Showing side pot hands with all in main pot.

[Pete F]

BB is all in for the BB. There are 4 players betting out for the side pot and none of them are all in.  Why force those players to show their hands for that pot? Why Expose their play? There's no chip dumping to the all in player. Thoughts???

Pete F

[K-Lo]

I believe the impetus for the rule was that whenever there is a situation where one player can potentially be eliminated from the tournament, it is of overriding importance to make sure that the pot be awarded to the proper winner.  This is to protect all players in the tournament.  To ensure that this is the case, all the hands must be shown.  As an example, if BB is all-in, and A, B, C, and D are contesting the side pot, but only B's hand beats the BB and B misreads his hand and folds, then the BB may not be eliminated when he should have been.  At least this is my understanding of the purpose behind the rule.

I'm sure Nick will chime in here as well - he is of the view that if you're going to have a rule such as this, perhaps the rule should also apply to non-all-in showdowns as well, since many of the same considerations would apply. 

[Nick C]

Nick is chiming in , but my requests fall on deaf ears. I don't know what more I can say, that I haven't already said many times over. The all-in player is the last hand to be shown because he is not in for any side pot. Why they all must be turned is something you'll have to ask someone else.

 I just hope they don't try to tell you how it protects the integrity of the game!

[Pete F]

If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play. The side pot should be played out normal and all hands should be shown for the main where the all in is. I guess if there was a mountain of chips in the main pot and a minor side pot it would make the misreading of a hand a big deal. Thanks for the input.

Pete F

[K-Lo]

I appreciate your point, Pete, and I do know that players get ticked off when they can't just concede the pot and muck in these situations.  

Although if you had to balance the goal of "the best hand wins the main pot" and not "exposing everyone's play", I do think in tournament poker, I'm pretty sure you would get a lot of TDs that would say that the first goal is of paramount importance.  It is not so big of a deal in cash games, since there is no one else other than the players involved to protect.

The interesting thing is that if one of multiple players contesting the side pot will actually beat the BB, then the issue of not eliminating the BB when he should have been eliminated becomes moot, and in that sense, one may question whether or not it is necessary for everyone else to show their hand in that case.  I also agree that there is typically less of an issue when there are many players contesting the side pot.  From a practical perspective, however, I suspect that having one catch-all rule to apply to all situations is more manageable than having to make individual exceptions.  However, as Nick suggests, the debate is ongoing and suffice it to say, not everyone agrees that all hands ought to be exposed in your situation or if they are exposed, that they should be only in all-in situations.  

K

[Tristan]

I personally feel that using a side-pot example here just muddies this.  If there are 5 players in a pot and 1 player is all in, with no side-pot, should all of them have to show their hand when the action is complete?  I think the answer is yes.  And in your scenario, it is really the same thing.  Just because there is a side-pot does not mean that things change for the main pot.

[Nick C]

Tristan:

 You raise an interesting point: A six handed game, with one player all-in but with no side pot. You must turn them all, as you stated...but why? This rule, for all-in's, is similar to another long standing rule that (is fading away) and changing the game, that is: Taking away the right for any player at the table to see a called hand.

 I will attempt to break down the rules so we can get a better understanding of the differences between cash, and tournaments.

 Tournament: One player all-in at showdown; with a side pot. Side pot winner must be determined first (even though TDA # 11 does not specify this). The all-in player must still show his hand, even a loser. All player's must table their cards, winners and loser's alike.

 Cash game, One player all-in at showdown: First player shows his winning hand and everybody mucks, and we deal the next hand. If the all-in has the best hand, he will show his winning hand and be awarded the main pot. The only time a loser must show his hand is if someone asks to see it. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should remain.

I agree with Pete F

[Tristan]

11:   Face Up for All-Ins
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.

That seems really clear to me.  It is nice having a clear-cut rule.  And yes, while certain circumstances might make you want to go other than 'by the book', we don't want/need a textbook with Rule #13, paragraph 8, subsection b, pertaining to number 3.  All of that is offset by having clear rules and then having rule #1 in place.  That way it gives you a general guideline with enough wiggle-room in order to make a different decision if you deem it necessary. 

What if the main pot is 50k and the side-pot is 2k?  There is plenty of opportunity to dump chips in that circumstance.  Do you think they should all have to show then?

Do we want to teach dealers that if there is 3x as much in the main pot than the side pot, they must make all players show?  Or if not, then only 2 hands must be shown...1 to take the side and then the all-in hand?  Many dealers struggle to do their job properly now!  I dunno about you, but I don't want to stand by each table to rule on if side-pot hands should show on a case by case basis! 

[MikeB]

If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play. The side pot should be played out normal and all hands should be shown for the main where the all in is. I guess if there was a mountain of chips in the main pot and a minor side pot it would make the misreading of a hand a big deal. Thanks for the input.

Pete F

 Pete: Consider this situation: 1) THE with 3 players (A-B-C) in side pot and D all-in in main pot with 9d-8s-7c-2d-3d on board. 2) Player A insta-shows 5x, 6x for a straight and B and C muck face down. C misses that he had a flush with 10d-5d in his hand; 3) Player D then shows 10x-Jx for a higher straight and takes the main pot. If all side pot players were held to the TDA Rule here, Player C would have won both pots and eliminated D in the process.

Conversely, give player D the 2 diamonds. If he wasn't forced to table his hand after all betting action is complete, he might miss the flush and be bounced from the tournament erroneously.

When a player is all-in, these potentialities must be avoided for the interest of all in the tourney... to make sure that the correct hand wins when a "tournament life" is on the line and, as previously discussed, to eliminate chip dumping. The only way to achieve this is as set forth in the TDA Rule which has been in effect for at least 6 years.

