Author Topic: 7 short cases.  (Read 3826 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
7 short cases.
« on: May 16, 2012, 02:33:49 AM »
Hello,

Can you please give me your advises on thoses 7 cases & questions please?

Case 1) A player read personnal notes & stats each time it's his turn to play. But he does it quite quickly, without loosing time and we checked the notes: no electronic devise hidden or anything: I let him free!

Case 2) With 2 players preflop waiting for the flop, a dealer think it's over and mix the muck with the deck ... I made him shuffle the muck & deck and rebuilt a deck to continue the hand!

Case 3) A player told me that the TDA recommand to empeach players in the hand to talk when they are more than 2 ... ?!? ... I let the 3 players speak free as long as no collusion and no telling they cards!

Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!

Case 5) Some major tournaments autorize the dealers, when asked by a player, to count the difference to put in the pot after a raise (To call you should add the amount of X) when the players are only 2 left ... I refuse: the only amount my dealers are obliged to count are the total bets (when not declared by the bettor and when asked by the other player)!

Case 6) Depending of the casino or poker room, we support the deals between the players in final table but I never accept to stop the clock without an official break to help them making the deal!

Case 7) Some players (and dealers) complain of the fact they must still put the antes when in final heads-up saying it's a waste of time: I oblige them to keep on doing it: antes in final heads-up!

GG  
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 02:37:26 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: 7 short cases.
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2012, 06:47:20 AM »
Hi GG:

Here are my opinions -

Quote
Case 1) A player read personnal notes & stats each time it's his turn to play. But he does it quite quickly, without loosing time and we checked the notes: no electronic devise hidden or anything: I let him free!

There is no explicit rule against the use of notes, but I would NOT permit it during the play of a hand.  In between hands OK, but during a hand, I believe that is akin to 'coaching' and I personally feel it violates the one-person-to-a-hand rule.  Besides, if everyone started referring to their notes while a hand in progress (e.g. to track opponents' player tendencies, etc.), we'd have a big problem on our hands.  Unless it is to accommodate some sort of disability, I don't know why we shouldn't have a rule that prohibits the use of aids during a hand, mechanical, electronic or otherwise. 

Quote
Case 2) With 2 players preflop waiting for the flop, a dealer think it's over and mix the muck with the deck ... I made him shuffle the muck & deck and rebuilt a deck to continue the hand!

If the top of the deck clearly cannot be separated from the muck and retrieved, then I would also reshuffle.

Quote
Case 3) A player told me that the TDA recommand to empeach players in the hand to talk when they are more than 2 ... ?!? ... I let the 3 players speak free as long as no collusion and no telling they cards!

I think we have discussed this in some other posts: my personal view is that, in general, talk should be kept to a minimum while there are multiple players left to act.  The chances that a player will say something that will influence how the hand will otherwise play out is much greater in multi-way pots.  If it is just friendly banter going back and forth, then I am not going to make a big deal out of it.  But if people are analyzing the hand, and one person says something about player #2's play that ends up affecting how player #3 will play the hand or otherwise assisting him, why wouldn't this be a contravention of the one-player-to-a-hand rule?

Quote
Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!

Agreed. If the hand is irretrievably mucked, he can't win!  However, I don't understand why the dealer would kill the hand... the dealer should not have mucked the hand in the first place as both all-in hands must be shown.  Also, if I suspected "chip dumping", I may not permit the pot to be awarded, give the pot back to the player who tried to muck and then disqualify him.

Quote
Case 5) Some major tournaments autorize the dealers, when asked by a player, to count the difference to put in the pot after a raise (To call you should add the amount of X) when the players are only 2 left ... I refuse: the only amount my dealers are obliged to count are the total bets (when not declared by the bettor and when asked by the other player)!

I don't see why the dealer cannot give a count of the amount to be called if specifically asked to do so by the player in turn.  Some argue that it's not up to the dealer to help the player with the "math", but the called amounts are already committed the pot and historically dealers could bring these into the pot leaving the uncalled amount left behind anyways, so I don't see why this has changed.  If the player asks "how much is it", the total should be given;  If the player asks "how much is it to call" or "how much more", I think the dealer should comply and let the player know what the difference is.
 
Quote
Case 6) Depending of the casino or poker room, we support the deals between the players in final table but I never accept to stop the clock without an official break to help them making the deal!

If everyone at the table agrees to discussing the possibility of a deal, then especially if it is the first (and potentially final) discussion, I don't have a problem pausing the clock once to allow the players to work out the details.  In general though, I agree with you that the clock should not be stopped otherwise.

