Author Topic: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule  (Read 21286 times)

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« on: December 03, 2012, 06:12:20 AM »
Hello guys,
I'm writing here because last night I argued with an IPT (Italian Poker Tour) floorman regarding rule 12: showdown order
A lot of players get confused when they play in my tourneys because when they played in a IPT, the use the following rule:
showdown order - if there is no action on the last betting round, who took the last aggressive action must show first, regardless the round of betting

I said that this is completely no sense to me, since there's a clearly written rule about it on TDA which should not be messed up.
But it seemed to me that Pokerstars usally tends to mess with TDA and drastically change some ruling.

So, my question is:
is it possible to completely change a rule, or a TD shouyld built his own house rules starting from TDA (so not messing it up)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 06:13:41 AM by Linker_Split »
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2012, 07:34:41 AM »
 After further evaluation of the question from the most recent similar post, I realize that more than one topic needs to be addressed. In a non-all-in situation does the order of showdown only apply to the final betting round, or does it revert to the last aggressive action from previous bets when the last round is checked by all?

 Example: After the turn Player's A & B check and Player C bets. Both player's call. If there are no further bets after the turn and river:
                  
                                            Player A is first to show.
                                                              Or;
                                            Player C because he was the last to initiate a bet?

 I know the correct (current) answer is Player A but I can recall (years ago) when the last aggressor, from the first or second round was first to show even if the final round was checked.

 I'm not exactly sure when it changed but I believe the reason was; it caused more confusion in many cases when player's (and dealers) were expected to remember who initiated a bet, on a previous round. In 18 years of dealing in Las Vegas, the rule that the Italian Poker Tour is using, is what we used from 1979 through 1997.

 

 

« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 08:12:31 AM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 07:44:16 PM »
Nick:  In the example where there is no action on the last betting round, ie., check, check and check, Player A is correct IF, Player A is the first player to the left of the dealer still in the hand.  That is a most important point.  If there is action on the last betting round, then the Player who made the last aggressive action, ie., bet or raise, shows first.

The TDA rule is pretty clear, at least to me.  Why the IPT and PokerStars want to do things differently, who knows.  Maybe it is easier for PokerStars Programmers to just store the player with the last aggression and if there is no further action in a hand, refer back to that "trigger".   That said, I don't think the IPT is using programmers, so their possible reason is less understandable.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2012, 08:54:42 PM »
Hello Chet,
 Thanks for your response but I wasn't looking for an explanation of TDA #12, I understand what it says. I would like to know if that has always been a TDA rule because the rules for showdown always used to be the way Linker described it.  Was the current rule always on the books for the TDA? Or was it changed at a prior Summit?

 The rule is very clear but I was trying to point out that on the last betting round, with no all-in player, the first player would have had to check...well, first. Therefore that player would be the one to show their hand first.  

 The current rule states: If there was no bet in the last round, the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise.

 The way I see it, the first player had to check on the final betting round. So I think it would be less confusing if we wrote the rule a little different. In case you are interested, I prefer the TDA rule to the way it used to be...I just wondered when it was introduced.

 Where is everyone???     I'll repeat what I wrote on a prior post on this subject:

In TDA #12 do you think it might be more clear if we specifically stated; In a non-all-in showdown, the player that initiated the last aggressive action on the final betting round will be first to table their hand. If there is no bet on the final round, the first player that checked will show first, and so on clockwise.

 This would apply to all games; stud and razz as well as all button games.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 09:02:09 PM by Nick C »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2012, 09:22:08 PM »
Chiming in because there's an apparent emergency  :o  ;D

To my knowledge, in which my poker career began in 1997, in the U.S. the rule has always been that which is TDA rule #12. Have always played that way and have always supervised that way.

However in Europe it has always been the opposite. Last aggressor was to show first no matter the betting round. If there were no bets, simply a pre-flop call, then checked all the way down, the button showed first. Or better said, the person with best position showed first. This is how the EPT (PokerStars) does it and how World Poker Tour does it outside the U.S..

