Author Topic: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)  (Read 12933 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« on: July 04, 2013, 01:46:46 PM »
Folks,
At the TDA Summit, it was agreed upon by majority that if a player was not "at their seat" when the FIRST CARD IS DEALT off the deck, that the player's hand would be dead immediately.  The cards will be dealt out but then mucked at the completion of the deal.  This is a change from the current procedure which states that if a player is not at their seat by the completion of the deal then the hand is dead.

I've been putting a lot of thought into this rule since the Summit, and while I agree with the intention, I am having a lot of time accepting it from a practicality standpoint.  I understand that we want to keep people from running around the room and being constantly out of their seat or rushing back to the table, but from a dealer's point of view, this approach is going to cause issues.

Currently, the dealer completes the deal and mucks the hands of players who aren't there.  This is the practical order of things, and makes sense from a player point of view as well.
With the new rule, the dealer will begin the deal but it is already determined which players hands will be dead from the moment the first card comes off the deck.  Where I think we will run into problems are situations like the following:

Dealer deals the first card off the deck.  Player sits back down at his seat, player receieves first card, player looks at that card.  Dealer deals 2nd card, player looks at 2nd card.  Dealer completes the deal.  Dealer now reaches over and mucks that players hand.  Imagine if it was the UTG player whose hand was going to be mucked.  He could have already tried to make a bet before the dealer even gave the button his 2nd card!  Now we have to say "sorry sir, that's a dead hand" when the player was seated before the cards were dealt to him?
The other problem I have is the conflict of the idea behind this rule with another new rule to be implemented.  The other new rule states that a player moving from a broken table to his/her new table will be dealt in, so long as the first card hasn’t passed his/her new seat yet.  Another intention of the dead hand rule is to prevent a player returning to his seat from seeing another players hand as he is walking back to his seat.  If that new rule exists for that reason, then we can’t have that other rule where we deal the player in when approaching the table from a broken table.  I believe they conflict to much.

Again, I understand and agree with the intention of the rule, but I do not think it is practical.  I foresee a lot more problems than with our current way of handling away from table players.  We don’t want players rushing back to their seat?  Well guess what, they’re just going to rush faster now.  We don’t want players leaving the table to sweat short stacks during hand for hand?  Penalize them for doing that and they won’t.  I don’t think this rule will be met well, I don’t think it’s practical, I don’t think it’s necessary, and I believe it should be open again for discussion on this board before implementing.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2013, 04:27:52 PM »
Brian,

 I agree with everything you said.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2013, 06:50:26 PM »
Hi Brian -

It was a pleasure to meet you at the Summit.

I think Tristan may be able to shed light on this rule since he dealt at the PCA, but I believe that if the player was not at their seat at the beginning of the hand, the cards get dealt to the middle of the table and not to the player, so the incoming player will not get any cards to look at.  I am sure that in cases where the player is just sitting down, dealers will not enforce the rule strictly... But in typical cases, the seat will be empty when his first card is dealt..

As for the other new rule you mention regarding players coming in from another table before their seats receive a card, there was no agreement on that rule (your point was raised specifically) and the proposal was struck out.  Otherwise, I would agree that the rules would have been contradictory.

Having played at the PCA and seen this rule in play, I am in favour of this rule.  Some of the pros have said that it is "bullshit" in response to arguments that the last card rule encourages favouritism, with dealers calling the pros from the neighboring table before dealing the last card, but I do see it all of the time.  That being said, I don't actually mind waiting at all (even though I know that the dealer would not have waited for me), and dealers will probably wait just the same with the first card rule.  

The difference is that with the first card rule, no one will have received their hole cards while waiting for the pro to sit.  And thus the chance that the pro may accidentally get a glimpse of someone else's cards is minimized.  

To be clear, it is not my cards that need the most protection, but the cards of the old guy who doesn't protect his hand as well as he should that is seated beside the pro. I don't want there to be any chance that another player has the benefit of knowing what cards are dead unless I am privy to that same information.  Sure, we can always blame the old guy for not protecting his hand sufficiently, but is it reasonable to expect that a player should protect his hand not only from the eyes of players beside him but also from players with an eye line above and behind his head after already having received cards? Personally, I do not mind waiting for people coming back to their seats at all.  Take longer if you have to. Just do not deal any cards until everyone is seated.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 07:01:30 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2013, 06:00:29 AM »
Ken,

 Sorry, I don't agree with you on any of this.

 The old guy? The young players are the ones that are exposing their cards, and trying to catch a glance at another players hole cards. Don't blame this "lame" ruling on any old guy.

