Author Topic: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule  (Read 8979 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2012, 10:01:58 AM »
Mike,

 I appreciate your input and I'm hopeful that the BOD will consider using; the first player that checked on the final betting round, as opposed to the more lengthy version that we currently use.

It's not the BOD that decides, it's the voting members... it will definitely be brought up at the next Summit. Personally I do like the idea of a "memorable rationale" that would apply to all games (such as you proposed)... but illustrations will still be needed otherwise there will be umpteen questions about what "first person to check in the final betting round", or some other rationale exactly means. BTW, a memorable rationale should also apply to games played where an "opener" is first to act, rather than a player to the left of the button or the best hand showing... I know this isn't common in most tournaments but it's a contingency the rule should apply to also
 
Mike, I don't agree with your answer to my important question. I asked if there is a designated player that must show first in an all-in showdown and you said, no. How do you handle a situation when some player's want to stall and wait for other's to show first?  If you refuse to table your cards when Rule 11 conditions are met you can be cited for disruptive behavior under Rule 50...

I thought that is what the rule is for. When I worked the floor, whether a player was all-in or not, the last player that initiated the final bet, or raise, or check would show first. Never a problem. That's still the TDA rule for non all-ins under Rule 12

As far as TDA # 11...well, you can take a look back at prior posts to understand how I feel about that one. I don't believe, in an all-in  showdown, we can expect all player's to expose their hands simultaneously, in fact, I find it comical ;D. Besides, the TDA is the only set of rules that doesn't mention the all-in's showing their hands after the side pots are decided.

The only set of rules? Check out WSOP Rule 68 "Face Up for All Ins".  The TDA / WSOP language is clearly superior because it absolutely ensures that the correct hand will win when a tournament life is on the line (a player is all-in). You cannot ensure that if you do the side pots first. Why? Let's say you have 3 players in the side pot: at showdown one player insta-shows a strong hand and the other two muck face down when in fact one of the other two had a better hand but misread it. Then the winner of the side pot shows down with the all-in in the main pot and the all-in wins... however the all-in WOULD have lost to the player who mucked without tabling on the side pot b/c he misread his hand, or worse b/c he was chip-dumping to the all-in...   Face Up for All Ins avoids all this and protects everyone in the tournament, that's why it was overwhelmingly adopted by the membership.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 11:03:02 AM by MikeB »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2012, 11:22:12 AM »
As far as button showing first.... doesn't appear that is the written rule. But thats what the unwritten rule appears to be, because that's what the players do.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the button player would even think of showing first but that's what happens in real play more often then not.

I think I know why this happens.  Many times, when the final round is checked, the last player to act will just flip up their cards.  Like you said, it is not a written rule, and I would be surprised if it is enforced that way if it is not written.


------------------------------------------------

When I first read rule 12, I pictured the button in the 5 seat and viewpoint as the dealer.  Left of the button would be second to last to act.  Caught me off-guard for a second.

My 2c on wording:  On a checked final round, showdown will proceed clockwise from the button with the button the last to show.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3215
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2012, 09:16:44 PM »
Mike,
 I can agree that all hands be tabled when any player is all-in. What I disagree with is all cards being tabled at the same time. That's not how it's done if there is a side pot.
 
 WSOP The Showdown: If there is a side pot, players involved in the side pot should show their hands before anyone who is all-in for only the main pot.

 Robert's Rules of Poker: The Showdown #7 If there is a side pot, The winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth. #8 If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand.

 R.O.P.E The Showdown: In case of a side pot, the winner of the side pot should be determined before the main pot is awarded. In case of multiple side pots, they should be decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.

 I don't understand how a player could muck his winning hand in the example you gave. The hand must be shown.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 09:25:40 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2012, 10:58:28 PM »
Mike,
 I can agree that all hands be tabled when any player is all-in. What I disagree with is all cards being tabled at the same time. That's not how it's done if there is a side pot.

Nick thanks for these extremely important questions....  here are my thoughts on the rules involved:

The forum is dedicated to TDA rules. Rule 11 cannot be more clear... "All cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete."... To illustrate this, here are two videos of all-in showdown procedure with sidepots under TDA-compliant Rules...

