POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types
I constantly hear that an abandoned all-in must be shown. Where is this rule?
chet:
Nick: I would submit that in the vast majority of all-in situations, there are yet cards to come, so the decision as to which player has the best hand at the end is yet to come.
For example, last Wednesday, I was playing cash and two players were all-in pre-flop, one had AA the other KK. Obviously the AA is ahead by far. As I recall, the flop was Q, T, A, giving the player holding AA a HUGE lead. However, the player holding KK now has the straight draw possibility. The Turn was a blank, and just as though it was on TV, the River was a J. Over $400 pot with Aces again cracked.
What does this have to do with whether the cards of an all-in player should be turned up, NOTHING, at least not that I can deduce. However, as I said before the reason for putting the cards on their backs in an all-in situation, at least in my opinion, is to prevent chip dumping and/or collusion between players.
I know of several people that used to frequent my local card room that used to play as a team. They would get someone between them and whipsaw them out of their chips and then at the end of the night they split the good fortune.
Nick C:
Chet:
I understand that we need to watch for chip dumping but, I don't want to get too far off the subject. When there are only two players left in a hand, and one goes all-in, turn both hands over. That is when rule #9 should be enforced. When there are multiple players in a hand, after an all-in, side pots sometimes occur. Side pots dictate a different order of revealing cards at the showdown. Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created.
I still have a problem turning over a player's hand, after they leave the table. All-in or not. Let the floor turn the cards over. We must exclude the dealer from that list.
Who said an all-in players hand can't be killed, if they bolt from the table? If you are worried about collusion, kill the hand by touching it to the muck, and then turn it over.
How about something like this:
All-in players that leave the table before the showdown, shall lose all rights to the pot. Their cards will be "exposed" to the table after the winner is awarded the pot.
chet:
Nick:
Read the whole rule!! The second part of TDA Rule 9 says, "...and all betting action is complete." If there are multiple players and one or more side pots are possible, NO hands should be tabled. The ONLY time hands are to be tabled is if all betting action is complete.
Now as to your statement, "Contrary to rule #9, the hands should NOT all be turned at once, but in the reverse order that each pot was created." I find nothing in Rule 9 that is contrary to what you propose. Personally, I only invoke Rule 9 as hands are to be decided. There is nothing in Rule 9 that prevents you from doing what you have written when side pots are present.
As far as only having only the floor turn over a players cards who has left the table, I don't have any problem with that as long as the logistics of your event allow. However, there are lots and lots and lots of small events where I don't think it practical to limit this authority to the floor. What about small bar type events where the "floor" or organizer of the event also is a player? Does this person have to leave his seat every time something like this occurs? I wouldn't like it and I don't think my players would either.
I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table. My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position.
Nick C:
Chet:
Your last statement: "I don't think anything needs to be added since TDA Rule 23 covers players not at the table. My interpretation of that rule is that the hand is dead if that player is not present when action comes to that position." Then you agree the hand should not be turned over?
I've gone over this with you before on other threads. The second part of TDA Rule #9......."and all betting is complete." The winners of each side pot will still be determined in the reverse order that they (the side pots) were created. The all-in player with the least amount in the pot (contesting the main pot, or first pot) will showdown their hand last. If player A goes all-in for 100 and three players call, when the next round of betting commences, a side pot could happen. When the last betting round is over "and all betting is complete." The all-in player should not reveal their hand along with the other player's.
chet:
Nick:
In my opinion, the ONLY time an all-in hand should NOT be tabled would be: A) if there is still action pending and/or B) if there are subsequent side pots in which the all-in player is not involved. As I said, I agree that side pots should be resolved in the reverse order in which they are created and ONLY the hands involved in a particular side pot should be displayed as that pot is resolved.
I DO NOT AGREE that the hand of a player absent from the table should remain face down. That hand should be tabled at the applicable time and then killed by the dealer. The absent player is NOT ELIGIBLE to win any part of the applicable pot.
So, here is an example:
Player A: All In for the main pot with players B, C and D,
Player B: All in for Side Pot #1 with player C and D,
Player C: All in for Side Pot #2 with Player D. NO PLAYERS CARDS ARE TABLED AT THIS POINT!!
Here is what needs to happen IN ORDER":
First, any remaining board cards are dealt, when complete, players C and D table their cards and the winner of Side Pot #2 is determined,
Second, after the dealer awards Side Pot #2, he calls for Player B to table his hand and Side Pot #1 is awarded,
Third, After Side Pot #1 has been awarded, the dealer calls for Player A to table his hand and the Main Pot is awarded.
There is nothing in the TDA Rules that forbids incorporating a bit of common sense into ones interpretation. I don't think rule 9 needs to be interpreted quite as strictly as you seem to.
Chet
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version