Again, this needs to be repeated more and more these days, the TDA Rules are purely supplemental to any house rules. Any.

As accepted as the TDA rules have become, there's been more and more house modifications and adaptations and incorporation of the TDA rules into the house rules these days. In fact, I can't remember the last time I worked a tournament where the house solely used the TDA rules as their tournament rules.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2012, 03:40:28 AM »
Thomas,

 Now it's even more confusing ???. I've never heard of the button being forced to  show first...never. Is that what you're saying?

 I never thought that this subject would create such controversy. If I bet, and you call, I show first. If you bet, and I call, you show first. The only possible question that we should face is who shows first, when all player's check the final betting round? Either the last aggressor from a previous round, or the first player that checked on the final betting round. That's it.

 Most of the time, it is not an issue because any player might turn their hand at the showdown. However, there are times when player's stall and wait for the other guy to show first. When that happens, player's are expected to follow the specific order for showdown, according to house rules.

 I have never heard of the button showing first, in Europe, or anywhere.

 While we're having this discussion, why do we specify non all-in situation? Doesn't the order of showdown still apply for all-in's?

 I also want to say; whether you agree or disagree with the IPT ruling, it is very clear and easy to understand.

K-Lo, Where are you? :)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 05:26:30 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2012, 11:21:10 AM »

 While we're having this discussion, why do we specify non all-in situation? Doesn't the order of showdown still apply for all-in's?
Not in TDA rules... TDA Rule 11 applies to all-ins, TDA Rule 12 applies to non all-ins...

It's very cut and dry: Either there's an all-in bettor or there isn't. If there is an all-in bettor, use Rule 11..... if there isn't (and players don't voluntarily table at showdown), then use Rule 12...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 11:22:19 AM by MikeB »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2012, 01:16:38 PM »
Thomas,

 Now it's even more confusing ???. I've never heard of the button being forced to  show first...never. Is that what you're saying?

 I never thought that this subject would create such controversy.
There's no controversy.

In plain terms:

U.S. showdown rule: See TDA #12. In case of a showdown, 1) If there was a bet on the last betting round, the last aggressor shows first, 2) If there was no bet on the last round of betting round players show clockwise beginning with the player in first / worst position.

European showdown rule: In case of showdown, 1) If there was a bet on the ANY betting round, the last aggressor shows first, 2) If there was no bet on any round of betting round players show beginning with the player in last / best position (including the button).

These rules are very clear. I don't see what issue you have with them Nick?  ???  I've had no trouble with these rules whatsoever with players whether Europeans playing in the US or US players playing in Europe. In addition, not to leave out the rest of the world, Latin America (Central and South) all follow US style. Not sure about Australian Rules or Asian Poker Tour rules regarding the showdown order.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2012, 01:59:50 PM »
Mike,

 Will you explain the difference to me. I know that TDA #12 is written specifically for non all-in's. Even when any player is all-in, there is still a designated player that shows first, correct? The last aggressive bettor will still show first. The only difference is all player's must table their hands.

Thomas,
 I have little interest in how the European Poker Rules are written, but don't tell me there is no controversy. If there wasn't, Linker_Split would not have brought the question to the forum.  I am curious, however as to how their rules would be so different from ours when all rules originated from poker in the USA?
 I've never heard of the button showing first. If that is the case, why is the Italian Poker Tour different?

 Contrary to what everyone seems to think, I am not against every damn rule that is written. I even said that I prefer the TDA rule over others.

 Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better? I suggested;
 The first player had to check on the final betting round, that's why that player shows first.  We define the aggressor as the player that initiates a bet or raise. Yet a player that checks in turn has also acted. It is passive but, the player has legally acted on their turn to bet, therefore, on the final betting round, when all players have checked, the first player that checked shows first.

 Thomas, one more question. Do you have any written European Rule Set that supports your claim that the button must show first if no bets are made on the final betting round?