From the EPT, 2 players all-in pre-flop, Chris Moneymaker has them both covered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atl157sVRmU

From a tournament Matt Savage directed at Bay 101, again with 2 all-ins and a 3rd caller who has them covered pre-flop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyJ_WDyG6g

In both of the above videos you can clearly see that ALL HANDS, both players in the side pot and in the main pot, are turned face up simultaneously once betting action is finished.... i.e. in both cases they are turned face up pre-flop and remain face up while the flop, turn, and river are dealt and on into the showdown. All of these players know the rule, and none of them refuse to comply. There's no "order of show"... no nothing... once all betting action is complete, in these cases pre-flop, ALL CARDS are turned over at once, period.... keep it simple


WSOP The Showdown: If there is a side pot, players involved in the side pot should show their hands before anyone who is all-in for only the main pot.

What WSOP Rule is this? WSOP Rule 70 deals with Showdowns, and rule 72 deals with side pots and neither of those rules have this language. WSOP Rule 68 "Face UP for All Ins" clearly requires all cards to be turned face up once all betting action is finished. All cards... side pot players, main pot players... doesn't matter. Please see videos of this above...

Robert's Rules of Poker: The Showdown #7 If there is a side pot, The winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth. #8 If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand.

 R.O.P.E The Showdown: In case of a side pot, the winner of the side pot should be determined before the main pot is awarded. In case of multiple side pots, they should be decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.

Both RRoP and ROPE say the side pot is determined / decided first, which of course everyone agrees with... they don't say that the cards of the main pot all-in(s) remain face down until the side pot is awarded.

RRoP Section 15 Tournaments, Rule 34: 34. All hands will be turned faceup whenever a player is all-in and betting action is complete.

ROPE cites TDA Rules where the author deems appropriate, and indexes them in the reference section on tournaments....

Thanks for raising these very important questions to clarify Rule 11 Showdowns!


« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 01:06:39 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3215
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2012, 04:14:35 AM »
Mike,

 Both videos were great examples for our current TDA rule. I have always contended that the rule was perfect for an all-in situation for head-to-head. The multi-player videos made it more interesting and easy to understand. I guess I am looking for language that would support every all-in situation; multi-player activity, with players contending for side pots right to the river. In these situations I instruct the dealers to ask the all-in player, or players, to kindly not table their cards until the pot they are contesting is being decided. Training dealers is my concern and this is a very important topic that I discuss with student dealers on a regular basis.

 My thoughts: I would enforce the rule whenever there was an all-in situation with more cards to be dealt, and no further betting possible. I would not burn and turn until the all-in player's showed their hands. If a player refused to turn their hand, because of some superstition or something to that affect, I would insist that the cards must be tabled before the deal could be completed. This is our tournament rule.

 The concerns that I have with the videos are:      
                    Player's have released their cards. I realize this makes for good television coverage and it gets spectators more involved.
                    In one of the videos, the players pushed their stacks forward and the separation of pots was not decided until all board cards were placed on the table.
 Both situations were easy to resolve and didn't seem to cause any real problem. The hands that I'm concerned with are the ones when a player goes all-in pre-flop and action continues with multiple player's. There are too many times when mistakes are made at the showdown if the all-in player tables his hand at the same time as the side-pot player's. We had a situation on the forum a while ago that was created by this exact situation. The side-pot player's (both of them), mucked their hands when they saw a hand that had them beat. The bad part was, the better hand belonged to the all-in player who was not contesting the side-pot! Both player's mucked (that's another story) and the floor was called to decide how to award the side-pots.

 I realize that tournament poker is much different from cash games because of all players having an interest. Cash game player's (that are all-in) usually just muck their hands at the showdown when they see a side-pot player's hand that has them beat. They don't have to show. This I understand.

 When I teach dealers, I always tell them; whenever we are at the showdown, with a side pot, do not allow the all-in player to show his hand when the side pot is being decided. It can only cause problems.

 Side pots should always be decided before the main pot. I just don't see that issue being covered by our current rule. I sure don't see it as "cut and dry" that's for damn sure ::)

 I believe that there must still be a specified order for showdown, whether player's are all-in or not, and I'd like to see a simple addition to our all-in rule that could better suit every all-in showdown.

 Thanks for all your time, Mike. It's nice to know that you're there.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 04:55:45 AM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2012, 08:54:15 AM »

 When I teach dealers, I always tell them; whenever we are at the showdown, with a side pot, do not allow the all-in player to show his hand when the side pot is being decided. It can only cause problems.

