problems.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2011, 07:10:46 AM »
Dave,
 I remember that old rule. It used to read something like; the absent player could respond if he were within "earshot." I agree, the newer ruling is much better; kill the hand immediately after dealing the last down card to the button. If I can go back a few decades, I can recall when smoking at the table was a regular occurrance, even cigars. Back then, as a comon courtesy to the dealers, the only seats at the table that were non-smoking were the one seat, and the ten seat, (or even the eleven seat, that's right, some hold'em games seated 11). I mention this because when smoking at the table was no longer allowed, players used to run back to the table from the break area yelling "here I come," or "I'm here," or they would be really mad if you dealt them out, or killed their hand while they were sprinting back to their seat, still spewing their last gasp of smoke over the table. For some of todays dealers that complain about their job, how would you like to clean out ash trays on your breaks. Ah, the good old days.
 Dave, you are absolutely correct when you said; " In short, the rule to be "at your seat" seems to have been a good solution to a myriad of problems.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2012, 08:03:22 AM »
My question is somewhat related to this earlier topic, so I thought I'd continue it here.  (Mike - please move this if it is not appropriate to post here).

This is a bit of an open-ended question, but I'm wondering if I could get some of your thoughts on managing these types of problem situations, specifically, when you find yourself in a situation where you expect that you might have to eject someone from a tournament and/or venue, as that person's unacceptable behavior begins to escalate, and ultimately he is uncooperative and becomes verbally abusive.  Any tips?  Do you follow a specific protocol to control the situation (e.g. perhaps asking to talk the offender away from the table, pausing the clock, etc.)?  What if "security" is not readily or immediately available? Thanks in advance. 

Dave Lamb

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 65
Re: penalty controversy
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2012, 10:27:48 PM »
In a situation where you expect that you might have to eject someone from a tournament and/or venue, as that person's unacceptable behavior begins to escalate, and ultimately he is uncooperative and becomes verbally abusive.  Any tips?

The closest I come to having a protocol for these situations is to faithfully utilize our penalty options. The need to issue a  warning for conduct is also a wake up to the TD; is this player intoxicated, angry or just choosing to be abusive? It is the correct time to privately spell out what will occur if the behavior is repeated, i.e. you will receive a full round penalty, you are very close to disqualification, etc.

Our first priority should be to maintain the peace and keep all of our customers coming back. The game is conducive to temporary loss of emotions but players are entitled to play the game without threats, criticism, or abuse.

Once a player earns a one round penalty for unacceptable behavior, the warning phase should be over, any further penalty should be severe enough to mean business. Unless the offender has an enormous chip stack, two rounds can be a devastating consequence for poor conduct. I have had players blind out on a penalty late in events but I have never had to use progressive penalties to get compliance.