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2012, 03:10:16 PM »
For what i know, there's no "European TDA" other than "EPT rules".
Also i always thought that TDA rules came first before all other set of rules.
Seems to me that this is not true anymore...
Regardless this fact, I've based my italian set of rules (2Poker TDA rules) upon TDA

#Edit
Oh, btw, I'm Linker_Split :)
Just changed my nickname with my real name, Luca Palmieri
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 03:15:54 PM by Luca P. »
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2012, 04:01:04 PM »
K-Lo, Where are you? :)

Hullo all!  Excuse my absence, but I was on a long cruise through the Panama Canal.  Getting back into the swing of things now... what'd I miss???!!  :)

I'm not sure where to jump in here or whether it would be helpful even, but briefly, I think most modern rule sets are purposely silent as to who must show 'first' in an all-in situation.  My guess is that the rule assumes that since everyone must show eventually, that should be enough, and there is no need to designate an order of showing.  Should an order be enforced even in cases where everyone must show their hands?  Perhaps it wouldn't hurt...  But that might simply make the problem worse as the last player in the showdown order would then have more reason to wait before showing.  

Personally, I think the rules are generally fine as they are, but it would be nice if TDs were more inclined to penalize delays in showing hands at showdown as "delay of the game" violations under rule 54. I'd like to see any delays at showdown, in all-in situations especially, met with a warning and then escalating penalties.  

The difference in the EP and US rules do not surprise me.  I could be wrong, but my recollection from the early 90s is that most people understood the rule to be something to the effect that the last aggressor must show first, but nothing was said about the last bet being on the last betting round or sometime before that.  The interpretation was left open.  I believe that even older poker books suggested that in any showdown, all hands were required to be exposed immediately or the players would risk a penalty.  So at that time, the idea of a showdown order had not even been developed.  No surprise then that different interprations would emerge. It would be interesting to see some old versions of Robert's Rules to figure out when he clarified that section.

Anyways, if some European cardrooms interpreted it one way, different from the way it is done in most places in the US, it doesn't surprise me that they've stuck to their own way for this long.  Heck, what is up with that minimum double-the-amount raise in France and Ireland (?) still?  Chalk it up to tradition.  And as Thomas noted, they're free to do so, regardless of whether they choose to adopt other TDA rules.  But hopefully, as Luca noted, they will eventually come around to the TDA's way of thinking. I think TDA is still often thought of as an "American" organization rather than an international organization though, and this can only impede progress.  (Maybe TDA should have some non-US representation on the Board... I'm just saying  ;)

All this being said, I do agree with one of the points Nick noted in support of his proposal to amend rule 12 to replace "the player to the left of the button" with "the player who checked first" (i.e. in the case where there is no bet on the final round), because then it could be more universally applied, in particular, to games that do not use a button such as Stud.  Also, I think there is a possibility that we may someday institute a rotating button to keep track of hands played in Stud (but the button still does not determine who acts first on a given round), and if that does happen, then the rule as currently written would certainly be inaccurate and only serve to confuse TDs directing Stud-type games.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 07:53:40 PM by K-Lo »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 04:33:26 PM »
Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better?
I think many of the TDA rules should be rewritten to make the grammar and understanding of the rules better. But that's not my place to determine. I'm not a board member. Although I am a TDA member, I think the board should determine to word things.
Quote
Thomas, one more question. Do you have any written European Rule Set that supports your claim that the button must show first if no bets are made on the final betting round?

Here's my thread on links to rule sets of different tours. It needs updating.

But......
=======================================================================================================
EPT Rule 50. Showdown - After all action is completed, the player who made the last aggressive action must show first and it proceeds clockwise. Whether that was on the river, the turn, flop or pre-flop. In Stud games, the same rule applies going back to 3rd street if necessary. If there was no aggressive action on the entire hand, the player to the left of the button (for Flop games) or the third street bring-in (for Stud games) must show first and it proceeds clockwise.