 What prompted the need for such a change? Why not just insist that players be in their seat or they will be penalized?

 For rulemakers that are always crying because they have poor inexperienced dealers, it appears that we are asking them to change, yet another fundamental proceedure.

 Poker used to be governed by the same rules whether a tournament or cash game. Over the last 12 years, or so, the difference is growing in leaps and bounds.

 I have to say that I was disappointed when Accepted Action failed to be addressed.

 I hadn't planned on saying much until the new rules are finalized but, it was too difficult for me to not respond to this.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2013, 07:45:12 AM »
The old guy? The young players are the ones that are exposing their cards, and trying to catch a glance at another players hole cards. Don't blame this "lame" ruling on any old guy.

 What prompted the need for such a change? Why not just insist that players be in their seat or they will be penalized?

You know that I refer to "pro" and "old guy" as just placeholders.  No stereotyping intended.

I think the impetus for the change is that a decision was made to standardize across the different rule sets (Matt Savage's/WSOP/PCA/EPT), so each of the representatives shared how they were doing it, and attendees were asked to pick one.  Neil Johnson made a very convincing case and at the time, there appeared to be 100% agreement to adopt it.  I am sure if you and Negreanu were there, it would have been less than 100%  ;) but probably still a super-majority.  As to your last question, the issue is not merely whether players should be in their seat, but when, and in particular, whether they should be permitted to be out of their seat while other players at the table already have all their hole cards.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2013, 09:17:59 AM »
While we're on the subject of voting...do you think the attendees may have felt a little pressure if they voted against the BOD? Would a written vote, on proposed rules, at day's end, or on day 2 been a better way to allow members to digest a change that; was never discussed on this forum and the dealer procedures are still unclear.

 There was discussion of giving players a black and a red card at the final table, or whenever a "split" was suggested. This would allow an honest, silent vote, from any who might oppose. Yet, for game changing rules, we subject members to make a snap decision. Hell, we give players more time to decide if they want to call a bet!

 Ken, a while back, you suggested going over the hot topics, from the forum prior to the summit. Your idea was to give the attendees a "jump start" so to speak, so we could use the short 2 day summit to address the issues our members were most concerned with. This would give the great majority that could not attend a little recognition. Instead, what we have are more controversial rules to ponder, and the controversial ones from 2011 remain unchanged.

 Now that you mention it, I am with Negreanu on this one, and from what I see on other poker sites, we're in the majority!

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2013, 10:14:50 AM »
Dealers dealing to middle of table may alleviate one problem, but could create multiple more.  Let's say I deal the first card off the top of deck to seat one, seat 5 sits down, now he's sitting there and I don't deal him in.  He gets pissed.  Probably holds the table up while a floor comes over and explains "new rule."

Problem two, dealer deals cards to middle of table, gets tripped up, causes misdeal.  Slows the game down.  Now the guy's sitting there, we still have to deal him out. 

It's a solution to a problem that didn't exist, IMO.  This rule was working just fine.  Unfortunately on Thurs monrning my rental car had a flat that I had to get repaired and I missed this discussion (no BS, I have receipt to prove it  ;D). 

Again, I don't think there was any agrument with adopting this because the other side of the coin wasn't presented well.  I honestly believe if someone had pointed out the significant challenges that adopting this rule WILL create, that it wouldn't have been so cut and dry.

I agree with the idea behind it, it's a good thought, but it isn't worth the headache just to maybe prevent one guy from seeing a hand while rushing back.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2013, 10:47:11 AM »
I sympathize with your frustration, Nick.  I think Mike did try to slip in some of the items that we discussed in the forum into the agenda, but on the whole, I have to concede that the discussions on the forum had relatively little impact or recognition.  I suspect the focus of the summit was more on "newer" issues that were on the minds of the TDA board members, and it did seem like you had to be prepared to make a decision on many of those issues on the spot. To be fair though, there was so much on the agenda (beyond what we have been debating) that I am not sure whether there would have been sufficient time to address everything anyways.

Although I personally find this forum helpful, as do some of the lurkers I am sure, I think we have to be realistic and accept the fact that this forum is probably made available simply to allow us to informally discuss things, rather than as a tool to drive change.  I did actually send in a redlined version of the rules with comments summarizing all of the major topics we debated on the forum prior to the meeting, including many of the suggestions that you raised.

I think the moral of the story is - if you really want to see something changed, you have to convince Matt that it is important enough to debate and to have him put that item on the agenda, and then you also have to show up in person at the Summit to make your views heard.  Simply venting your frustrations on this forum is likely a futile exercise, and most of the time, you are probably preaching to the choir anyways.

