Showing side pot hands with all in main pot.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 If you can't understand the point I'm trying to make maybe you can explain why tournament poker demands all cards MUST be tabled when a player is all-in but not for any other showdowns. What's the difference? Don't we want to guarantee the best hand (in for all bets) wins every hand?

 I prefer cash game rules but if we insist that tournament showdowns should be handled different then I think we should do it the same whether a player is all-in or not.

 Are you still baffled? Or are you going to try to convince me that TDA #11 is perfect and covers everything?

 You are relatively new to the forum, and a welcome addition if I say so myself, but if you want to know how I feel on these showdown issues, I suggest you take a look back over the past two years and you will see that my feelings haven't changed.

 

 

   

[K-Lo]

Hey Nick:

Tell us how you really feel... 

(Tiptoe-ing away)

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

 Thanks, I needed that. I'd like to (tell you how I really feel) but it would be censored!  

[chet]

Lets see if this helps Nick to understand this rule better, especially why it is more important in tournaments than in cash games --

In a cash game, if you are "all-in" and lose the hand and later realize you mucked the winning hand, you can go back to the bankroll, get more chips and continue in the game.  You are not out standing on the rail or on the sidewalk (assuming your bankroll hasn't been depleted).  In a tournament, same set of circumstances, you are "all-in", lose the hand and later realize you mucked the winning hand, you cannot go back to your bankroll and get more chips to continue in the game (assuming any re-buy period has ended).  You are done, finished, gone. 

A long time ago the TDA determined that it was in the best interests of the game to do whatever was reasonable to ensure the pot was awarded to the player with the real winning hand.  The membership decided the best way to ensure a player was not eliminated incorrectly was to enact rule #11 and require all hands to be shown in an "all-in" situation.

This is my understanding of the basis behind this rule.

Furthermore, it is my belief that in the situation where there is a player "all-in" for the main pot and other players involved in one or more side pots, the ONLY time hands need to be tabled are those involving a pot that has at least one "all-in" player.  If a side pot does not have an "all-in" player, the hands for that pot are treated exactly the same as they would be for any other pot at the showdown, they do not need to be tabled.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet:

 Are you saying that the all-in player is the only player the rule pertains too? I think that makes sense but, I'm willing to wager enough for a nice "buy-in" that's not what the rule suggests.

 I actually like your idea. Here we go: New suggestion for TDA #11 Face Up For All-In's. The all-in player's hand must be turned face-up immediately after the side pot winners are decided.

 This will guarantee that the all-in is not "chip dumping" or mucking a winning hand. That's it...you fixed it Chet!

[chet]

No, No, No and NO!!  The rule applies to each and every player involved in the pot in which one or more players are "all-in".  In other words, if there is a main pot and one or more side pots, the rule applies to each pot in which at least one player is "all-in". 

For example, there is one player "all-in" for the main pot, pre-flop, with several players remaining with live hands, so any further betting will result in one or more side pots.  On the flop, player B bets 100 and is called by the remaining players, but there are NO "all-in" players.  These chips create side pot #1. On the turn, Player B goes "all-in" and is called by players C, D, E and F.  These chips go into side pot #1.  On the river, player C bets 100 and is called by player D, player E and player F, none of which are "all-in", this is side pot #2.

Since there are no "all-in" players involved with side pot #2, TDA Rule 11 does not apply and the showdown proceeds as usual, with player C showing his hand first (last aggressor on this betting round).  There is no reason for players D, E or F to show unless they believe they have player C beat.  Those players can fold and muck if they so choose since they obviously cannot win any of the remaining pots.

Next, I would have players B and C table their hands, player A's hand remains concealed.  Side pot #1 is awarded to the winning hand between B and C, with the losing hand mucked.

Finally, I would have player A table his hand.  The main pot is awarded to the winning hand between player A and the player that won side pot #1 (either B or C, depending upon which player won side pot #1.)

OK?

[Nick C]

Chet,

 You've got to be kidding me ...and if you're correct, the rule is worse than I thought it was. Where's Tristan when you need him, he'll sort it out.

 I always like to define multiple pots as follows: Pot A (main), Pot B, Pot C, etc., etc.

[K-Lo]

Hi Chet:

I understand what you are saying, and that approach (i.e. players in a side pot do not have to show if the all-in player is not eligible for that pot) would be one way to go about it. But I'm 99.99% sure that is currently not the TDA's "official" stance;  as I understand it, they want all players in the hand to show their hands when any player is all-in in that hand, i.e. all players eligible for the main pot or any side pot must show, even if an all-in player is not entitled to a given side pot.  Put another way, once a player goes all-in, everyone who is left at showdown for that hand must show regardless of who is eligible for what pots.  