    Players may refuse to show their cards in turn and are allowed to fold, thereby relinquishing their claim on the pot.
    Players who refuse to show their hand or fold will be subject to the actions from Rule #51b.

FIDDPA RULE 71 SHOWDOWN
71-1.
If all betting has been completed and no further action is possible, players will be in a “showdown” situation.
71-2.
The player who made the last aggressive action on the final betting round must show their hand first. In situations where all players have checked the last betting round, the player to the left of the “dealer button” must shows first and shall continue in a clockwise direction.
a) In Stud games, the player with the high board must show first.
b) In Razz, the lowest board shows first.
c) “All-In,” if a player is “all-in” and no further betting action is possible, the dealer must stop all action and instruct the players to turn their cards “face up,” players will be in a “showdown” situation. Dealers must ensure that all cards are exposed before continuing with any action. If a player is “all in” or any player involved in the “showdown,” accidentally or intentionally folds/mucks their hand before cards are turned “face up,” the dealer must immediately bring this to the attention of a Floor Person or Tournament Director. Management reserves the right to retrieve the folded/mucked cards, if the cards are clearly identifiable. Venues/ House Rules that are governed by juridical gaming laws pertaining to a retrievable rule shall apply.
d) If there is a “side pot,” players involved in the “side pot” should show their hands first. “Side pots” will always be awarded before the main pot.

=========================================================================================================
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.

@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 07:42:34 PM »
K-Lo and Thomas,

 Thanks for your replies.

 Thomas, I'm going to guess that the player's on the button that show first, (after a final round of checking) do it, just because. I'm glad you were unable to find it in a written rule. I also like the mention of the all-in player's showing their cards last, or when the main pot is being decided. TDA #11 does not mention that.

 Ken, thanks for recognizing what I was saying about the "checked" final round.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2012, 09:50:14 PM »
Mike,

Will you explain the difference to me. I know that TDA #12 is written specifically for non all-in's. Even when any player is all-in, there is still a designated player that shows first, correct?

Important question... answer is no... there is no order of show if Rule 11 applies (i.e. at least one player is all-in and no remaining betting is possible). Once these conditions are reached, regardless of where you are in the hand, per Rule 11 "All cards will be turned face up without delay".  No player should refuse to turn their cards up once Rule 11 conditions are reached... they have bought into the tournament knowing that this rule is in effect.


Mike and Thomas, do you agree that the wording could be changed to make our rule better? I suggested; The first player had to check on the final betting round, that's why that player shows first.  We define the aggressor as the player that initiates a bet or raise. Yet a player that checks in turn has also acted. It is passive but, the player has legally acted on their turn to bet, therefore, on the final betting round, when all players have checked, the first player that checked shows first.
Indeed Rule 12 has the effect that it is the player who checked first in the last possible round of betting who is required to show first in a non all-in showdown if there's no bets in the last round (and if players do not voluntarily table their cards at showdown). We could also say that it's "the player who would be first to act if this was a betting round and not the showdown".   Now, are either of these wordings better than the current language? Well, what we'd end up with in writing the rule with either of these variations are examples to make things perfectly clear (i.e. "the first player to the button's left in board games, the high hand showing in stud, and the low hand showing in razz"). Since the current rule already has these illustrations it's a more economical use of language not to further stipulate a rationale... On the other hand I can see some utility to adding a few words on an agreed-upon reasoning if the association feels it's useful ("it's the guy who checked first on the last round", "it's the guy who would be first to act")... these are memorable shortcuts that would apply to any type of game.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2012, 11:09:38 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: IPT trouble with "showdown order" rule
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2012, 03:59:50 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.

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?

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.

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.

Nick, I think I deleted some of your post by mistake, hopefully the essence of it is retained above. I hit the "modify" button when I intended to hit the "quote" button. Remind me never to post before noon :) MB
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 10:04:12 AM by MikeB »