POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2015 Summit

Procedure for At Your Seat... Re: Upcard in stud dealt up or down?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Nick C:
Chet,

In holdem the flop remains the same and it does not affect any "proper cards." Actually, there are very few similarities. Stud is much different. There must be others that play stud that can relate to what I'm saying. If you deal the absent player in and he is not the bring-in...no problem. Kill the hand and proceed. If the absent player is dealt in and he is the bring-in, it will have a serious affect on the entire hand. Chet, you say deal his card up and if he's the bring-in he must pay the price. What do you do on forth street? Do you kill his hand immediately? Do you give him another card? If so is it up, or down? If you kill his hand, do you bury his next card to assure "proper card" to the remaining players? or do you skip him and give this card to the next player? Surely you understand what I'm saying, don't you?

 My solution: Deal the absent players "third street" or "door card" down.

MikeB:

--- Quote from: Nick C on August 13, 2013, 08:05:56 PM ---Chet,

In holdem the flop remains the same and it does not affect any "proper cards." Actually, there are very few similarities. Stud is much different. There must be others that play stud that can relate to what I'm saying. If you deal the absent player in and he is not the bring-in...no problem. Kill the hand and proceed. If the absent player is dealt in and he is the bring-in, it will have a serious affect on the entire hand. Chet, you say deal his card up and if he's the bring-in he must pay the price. What do you do on forth street? Do you kill his hand immediately? Do you give him another card? If so is it up, or down? If you kill his hand, do you bury his next card to assure "proper card" to the remaining players? or do you skip him and give this card to the next player? Surely you understand what I'm saying, don't you?

 My solution: Deal the absent players "third street" or "door card" down.

--- End quote ---

Nick: very interesting thoughts... IMO this is good Summit VII material.

At the end of the day, we do deal the hand... to me that's key... and we do require forced bets to be paid by the absent/penalized player....

I'm sure this issue will be on the agenda for Summit VII. At the least perhaps we can clean up the "Note" part of the rule, that some houses may require additional cards be dealt to the killed hand...

Summit VII will be interesting.

K-Lo:

--- Quote from: Nick C on August 13, 2013, 05:43:55 PM --- Penalize him when he returns.

--- End quote ---

I see where you are coming from, but unless you are actually willing to start penalizing people for missing/sitting out hands, I don't think you can make this (huge) change.

Practically, I think if you start penalizing people anytime they've missed a few hands, on top of the 'penalty' of already surrendering their antes, you are really going to get people mad (even more mad than with the first off the deck rule!)... not to mention the fact that TDs would be kept super busy simply assessing penalties to people for missing hands.  So I don't think it is practical to penalize players simply for being absent.  They should be able to choose to be away from the table, so long as they satisfy their obligations (i.e. posting all forced bets).

It follows then that if I know that I will not be penalized for missing hands, and for example, it's getting really close to a money bubble in a Stud or mixed game tourney where I plan not to play any hands until the bubble breaks, I now have a huge incentive to leave the table and sit out if your new rule meant that I would never have to post a bring-in while I am away from the table.  I don't think that's very fair - if you are being dealt cards, as you will be in every hand of a tournament whether you are at your seat or not, you should be obliged to pay the bring-in if you were dealt the lowest card, period.

Now, with respect to how it affects the deal on fourth street, etc., I think the current procedure is OK the way it is (i.e. take in the hole cards of the absent player, killing the hand, and keep dealing upcards to that seat until it faces a bet that it cannot call). However, if you were really concerned about the way that this is done and think that it is too confusing, I think the better solution would be to change the procedure so that once the absent player brings-in and action moves on to the next player on third street, we immediately kill the absent player's hand including mucking his upcard. I think this addresses most of your concerns without giving the absent player a free ride (well, a potentially discounted ride), and I would support that change if you proposed it.  The reason that is often given for not doing it that way is that is potentially affects the order of the cards that would come out on fourth streets (and possibly beyond) if the bet is not actually completed on third street -- but since all the cards off the deck are random anyways and there are no game security issues because the dealer is still burning a card, I don't see that as a persuasive argument. It may indeed be simpler just to kill the hand of an absent player outright after the bring-in -- easier for the dealer and arguably more consistent with the way hands of absent players are immediately killed now in Holdem.

Nick C:
Ken,

 Interesting post. However, do you realize everything you wrote was never an issue until the new At Your Seat Rule. I'm only guessing but, I don't think Stud is one of your favorite games. I say this because, your explanation of "random cards" and just killing the hand of the absent player, or dealing forth street face-up will create unbelievable chaos at the table. You are sitting in the 6 seat (with Aces in the hole) and the absent 5 seat player is the bring-in...forth street is dealt face-up and the Ace of hearts falls right in front of you!
 Come on guys, I know we can come up with something better than this. Deal to the center table, or deal the absent players cards down! Make him pay the equivalent of the bring-in for each hand he misses...or change the damn rule back to the way it was.

K-Lo:

--- Quote from: Nick C on August 14, 2013, 07:54:57 AM ---However, do you realize everything you wrote was never an issue until the new At Your Seat Rule. [...] dealing forth street face-up will create unbelievable chaos at the table.
--- End quote ---

Nick, I play Stud all the time. Do you know what the procedure is currently for dealing fourth street w.r.t. an absent player? If there was no completion on third street, the absent player gets dealt fourth street face-up.

So... I'm failing to see how the "new" rule has changed anything. I guess I'm missing your point.

If an absent player gets dealt an upcard that is low, he should surrender the bring-in; if he gets dealt an upcard that is not low, he should not surrender a bring-in.  There is no justification for more or less of a "penalty".

I'm going to take your cue here Nick... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  At least with respect to the absent player's upcard being dealt up.  (If you want to push for something about dealing downcards to the center of the table for absent players as a recommended procedure, that is fine, but as was pointed out earlier, it's probably not necessary to turn into a hard rule.)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page