I gave an example earlier in this thread, as did Mike B, similar to the one you give below, so I'll point out what I think the issue is.  Suppose in your example, F folds thinking that he cannot beat C, but in fact he has the true winning hand that beats everyone, including A & B.  However, F screwed up (intentionally? unintentionally?) and his untabled is voluntarily mucked.  Under your interpretation, F can do so, because no one that was all-in was eligible to win chips from side pot #2.  However, C's hand is not good enough to beat either A or B, resulting in both A & B potentially surviving when they really ought to have both been eliminated.  Allowing F to muck here without showing fails to ensure that the pot is awarded to the player with the real winning hand.  As I understand it, it's not only about ensuring that a player is eliminated incorrectly, but also to ensure that players who should have been eliminated, are.  So I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Rule 11, at least with respect to the side pot issue.
 

As far as Nick C's issue, I know what button he is pressing (and he's been slapping that button for some time now).    At the risk of putting words in his mouth, Nick is basically saying if we force everyone to show when someone is all-in according to Rule #11, why stop there?  Why wouldn't we force everyone to show at showdown for each and every "normal", non-all-in showdown?  If we think it is so important for the "correct" winner to take the pot, why limit the rule to only all-in situations?  Or alternatively, if we don't force people to show in every "normal" showdown, why don't we just scrap rule #11 and not force people to show ever, regardless of whether someone is all-in or not?

What I think Nick is essentially arguing for is uniformity: we should apply the 'all-show' rule to all showdowns, or no showdowns, as the same principles (preventing chip dumping/collusion, etc.) presumably apply.  Furthermore, by not expanding the Rule to apply to "normal" showdowns as well, when combined with the new rules that make it more difficult for a player to ask to see a mucked hand, this arguably encourages collusion rather than prevent it.

In that regard, Nick, I definitely think your heart is in the right place, and I hear you.  But I'm also a bit of a realist, and practically, I do not see that the TDA community would ever come to a consensus for such uniformity, either way.  There are many people who think that all-in situations are different because there is a direct elimination that can result, and will not dump the current Rule 11.  And although the underlying principles might also apply to "normal" showdowns, I don't think you'll get enough broad support for that because there will be TDs fearing it will simply slow down the game way too much, and also players that will be upset that they are giving up too much information in situations where chip dumping and collusion are theoretically possible, but not real concerns.    

I can't predict the future, but I really don't think it will be a winning battle... the current Rule 11 is probably the best compromise we can expect, and I'm sure the likely response is that one can always implement a house rule to force hands to show at all showdowns if the house felt strong enough about that, just like some house rules may or may not force the winning hand to show both cards in order to win the pot in a normal showdown.

Nick: I know that it won't stop you from trying, but please, make sure you save some energy for Accepted Action....  

K

[chet]

I would be very interested in what Mike B has to say about the history behind this rule and so forth. 

Again, I think the big difference here is that in tournaments, awarding the pot to the player not having the best hand in an "all-in" situation, will incorrectly result in the elimination of that player from the event, when that should not occur.

K-Lo:  I understand what you are saying and I can support that, BUT, I think that in those few situations where there are multiple side pots, having to show all hands involved as soon as the betting is complete, can be very, very confusing.  In my limited experience, to make that work right, you need to have experienced dealers and experienced players to ensure things are done in the proper order.

Chet

[K-Lo]

...
K-Lo:  I understand what you are saying and I can support that, BUT, I think that in those few situations where there are multiple side pots, having to show all hands involved as soon as the betting is complete, can be very, very confusing.  In my limited experience, to make that work right, you need to have experienced dealers and experienced players to ensure things are done in the proper order.

Oh yes... 100% in agreement there! 

I can't remember who said it on this forum, but he/she said it best:  All hands must be shown, but not necessarily simultaneously!  I tell my dealers that although everyone must ultimately show, you can still start with the hands eligible for the last side pot, and work your way back to the main, in order to ensure that the pots are awarded correctly. 

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 Thanks! I couldn't have said it better myself. I have no objection to you speaking on my behalf, especially when yours is the only "voice" that understands what I'm preaching.

   First of all, if you tried the all-show at showdown, you might be surprised at how much faster and smoother the hands play out.

   As far as players getting upset because; they are giving up too much information    What about the players competing for huge side pots, that would be allowed to muck under normal showdowns, but because there is one player all-in with his last chip, all players must show their hands  

  Finally, K-Lo, do you really feel that TDA #11 should remain as is?...Really?

 Chet, your confusion only confirms my argument. I will rest my case...for now

[MikeB]

I would be very interested in what Mike B has to say about the history behind this rule and so forth. 

See my first post in this thread, on page 1.... especially the last paragraph.

[K-Lo]

Finally, K-Lo, do you really feel that TDA #11 should remain as is?...Really?

I just feel that there will not be an appetite to change the rule again.  Could the rule be improved upon in wording or in content?  Possibly.  But I suspect many will just say it's OK the way it is.

