Author Topic: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?  (Read 5130 times)

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« on: September 04, 2013, 11:10:32 AM »
Now the rule is the following:
Quote
"In a non all - in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show.
The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.). Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the
order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down"

Why has changed again?
It was so clear and easy to use, now again with the "last aggressive action in a round"
First, the new rule is somewhere bad written:
" If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first"
Which "betting round" are we talking about?

Are we talking about a round in which there was an aggressive action (so having the old rule applied) or it's a TD's choice (lol)?

If we use the "that" instead of the "a" before "betting round", we would have the last "showdown order" rule we have used and that it's so esy to use (also for the dealer to remember)

What you think about?
Card Room Manager

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

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2013, 12:01:22 PM »
You are reading too much into it Luca!  ;)

If Player A is first to act on the flop, they are first to act on the turn and also on the river.

Basically it is saying the person who should act first (on the final round or technically any round) should show first if there is no aggressive action on the river.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2013, 04:00:27 PM »
Now the rule is the following:
Quote
"In a non all - in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show.
The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.). Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the
order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down"

Why has changed again?
It was so clear and easy to use, now again with the "last aggressive action in a round"
First, the new rule is somewhere bad written:
" If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first"
Which "betting round" are we talking about?

Are we talking about a round in which there was an aggressive action (so having the old rule applied) or it's a TD's choice (lol)?

If we use the "that" instead of the "a" before "betting round", we would have the last "showdown order" rule we have used and that it's so esy to use (also for the dealer to remember)

What you think about?


The 2011 TDA rule on showdown order was definitely a good rule. However, it only addressed holdem, high stud, and razz. What about lowball for example, or draw high or a new game that may come along in the future like Chinese poker or whatever? The 2013 rule applies to ALL game types, while still retaining the examples of the 2011 language (first seat left of the button in holdem, high board showing in stud, low board in razz).

As for what betting round we're talking about, it is definitely not "the TDs choice", but rather the CURRENT round... in other words if we were going to go to a betting round right now INSTEAD of showdown, who would the action be on first? ... and of course the answer to that is provided in the 2013 rules in the examples that follow your text in red above: first seat to the left of the button in holdem, high board in high stud, low board in razz, etc..... the general rule then also applies to the games left out of the 2011 Rules such as whoever would be first to act given your lowball rules (the opener or?), etc.  This can be clarified if people express confusion with it; but in practice if you just stop and ask "if this were a betting round right now, who would be first to act", you will have your answer as to who is first to show.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 08:55:40 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2013, 08:21:49 AM »
Mike,

 I'm having a bit of a problem with the last sentence for the order of showdown. " Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the
order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down" Don't you think it would be better to insist that all hands be tabled? Allowing a player to not show his hand at showdown is a sure way to promote chip dumping. Player A shows two pair, the next 4 players muck...Player A's buddy is last remaining player, he has three of a kind...he mucks.

 Tournament poker rules should take every possible measure to assure that the pot is awarded to the player holding the best hand. Any player, in for all bets, should be guaranteed that he receives the pot. It doesn't have to be a chip dumping situation. Mucking the hand because the owner misread his own hand is no valid reason to award the pot to the wrong player. The end result is the same...the undeserving player is awarded the pot, and every player in the tournament could be affected.

 Let's save the following comments for cash games. What I've heard on other posts:" Hey, if he's that dumb and he doesn't know what he has, he deserves to lose!"
Now is that really in the best interest of the game?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2013, 08:53:45 AM »
Nick: Very interesting question, and one the TDA has been and will continue to ponder probably forever. Let's look at the details:

1: First and perhaps most important, if you want your house rules to require all hands at showdown to be tabled live, you certainly may... "except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled...". SO, if your policy requires it, just make sure your players are aware and you're fine.

2: From the player's standpoint I can tell you that the vast majority of players DO NOT want to be required to show their hands at showdown. Also, the vast majority consider proper reading of your own hand to be part of the game and if you mis-read your hand and fail to see you're the winner and instead fold, that's a defect in your skill-set.

3: At Summit VI Neil Johnson made a revealing comment, something to the effect of "...I'd like to see all cards at showdown turned up live and that would do away with all this showdown stuff... but can I get even one player to agree to it...". That really sums up the player position on this IMO.

4: Philosophically there certainly is precedent for all cards up at showdown: first in online poker where they always are, and per TDA rules in all-in situations. The justification for doing it in all-ins has been well-explored previously.

5: This leads to another related question which is whether just the winning hand must always be turned up, even if all competitors muck face down at showdown. Again, there are TDs and players on both sides of this issue so consensus will be difficult to achieve, if ever. So for the moment, if that's your house policy, the sentence you quote permits it. On the other hand, turning up the winning hand is not a requirement of TDA rules if there is no competing hand tabled.

.... And BTW, I'm personally fine with either no hand required to turn up, or just requiring the winning hand to turn up. I understand the philosophy of both schools and they both have good arguments, I lean a bit more towards not requiring it, but certainly can live with it if they do. Going further and requiring ALL hands turned up, I'm not as excited about that one but recognize the rights of your house to use that if you wish.

This debate will continue, no doubt....

« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 08:59:52 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Again changing of "showdown order" rule in TDA 2013?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2013, 11:40:53 AM »
Mike,
 
 Thanks for your quick and thorough reply. I understand what you are referring to when you speak of player's not liking the idea of having to show their cards. I'm one of those player's, too...unfortunately that's a huge part of the game of poker. Being embarrassed, after you get caught trying to bluff, is tough for any player to handle. However, that is the risk we take whenever we consider...a bluff.

 I can't help but return to the subject of the TDA rules for all-in situations. To think that an all-in wager will guarantee that every risk of the wrong player getting the pot is eliminated. It also guarantees that all hands must be tabled, so player's are forced to face the embarrassment of showing their cards without a choice to muck.

 Let's look at this scenario and see if this makes any of us feel differently about our all-in rule: Final betting round; Player A bets 500, Player B calls, Player C calls, Player D goes all-in for 450. Our current rule demands all cards are tabled. Or what if Player D goes all-in for the full 500?

 I thought that Jack Effel was the person who said "I'd like to see all cards tabled in showdown situations...." You claim it was Neil Johnson, in any event, I'm in favor of the idea.