Author Topic: Reading a non tabled hand  (Read 20727 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2012, 09:16:52 AM »
I was in a situation a few months ago, where upon a break I went to the media room. I witnessed a hand "LIVE" with hole cards very similar to this where the last man checked and folded face down a small flush against a players shown 2 pair. Should I have run out of the media room and awarded the pot to the flush. (I can prove to the table what he had because it was taped).

The hand was folded face down, so the hand was not seen by all players. Rule 16 does not apply.

I did not mean to offend you, and I apologize if I did.  I was serious when I asked how would you reword the question, because if you really think it is misleading, you can always ask Mike B to have it changed and provide him with the suggested wording.  If enough people feel it is unclear, I'm sure he will change it.  Using the word "tabled" explicitly in the question though, IMO, makes the question too easy.  My point is actually consistent with Nick's previous comment - the term "tabled" is not defined in the Rules; so until it is, we have to make a decision as to whether the described action is equivalent.  I respect your opinion and Nick's, but I expect that the majority of TDs who are writing would think that it is clear enough.  In any case, we can always agree to disagree.

I completely agree with you that no situation is black and white.  Perhaps if the exam was in a "short answer" format, it would be easier to assess for candidates to give a more complete answer (e.g. if "flashing" means this, then my answer would be this, but if "flashing" means that then my answer would be something else).  

I am also sorry if you took the last sentence as sarcasm - it was not meant to be directed towards you.  That was actually directed to Chet and his earlier comment that "the questions in the new exam are much harder and cover situations that might really happen in the real world".  I agree wholeheartedly with Chet.  I like the new exam -- it is much, much better than the old exam.  Those who wrote the old exam would get the inside joke, because you may recall that those type of questions in my last post were actually asked in the old exam, and in my view, didn't test much of anything.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 09:19:41 AM by K-Lo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2012, 10:23:29 AM »
You're the TD, you're standing right behind the dealer.... Two players have made it to showdown in a hand of Texas Holdem and it's time for cards read (the standard at showdown).... One player shows a straight and the other clearly shows you both of their downcards (two red aces) for top flush and the nut hand.  What are you going to do ? Award the pot to the straight, or to the flush ?

BTW: future threads that copy and paste test questions verbatim will be disallowed, but certainly the "gist" of any test question topic is permissible.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 10:39:45 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2012, 10:46:57 AM »
Mike, I'm sorry but your example of the floor standing behind the dealer and witnesses the winning hand being mucked is not good enough for me. That's what other penalties are for; like chip dumping, and possible collusion. If we are going to go that far in tournament poker, then tabling all cards at the showdown should be mandatory.
Problems solved! Why is it only when a player is all-in? I've been asking for a reasonable answer for a long time, with no response.

 Rick, whatever you do, don't reword your dealer instructions. A dealer should never assist a player that does not properly table his hand. Please don't let me think I've won the pot only to have a floorperson turn over a mucked hand that has me beat.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2012, 10:52:22 AM »
Mike, I'm sorry but your example of the floor standing behind the dealer and witnesses the winning hand being mucked is not good enough for me. That's what other penalties are for; like chip dumping, and possible collusion. If we are going to go that far in tournament poker, then tabling all cards at the showdown should be mandatory.
Problems solved! Why is it only when a player is all-in? I've been asking for a reasonable answer for a long time, with no response.

 Rick, whatever you do, don't reword your dealer instructions. A dealer should never assist a player that does not properly table his hand. Please don't let me think I've won the pot only to have a floorperson turn over a mucked hand that has me beat.
I take it your answer is you're awarding the pot to the straight after you and everyone else at the table just clearly saw a nut flush.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 10:56:49 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2012, 12:27:21 PM »
 What I'm saying is the player did not properly table his hand. How much protection are we going to offer to players that don't comply with the simple rules of showdown...put your damn cards face-up on the table, if you don't you will be subjected to any number of penalties that apply.

 This is not to criticize the test, I know that a great deal of time and effort was put into improving the required test for certification. The problem I'm having now is the same one that I've had since joining the TDA, that is; the way some of the rules are written.

  If a player, at showdown, that is in for all bets can not muck his hand, or announces that he is folding, then the hand must be tabled. So why not just make it mandatory?

 While we're at it. How do you handle the penalties for the player that; thought he had a loser... conceded the hand...and is then given the pot. And how do you convince the second best hand, that possibly didn't see the brief flash of the better hand, that he lost the pot. Like I said earlier; how much protection are we going to give these offenders?
 

  
 
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 12:44:57 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2012, 12:59:05 PM »
Ricky, I have to go with K-lo here.  You are working too hard at the language of the question.  the word "flashed" is messing with your head.  The rest of the sentence is "clearly, for all to see".  Obviously that means that he wasn't just showing his neighbor or just showing the dealer, he was clearly showing all players.  For me, that is tantamount to a tabled hand.  Hey! Look everybody I have two red Aces!  As was pointed out, I think that a careful reading of a question WITHOUT trying to read anything into it yields the best results when coming up with the correct answer.  If they weren't written to trip you up they would be no fun at all and would prove nothing.....

I suppose the question is designed to do two things: What does constitute a tabled hand in the view of the TDA and what do you do if someone tables a hand and then tries to muck??

I read that the hand was tabled and we can't muck a winning hand

No you shouldn't run out to tell the players that a certain player has the winning hand because you saw it on the video - they have to show it clearly for all the players to see.  Though, not every player has to see it when it is clearly shown!

I hope you weren't seriously offended by K-lo's sarcasm.... he has the lowest level of intentional ornery sarcasm I've seen...