I'm personally OK with leaving this one alone if it means spending more time working on things like e.g. Accepted Action, the flipped cards but not all-in situations, clarification of the balancing rule, etc.  Didn't MikeB say that next year's summit is going to be two weeks long??? 

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

 I know you would like to see TDA #11 tweaked a bit, too. After all, you were the TD that experienced (first hand) side pot players folding because the all-in showed first.
To me, it appears to be an easy fix. Accepted Action, however...now that's a different story.

[Tristan]

Hi Chet:

I understand what you are saying, and that approach (i.e. players in a side pot do not have to show if the all-in player is not eligible for that pot) would be one way to go about it. But I'm 99.99% sure that is currently not the TDA's "official" stance;  as I understand it, they want all players in the hand to show their hands when any player is all-in in that hand, i.e. all players eligible for the main pot or any side pot must show, even if an all-in player is not entitled to a given side pot.  Put another way, once a player goes all-in, everyone who is left at showdown for that hand must show regardless of who is eligible for what pots. 

I gave an example earlier in this thread, as did Mike B, similar to the one you give below, so I'll point out what I think the issue is.  Suppose in your example, F folds thinking that he cannot beat C, but in fact he has the true winning hand that beats everyone, including A & B.  However, F screwed up (intentionally? unintentionally?) and his untabled is voluntarily mucked.  Under your interpretation, F can do so, because no one that was all-in was eligible to win chips from side pot #2.  However, C's hand is not good enough to beat either A or B, resulting in both A & B potentially surviving when they really ought to have both been eliminated.  Allowing F to muck here without showing fails to ensure that the pot is awarded to the player with the real winning hand.  As I understand it, it's not only about ensuring that a player is eliminated incorrectly, but also to ensure that players who should have been eliminated, are.  So I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Rule 11, at least with respect to the side pot issue.
 

As far as Nick C's issue, I know what button he is pressing (and he's been slapping that button for some time now).    At the risk of putting words in his mouth, Nick is basically saying if we force everyone to show when someone is all-in according to Rule #11, why stop there?  Why wouldn't we force everyone to show at showdown for each and every "normal", non-all-in showdown?  If we think it is so important for the "correct" winner to take the pot, why limit the rule to only all-in situations?  Or alternatively, if we don't force people to show in every "normal" showdown, why don't we just scrap rule #11 and not force people to show ever, regardless of whether someone is all-in or not?

What I think Nick is essentially arguing for is uniformity: we should apply the 'all-show' rule to all showdowns, or no showdowns, as the same principles (preventing chip dumping/collusion, etc.) presumably apply.  Furthermore, by not expanding the Rule to apply to "normal" showdowns as well, when combined with the new rules that make it more difficult for a player to ask to see a mucked hand, this arguably encourages collusion rather than prevent it.

In that regard, Nick, I definitely think your heart is in the right place, and I hear you.  But I'm also a bit of a realist, and practically, I do not see that the TDA community would ever come to a consensus for such uniformity, either way.  There are many people who think that all-in situations are different because there is a direct elimination that can result, and will not dump the current Rule 11.  And although the underlying principles might also apply to "normal" showdowns, I don't think you'll get enough broad support for that because there will be TDs fearing it will simply slow down the game way too much, and also players that will be upset that they are giving up too much information in situations where chip dumping and collusion are theoretically possible, but not real concerns.   

I can't predict the future, but I really don't think it will be a winning battle... the current Rule 11 is probably the best compromise we can expect, and I'm sure the likely response is that one can always implement a house rule to force hands to show at all showdowns if the house felt strong enough about that, just like some house rules may or may not force the winning hand to show both cards in order to win the pot in a normal showdown.

Nick: I know that it won't stop you from trying, but please, make sure you save some energy for Accepted Action.... 

K

Yeah, all of this!  Nice summary K-Lo.

Sorry for my hiatus Nick!   

I guess, the way I see it, the TDA is here to try to get as many card rooms on the same page as possible.  It is pretty much impossible to get everyone to agree on what is best...but rules that the majority can agree on are good!  (Just try to get tournament players to agree on structure, chips, or break lengths once!)

I am thankful for K-Lo pointing out to me your stance, Nick.  You are right, I have not been on the forums very long, and I did not mean any offense.  I only had this thread to really base my thoughts on, and it looked like you changed your argument mid-thread!

I do see your point about uniformity.  I think though, that rule 11 is accepted by most TDs and most tournament players.  I think if it was changed to show all hands at showdown without an all-in, it would be met with more opposition than accepted action by TDs and I think that players would be opposed as well.  I also don't see reason that it should be taken out of TDA.  So, it seems to me that the best option is to leave it the way it is.

As someone who likes uniformity, I hope you can see that the side pot situation should be uniform with every other all-in situation.  If someone is all-in and all action is complete, all hands must be shown.  It shouldn't matter if there is 1 main pot or 1 main pot with 6 side pots.  Whoever is eligible to take money from, or lose money to the all-in needs to show.

Tristan