And Brian, with respect to the new rule vs old rule, I don't really feel strongly either way to be honest. I would prefer though that the same rule is used consistently in all major tournaments, whatever that may be.  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 08:32:07 AM by K-Lo »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2013, 11:32:09 AM »
I sympathize with your frustration, Nick.  I think Mike did try to slip in some of the items that we discussed in the forum into the agenda, but on the whole, I have to concede that the discussions on the forum had relatively little impact or recognition.  

Far from the forum having "little impact" on the Summit agenda, the forum issues had tremendous influence. Please see the long list of suggested topics thread:  
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=30.0

Just a cursory review of the titles of those threads finds:

1: Raise rule on re-opening. Will be put into Illustration Addendum
2: When are cards dead at showdown: Done
3: ATSAH: Done
4: Tabling: Done
5: Forward motion at showdown: Done
6: More re-opening the bet questions… done, done, and done
7: Draw game rules, silent chip bets on minimum openers, etc… Tabled for Summit VII.   FWIW, the rule was significantly discussed in pre-meetings, with a split panel, for example between calling a 1000 silent opener in the following example a 600 minimum open vs. a 1000 open: 2-7 lowball, blinds 150-300, the UTG tosses out a 1000, is this a min open of 600 or max for the chip? (1000). I will say that the house that uses the game the most favors the 1000 here. But all-in-all tabled due to heavier topics.
8: Rule 45, non-standard folds question, the term “reasonably have two different meanings” was added.
9: Extra chips found after chip race: done
10: Boxed cards / more misdeal language: Tabled, left to conventional rules for the moment. Summit VII material
11: Koroknoi vs. Baumann case, need a rule: done
12: Illustrations needed for raising rules: Done
13: Clarification on how to handle in-turn undercalls: when can they leave the bet in and fold, when must they call: done
14: Skipped player questions: Tackled the “Substantial Action Out of Turn” Issue: Done
15: Showdown Order, who shows first: Done, standardized globally.
16: Rule for premature discarding by player thinking they’ve won: Done
17: Revisions needed to re-opening the bet language: done
18: What constitutes tabling? Done again
19: Showdown: are verbal capitulations binding? When are cards retrievable / non-retrievable: done
20: New rule for minimum opener games: deferred to Summit VII but see above
21: Shootout tournament questions: deferred to Summit VII
22: Fix for Rule 37: done
23: Folding in turn when checked to OR when first to act: clarified, done.

There has been alot of discussion about Accepted Action on the forum, but nobody spoke up about it at the Summit that I'm aware of. Everyone had their opportunity, the AA rule was deliberately put on it's own slide with no other rules... just so the Summit could squarely focus on anyone's complaints...

And here's what I've observed with this rule since adoption. If a house cannot live with it verbatim, the house goes ahead and writes it's own exception language which is entirely permissible under the last sentence of the rule: "Rule 1 applies at TDs discretion". This allows the house to use AA to the extent they find it useful, and at the point where they feel compelled to have pre-written guidelines for exceptional situations, they have them.

If this were a major problem, in practice, for attendees you would have seen hands in the air... I was in the front of the room so maybe I missed someone's outcry on this, did anyone else see anyone wanting to initiate discussion on AA?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 12:18:25 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2013, 12:54:06 PM »
Ken,

 To say that I needed to be in attendance in order to make a difference is untrue. I was at the Summit in 2011. The only thing I can say about my being there was; I said just about everything I wanted to say.

 Mike,

 All of the issues that you have listed as done, remain to be seen. Baumann vs Koroknai ? There are more holes in that contest than a Swiss cheese ::)

 Let's look at what went wrong? Andras goes all-in for 1,397,000 and doesn't even know Baumann raised to 60,000 in front of him. Accepted Action, anyone?

                                              Andras mucks his hand, thinking he's won the pot!??...Really? Come on. Oh, did anyone ever find those jacks he claimed he had?
                                          there were only 16 cards to look through to possibly catch him in a lie
.
                                              The dealer certainly could have offered more protection to Anras by preventing his hand from hitting the muck. However, based on all
                                          prior discussions, the dealer was reluctant to do his job properly because there are those that feel he would be in violation of the one
                                          player per hand rule, which by the was was never intended to include dealers.

                                               Gaelle Bauman...Hmm, now what did she do wrong? I'll tell you what. She didn't call fast enough, and she didn't scream loud enough.
                                          She conducted herself like the lady she is. I wonder what Phil H would have done in her place?