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2012, 12:42:53 PM »
if i had a player flash a winner and throw it in the muck the guy with the tabled hand would win the pot.

what ever happend to one player to a hand,

 if you seen him muck the nuts and think he is dumping chips give him a penalty

RockyPhillips

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2012, 12:50:36 PM »
Interesting that Mike Savage had this recent reply to a tweet:
Matt Savage ‏@SavagePoker
MT @JamesStHilaire: A calls river bet. A shows B best hand, then throws hand in face down, dealer mucks cards.<~If not tabled hand is dead.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2012, 02:13:07 PM »
Rocky: I presume that in the illustration, A does not reveal the hand to the rest of the table, only to B and then makes the fateful decision to muck his hand face down before it can be read by the house. In that case the hand would be dead, yes?

RockyPhillips

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2012, 02:23:13 PM »
I would presume that A must have also shown the dealer to just show B and muck would be pointless. Further to the point without asking for clarification MS said if not "tabled" hand is dead. At best the question in the exam is flawed. PS got that question wrong but passed the test.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2012, 03:53:12 PM »
MMM..  have to agree with MikeB.  Savage's tweet clearly says "A shows B".  There doesn't seem to be a mention of the dealer, let alone A showing the hand so that everyone at the table can see it.  

The question comes back to what does it really mean to have a hand "tabled"?  

Does it mean, literally, lying on its backside flat on the table?  Or should an act in which all players at the table (including the dealer) can clearly see the contents of the hand, such that each player is able to determine whether the hand is a winner or a loser, be sufficient, despite the hand not being physically let go and laid to rest flat face-up on the table?   I know there is some disagreement on this, and I think the more "liberal"-minded would accept the latter interpretation, while others insist on a very strict literal interpration.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 03:56:21 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2012, 08:44:07 PM »
K-Lo,

 I would hate to think that a tabled hand must be released. I would say, the hand should be turned face-up, visible to all. It is not a good practice to let go of your live hand.

 I still don't understand how, or why, tournament players can muck their hands in these situations?

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2012, 07:06:29 PM »
It sounds pretty clear. 
"clearly flashes two red Aces for all to see"

If it was clear, and everyone saw it...what is the question?  We are muddying the waters by throwing intangibles in that do not exist.  What if it not clear?  What if everyone didn't see it?  That does not apply here because it was clear for all to see!
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Reading a non tabled hand
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2012, 02:37:06 AM »
Probably the most interesting discussion that I've read in quite some time. It does give me pause to think of what is the best course of action. I am on the side of Nick C and Ricky9, in that, I don't like the way the question is worded. The question asks one to presume that because the cards were "flashed for all to see", that all the players, and more importantly the dealer, actually were able to read these flashed cards. Furthermore, the question also asks one to read the board for player A, prior to the hand being tabled. Clearly player A has the best hand, BUT they have also misread their hand. When did we stop people from misreading their own hands?

I was waiting for anyone to reply with the response "One player to a hand" and finally diz475 put it out there.
if i had a player flash a winner and throw it in the muck the guy with the tabled hand would win the pot.

what ever happend to one player to a hand,

 if you seen him muck the nuts and think he is dumping chips give him a penalty
So far everyone has ignored this response. Why? It's certainly relevant to the question.

Too many of the replies so far in this thread have posed "what if" responses. Very few to none have tried to use the rules of the game to come to their conclusion. By answering with the question with more "what ifs" does not lead the answer to the question. Answer the question.

Many have tried to use TDA Rule #15 to answer.
Quote
15: Killing Winning Hand
Dealers cannot kill a winning hand that was tabled and was obviously the winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that an error is about to be made.

The first half of this rule states Dealers cannot kill winning "Tabled" hands. Pretty cut and dry. The question arises, as Nick C stated, what constitutes a tabled hand. I think term "Tabled" is pretty self explanatory. At least I thought it was until I read some replies here. Tabled to me means: Two cards face-up (or all hole cards depending on game variation) on the table for the dealer to read and all other interested players before the pot is pushed.

The second half of this rule I think is being misinterpreted as to its real intention. It asks players to assist in reading "Tabled" hands if an error is about to made. I believe this to mean; assist the dealer if the dealer misreads the hand and begins to push the pot to the wrong player. I don't take this to mean assist the player in reading their hand simply because they flashed it.

I can tell you for 100% certain that if this situation happens in a cash game, especially in underground games, that if the dealer or any player for that matter pipes up to tell player A "Hey you don't have trip Aces, you have a Flush" and tries to stop them from mucking their hand, there would be hell to pay.

Some brought up chip dumping, rule #53. A concern to be sure. But no one has brought up rule #48, Protecting your own hand. In this situation player A clearly mucked of their own volition. Also there's rule #51-3: Players "may not" read hands that have not been tabled. This rule alone means that the TDA must address what constitutes a tabled hand.

Then of course there's rule #1. The trump rule of all rules. This rule allows us to look outside the norm and make decisions in the best interest of the game. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you think protecting player A from mucking a winning hand in more in the best interest of the game because they flashed it? OR  Do you think protecting player B who tabled their hand to be read by the dealer and thereby protected their right to pot is more in the interest of the game and to let player A misread their hand and muck because it wasn't tabled.

Personally, not only do I think the latter is the best answer but I think it's more in line with established rules #48, #51-3, #15 and it is also what we teach our dealers. If the TDA Rules are going to use the language "Tabled" hand within the guidelines then we as a group need to come to a resolution as to what a "Tabled" hand is. I know that doesn't sit well with Chet and possibly others, but I think it needs to be done now that we've adopted the term into so many rules.

I think use of the word "Flashes" leads one to believe they were briefly viewable. I think a better term to use to make the question just as problematic and not easy to answer is to use the term "Exposed". When you have exposed something, that leaves less doubt as to whether it was viewable rather than saying they flashed something.


@wsopmcgee on Twitter