Quote
Case 7) Some players (and dealers) complain of the fact they must still put the antes when in final heads-up saying it's a waste of time: I oblige them to keep on doing it: antes in final heads-up!

Playing with antes is part of the game.  The amount of the ante relative to the blinds changes between levels, and can make a certain play (e.g. steal) more or less correct depending on the relative size.  Why would we take this away from players who actually understand that?  Put in the ante, and play on!  :)


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 7 short cases.
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2012, 06:52:35 AM »
Guillaume,

 #1 I don't see anything wrong as long as other's don't complain and it does not slow down the game.

 #2 I think what you did was correct.

 #3 I prefer no conversation about the hand in progress when there are more than two players.

 #4 The player should have protected his hand, but TDA rules do not allow the dealer to kill the hand of an all-in player. If you did allow the hand to be killed, why would you not return the uncalled portion to the player that went all-in?

 #5 Current TDA rules do not allow the dealers to count any bets as long as the bets are clearly visible. I however, prefer to allow the dealer to count the bet if requested.

 #6 I don't have an opinion on this. If the players don't mind, don't stop the clock.

 #7 I would continue using the ante.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 7 short cases.
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2012, 09:05:14 AM »
G:

Case 1) A player read personnal notes & stats each time it's his turn to play. But he does it quite quickly, without loosing time and we checked the notes: no electronic devise hidden or anything: I let him free!The mere presence of "notes and stats" is not a TDA violation. For example, if a novice player had a list of the rank of hands, would it be a violation to check it frequently? ... obviously not. There are two issues here: i) is it distracting to the game (i.e. disruptive under Rule 50), and ii) is the player keeping personal belongings such as a notebook and pen on the table. The industry is moving towards a less cluttered table surface. As of the 2011 Summit the membership adopted Recommended Procedure 3 which moves towards fewer belongings on the surface, and a clear posting of what is and isn't allowable: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=462.0

Case 2) With 2 players preflop waiting for the flop, a dealer think it's over and mix the muck with the deck ... I made him shuffle the muck & deck and rebuilt a deck to continue the hand!  If you are pre-flop with only 2 players remaining, then per TDA Rule 32 there has been substantial action, that's key (by two measures: i) 3 or more folds, or ii) the SB has put chips in the pot, plus another player has folded). Once substantial action occurs the hand should proceed (TDA Rule 31).

Case 3) A player told me that the TDA recommand to empeach players in the hand to talk when they are more than 2 ... ?!? ... I let the 3 players speak free as long as no collusion and no telling they cards!  See Rule 51: No disclosure. Neither players in or out of the hand should engage in discussion prohibited by Rule 51. Merely "speaking" is not in any way prohibited by TDA rules. Also bear in mind that abusive or disruptive speech may be subject to Rule 50.

Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!  This is covered by TDA Rule 48: Accidentally killed / fouled hands. It's very unfortunate, probably the worst thing in poker, but the player contributed to the error. If you can't identify the cards to 100% certainty what alternative is there? Important to note in your example that the player has a covered bet so isn't entitled to any refunds.

Case 5) Some major tournaments autorize the dealers, when asked by a player, to count the difference to put in the pot after a raise (To call you should add the amount of X) when the players are only 2 left ... I refuse: the only amount my dealers are obliged to count are the total bets (when not declared by the bettor and when asked by the other player)! This is not the subject of a specific TDA rule, although you might construe it as being a verbal equivalent of "bringing in the bets" (i.e. leaving the amount of chips to call in front of the bettor rather than the total amount) and bringing in the bets is discouraged in the Recommended Procedures adopted at the 2011 Summit. Overall on this question I'd consider referring to Rule 1 (best interest of game and fairness)... I would not automatically refuse to answer the question of how much more the bet is to a potential caller, especially if he's not in the habit of asking repeatedly... I'd rather answer the question and get the bet right than have a misunderstanding.

Case 6) Depending of the casino or poker room, we support the deals between the players in final table but I never accept to stop the clock without an official break to help them making the deal! Agreed

Case 7) Some players (and dealers) complain of the fact they must still put the antes when in final heads-up saying it's a waste of time: I oblige them to keep on doing it: antes in final heads-up! Absolutely. Plus if the ante is set at a level to encourage play, it's never a waste of time.

Thanks for the great cases.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 06:56:07 PM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: 7 short cases.
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2012, 01:47:21 PM »
Thank you 3 for your advices & recommandations.

Let's clean up this great game ... ;)

GG