 What should have happened:     Koroknai's hand should have been dead as soon as it was lost in the muck.

                                               Koroknai's tournament should have ended right there on the spot. Awarding Gaelle the 60,000 was the least she could have received
                                           The 1,337,000 all-in raise amount, should have been removed from play.

How can we prevent the same from happening again?

The vote at the Summit seemed to be in favor of giving the dealers a more active roll by allowing them to return the cards to Andras. (this is a step in the right direction, and I hope it is written into the new rules).

                                              I have one more suggestion: Insist that all players, contesting a pot at showdown, retain possession of their hole cards until they see a hand that is better than theirs, or they have been pushed the pot!

There's so much more...but one at a time. :-X

                                                                                                       
                           
                     

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2013, 01:41:30 PM »
Mike, I did not mean to be critical, and apologize.  Perhaps my point would have been better made if I had said that the emphasis on various topics seemed different at the summit vs on the forum.  Which is fine - clearly some important topics were discussed.  In any event, you were the only one on the Board to explicitly acknowledge the contributions of those on this forum, so for that, you have my respect.

I do think though that if there was any way to compile proposed rule changes in advance of the meeting, and then get feedback from members and players prior to the meeting, with the results of the feedback summarized and discussed at the meeting, a wider range of opinions could then be canvassed.  It is hard to think through the ramifications of a proposed rule when many of the attendees might be seeing and thinking about it for the first time in the slides provided to them on the morning of Day 1.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 01:49:38 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2013, 03:09:04 PM »
Mike,

 Without your hard work, expertise, and dedication the TDA Forum would have folded 2 years ago. I'm sorry if you are the one that our criticism is directed at but, you are the only board member that's out there.

 I can only imagine the time and effort that you put into this seemingly thankless undertaking. No one else could handle your job quite the way you do.

 Thanks for everything.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2013, 03:10:48 PM »
Ken: No apologies are needed and criticism is always welcome...

I just want everyone to realize that we've been talking about much much more than just accepted action over the past two years...

And it was very surprising to me not to hear one voice on AA at the Summit... I don't exactly know what to attribute that to, so I come back to what I've actually seen in practice... and that is that some houses just use the rule "as is" while others write in some supplementary guidelines as to when / how they will invoke the last sentence of the rule. My best guess is that is what the majority of venues do.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 03:13:29 PM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2013, 08:30:51 AM »
Here are some favorable tweets on the first card / last card issue:

Lee Jones: @leehjones I watched debate & thought, "1st card off." Props to @PokerTDA adopting @PokerStarsEPT rule. Good trade by @SavagePoker & NeilJ

@jeanriders: Seen a bit of favoritism by dealers tonite & agree w new TDA rule "1st card off" 100%!!

@sdroads 29 Jun Just talked with @FirstLadyPoker and learned about new TDA "first card" rule. Love it! No more mad dash to table before last card hits!

@MarvPoker 29 Jun I'm in favor of the new rule re: seated for first card. Very distracting when 3 players swarm seats in mid-deal.

@SabylWSOP Agreed plus now dealers can't slow down if they look up and see Daniel running to the table or speed up if they don't like player

‏@RioTheKitten 28 Jun I'm with you all the way. I prefer TDA rules every time

Artur Voskanyan ‏@artpoker 28 Jun @RealKidPoker @FirstLadyPoker (Last card) player can see other players cards and take a seat till the last card has been dealt.

Also, to share a timely personal experience at the Summit:

On Day 1 we were talking about first card off vs. last card off, and how it may help limit players arriving late from seeing other players cards... That evening there was a tournament of TDs.  Anyway I was talking with someone near my table and made a typical "mad dash" to get back to the 2 seat before the last card was dealt off...

As I'm reaching for my chair I glance over and the player to the dealer's right is looking at his cards which I can plainly see standing up and having arrived at the table just as all cards were dealt... 10 - K :)

This isn't to say there aren't intelligent voices on the other side of the issue, just that there is a solid case for first off. Here's pro player and TD Kenny Hallaert discussing the subject in a short videoclip:
http://www.pokernews.com/video/wsop-2013-kenny-hallaert-pro-new-tda-rules-8022.htm  Kenny attended the Summit and was keenly interested in the goings-on.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 04:09:05 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: New rule - Dead hand not "at seat" (from TDA Summit)
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2013, 11:53:38 AM »
Mike,

 I don't like the first card off...I also know that anything I say won't matter. I just have to go and change the curriculum that pertains to dealer procedures that I've been teaching forever. Frankly, it's a big pain in my ass! ;D