 Side pots should always be decided before the main pot. I just don't see that issue being covered by our current rule. I sure don't see it as "cut and dry" that's for damn sure ::)


Did we discuss this issue elsewhere already?  I know which situation you are most concerned with (e.g. three players in the pot, one player is all-in, but action is still taking place between two players on the final betting round so no cards are being flipped until that round ends)... I agree that as a practical matter, it is a 'best practice' to have the side pot hands shown first and the side pot decided before having the all-in player flip, but I feel that might be best left under "Recommended Procedures" rather than trying to implement and enforce an actual rule that says it must be done that way.  Certainly if the all-in player does flip up his hand along with the side pot players, we are not going to penalize him for breaking the rule.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3215
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2012, 12:15:45 PM »
Ken,

 I will steal a line from Chuck Ferry's book RULES OF POKER...Scope of Rules: The rules are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure.

 Almost all of the problems that we face are because proper procedures were not followed by player's or the dealer. I believe, the floor should be able to refer to our rules, and show the offending player, or player's (in writing) why we came to a specific decision or ruling.

  Ken, you are correct, we have discussed this subject at great length on other threads but, when nothing is resolved I will continue to voice my opinion, especially when others recognize a need for change.

 I'm not looking to penalize an all-in player for flipping his hand early. However, I do feel it important to let the player's know that they must wait until the pot they are contesting is being decided before they show their hand. This strange occurrence does not take place in a cash game because an all-in player can never win a main pot if a side-pot player has them beat! So..they just toss their hand and head for the parking lot :(

 This is the very reason I am looking for a change. We are always reminded that the TDA is specifically for tournament poker, yet this rule is far different from cash games and therefore needs more clarification.

 I also advocate that we insist on a specific "order of showdown" for every deal, whether a player is all-in or not.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2012, 12:40:02 PM »
I see your point, but I do like the separate "recommended procedures" document that TDA put out, which exists and should supplement the rules, and I was just thinking it may be better to put a more detailed example of the procedure for handling showdowns with side pots there.  The one thing that comes up a lot in my games is the all-in player, seeing that he is beat by the winner of the side pot, wants to fold his hand without showing and then complains when I say he has to show because it is an all-in situation.  I agree that it would be nice to have the procedure set out explicitly in writing somewhere.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3215
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2012, 01:58:05 PM »
Ken,

 I like it. There could be a footnote or: * see procedure rule #...for a further explanation... The great majority of poker rules that apply to cash games, also govern tournament play. Therefore I believe special attention should be given to our TDA Rules, that differ from the every day cash game rules.

 I do believe that all of these important issues that we have been addressing, will be addressed at the next Summit. I am confident because Mike Bishop is on the board.

Thanks to those that respond on this forum. Those that do not participate should seriously consider giving it a try. Your voice is the only way to determine how you feel about any ruling.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 03:15:38 PM by Nick C »

RockyPhillips

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2012, 05:36:27 AM »
A link to this documment please: "recommended procedures" document that TDA put out

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2012, 05:48:46 AM »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3215
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2012, 06:16:22 AM »
TDA Member & Veteran Poster

Posts: 1645


The following contains a few unanswered questions that I had on related issues over a year ago.

RP-1 (Recommended Procedures) I think the idea of an all-in button is great. I was wondering if anyone has experienced problems using it.
 a.  What happens if the all-in button is put in, by the dealer, and the player has more chips?
 b.  Exactly where should the dealer place the all-in button after the player goes all-in?

RP-2 I can understand how bringing-in bets can cause some confusion in multy handed pots, and I agree it is not a good dealer practice. I do think that it could be accepted when action is head-to-head. When a player makes a bet, and the other player pushes in a raise, I think that matching the players original bet and placing the equal amounts of the original bet (from each player) into the pot would make the raise amount easier to assess.

RP-4  My feelings on re-shuffle are; A scramble or mix of the cards, (not the standard shuffle) would better guarantee that no cards are exposed. The standard shuffle requires that the cards be gathered and picked-up facing away from the dealer before gathering them together for the first riffle. This would be unacceptable because it would expose the identity of remaining cards.

Your thoughts are always welcome.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 06:22:02 AM by Nick C »