Author Topic: Why the insistence to table all-in hands when deciding side pot winners?  (Read 4680 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3308
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
I can not understand why:
  Illustration Addendum to
2013 TDA Rules and Procedures Version 1.0
Rule 15: Face Up for All-Ins.

Can anyone explain, why all-in players must table their hands before the pot they are competing for is being contested. It is clearly spelled out in the Addendum but, like some of the other new rules, needs more explanation as to why? I understand all cards must be tabled but turning a hand prematurely can only cause problems.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3308
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
I posted this a couple days ago and I'm still waiting for a response...from anyone. Someone must have strong feelings regarding this subject because I don't recall any discussion, from the summit, that would warrant the language adopted.


 It would be nice to hear from one of our new board members. Tab, Neil and Jack are great additions to the BOD. I think other members will agree that it would be nice to hear from them.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
I see your point Nick. I also don't think it was discussed specifically at the Summit, but I might be wrong.

When a player is all-in, I think if the action checks around on the river, or there is a bet and a call on the river, it does make sense to me to show only the hands eligible for the side pot first and work your way to the main pot. I think we explored this in a thread, and many of us agreed that while everyone does have to show in an all-in situation, it doesn't necessarily have to be all at the same time and before any of the pots are awarded.

I admit though that some may find it easier to enforce the rule if everyone just simply showed before determining the winners of any pots, particularly if the dealer does not have firm control over the table and there is a chance that the player contesting the main pot may refuse to show or walk away from the table.  Under the "new" procedure, you could have the dealer focus on the side pot hand first and ignore the hands eligible for the main pot at the outset, despite having all cards turned up.

I could go either way - I was a bit surprised that an addendum was necessary for this particular issue.  I would have preferred to keep this somewhat open and not have an addendum that specifically discussed it - it is more about preferred procedure than anything.

K

« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:05:01 PM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3308
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Ken,
 Thanks for your response. I guess nobody else wants to say anything about TDA #15.

 I find this rather strange, especially when it wasn't discussed at the summit and a full page on the Addendum is dedicated to telling us how to handle showdown situations that involve all-in players. Someone wrote the Addendum. I guess they just don't want to explain their reasoning.

 Let me go on the record again...I don't like TDA 15 and the Addendum makes it even worse.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
I believe it was discussed.  If I remember correctly, Jack brought up that everything would be easier if once a hand was complete, all hands were shown.  Then showdown order and other issues would not exist.

While some people agreed, I don't think most did.  Most felt that it should apply in the all-ins, but not necessarily at other times.

There were forum posts regarding face up for all-ins, I'm guessing the addendum was added to clarify.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Glad I scoured through to the 3 page!

I'm with you Nick.  I can see no benefit to this at all. All it does it confuse the players who won which side pot and also confuses the dealer the same. I've seen this practice put into the place at the insistence of the dealer (usually) and can't tell you how many times I've come over because one of the guys who would've won the side pot, mucked his cards because he saw the all-ins hand, which was only winning the main pot.

I remember one time specifically where a guy made a 4 flush. He had a pair in his hand but only saw that the all-in player hand tabled his hand immediately after the hand was over prior to the dealer sorting out the side pot which was not an all-in. Because the side pot was checked down, he forgot that there was side pot and that there was another hand to contend against. Once he saw that the all-in place made an Ace High flush he immediately mucked his cards. The other player won the side pot.

He realized his mistake afterwards but it wouldn't have happened had the all-in player WAIT for the side pot to be determined.

A little different than the topic  but still relevant to the topic and how always turning your cards up is not always in the best interest of game management.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3308
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Thomas,

 I can't tell you how good it makes me feel, when a TDA member of your status and experience agrees with me ;D
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:35:16 AM by Nick C »