[Nick C]

Tristan:

 I don't know how you can say that TDA #11 is a clear cut rule. Are we to assume that all players will understand that the all-in must show, but not at the same time as the side pot players?

 Mike, based on your last post, are you saying that this "protection" for Player D should only apply when there is an all-in player? Shouldn't the best hand always win, when in for all bets?

 This is the perfect post for the answer I've been looking for.

[MikeB]

Mike, based on your last post, are you saying that this "protection" for Player D should only apply when there is an all-in player? Shouldn't the best hand always win, when in for all bets?

The protection should certainly apply to all hands tabled at showdown. The all-in showdown is the only situation for which all hands must be automatically tabled when all betting is complete under TDA rules. Whether a house takes it further and requires all hands in non all-in showdowns to be shown is a matter of house policy. Also, under TDA rules presently if in a non all-in showdown a player(s) mucks face down without revealing his hand, the lone surviving player wins the pot and there is no TDA rule expressly requiring the surviving hand to be shown. Some venues do require the surviving hand in this situation to be revealed, again as a matter of house policy (hence the distinction between contested and uncontested showdowns in TDA 2011 Version 1.0 was dropped in Version 2.0).

Why have the TDA rules not expressly required all hands to be shown in non all-in showdowns? ... Historically players have argued that they want the option to muck face down without tabling their hand in non all-ins and this has generally been respected by the association (it was specifically re-affirmed in 2009)... However, note that language was adopted at the 2011 Summit to the effect that players mucking face down at showdown lose any right they may have to ask to see a hand that otherwise they do not have an express right to see. Among other reasons, this language is intended to encourage players to table their hand at showdown for as you say this is the desired outcome: the membership affirmed that we want to encourage players to table at showdown to increase the probability that the best hand wins.

[Nick C]

Mike B,

 In my 50 plus years of playing poker, there was a protocol at the showdown that was understood by all. It went like this: If you were the first bettor on the final betting round, or the last person to initiate the last raise, you showed your hand first. There were many occasions when a player was bluffing and once he was called, he would surrender his hand to the muck and say "you win!" He new he was beat and elected not to show his hand. He was "caught bluffing" one of the consequences was showing his "bluff" if a request were made by one of the players in the hand.

 The principle (I would say) was: any player that called all bets "paid" for the right to see any called hand at the showdown. I don't know when, or why this changed. I understand that the game has evolved and change is necessary. However, I believe there were some changes that were not for the better, and this is one.

 The games I speak of, were primarily cash games. Tournament poker involves all participants so I understand that it is necessary to assure that the best hand wins. Therefore, I suggest that the TDA should seriously consider taking the option to muck away from any player in for all bets at showdown.

 Mike, I'd also like to comment on what you wrote: "players mucking face down at showdown lose any right they may have to ask to see a hand that otherwise they do not have an express right to see." Among other reasons, this language is intended to encourage players to table their hand at showdown for as you say this is the desired outcome: the membership affirmed that we want to encourage players to table at showdown to increase the probability that the best hand wins.

 If we want to encourage it, why not just make it a rule? As far as a player that mucks, losing the right to ask to see another players hand What does that accomplish?
I guess I just don't understand how asking to see a called hand is any different than being forced to table my hand because a player is all-in

[MikeB]

In my 50 plus years of playing poker, there was a protocol at the showdown that was understood by all. It went like this: If you were the first bettor on the final betting round, or the last person to initiate the last raise, you showed your hand first.

The principle (I would say) was: any player that called all bets "paid" for the right to see any called hand at the showdown. I don't know when, or why this changed.
 

Nick: To my knowledge it hasn't changed: see TDA Rule 12 "Showdown Order".... If Player A makes the last aggressive action on the final betting round, and I call him, per TDA rules I can wait for him to show, precisely as you describe above...

.... if he bets on the last round then attempts to muck once I call him, I can still ask to see the hand.... Then house rules kick in.  Note that in most venues if the presumptive winner asks to see a competitors mucked hand at showdown, the competitors hand is live and can win the pot, so players must beware of what they ask for.

[Nick C]

Mike B,

 I guess I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across. I still don't quite understand exactly TDA rules #11, #12, and #14. There is no indication for must show at showdown except for all-in situations, and that puzzles me (and a few others).

 I also don't think that suspecting collusion should be the only reason to request seeing a player's hand at the showdown. You say it hasn't changed, but I believe it has, considerably. There is a big difference between asking to see a player's hand without condition, as opposed to calling the floor for permission because you suspect he's cheating. In my not so humble opinion, I don't think the floor should be burdened with that decision. If I call all bets, I should be able to see all hands without creating tension with other player's by accusing them of foul play.

 For those that don't want to show their poor hands, (after a failed attempt at bluffing), I say; That's the price you pay. You gambled and lost! You got caught!

 

[Tristan]

This thread baffles me!           

Pete questions why people should have to expose their play.

Why force those players to show their hands for that pot? Why Expose their play? There's no chip dumping to the all in player.

Then Nick chimes in, seeming to agree that he doesn't think they should have to.

Why they all must be turned is something you'll have to ask someone else.
I just hope they don't try to tell you how it protects the integrity of the game!

Pete again makes a point about how he doesn't necessarily like people having to expose their pley.

If the strongest argument is to stop players from misreading their hand so that the best hand wins the main pot to eliminate an all in player, that's not a good enough reason to expose everyones play.

Nick then confirms his stance, agreeing with Pete.

The only time a loser must show his hand is if someone asks to see it. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should remain.

I agree with Pete F

Now Nick points out that his stance is that all players should have to expose their play at all times!

Therefore, I suggest that the TDA should seriously consider taking the option to muck away from any player in for all bets at showdown.

and

If I call all bets, I should be able to see all hands

I'm sorry Nick, but you are right...

I guess I'm not doing a good job of getting my point across.