Questions about Addendum to 2013 Rules

[Nick C]

I have too many questions to list them all at this time. I'll begin with the first one listed: Rule 15; Face Up for All-In's. The only part that makes sense to me is when any player is all-n and there is no more betting possible...all player's should turn their hands over on any street, as long as there is no side pot to contend.

At the end of Example 3 NLHE Three players remain. The last line reads " Notice: do not keep A's cards face down until the side pot between B and C is decided. Why

It goes against every dealer procedure that I've ever heard of in the past 40 years! Please explain the logic, please.

[Nick C]

Posted 5 days ago...and no answer?

[MikeB]

Hi Nick: The TDA Rules are very clear that all downcards are to be turned face-up once at least one player is all-in and all betting action is complete and no further bets are possible, be it pre-flop, on the turn, river, wherever...

Bottom-line is that in tournament situations you want to make 100% sure that the correct hand wins, because unlike a cash game A) a "tournament life" is on the line and B) all players in the event have an interest in the all-in player being knocked-out if he or she truly does not have the winning hand. If you expose the sidepots-only first, you risk that those hands might be mucked without tabling, in which case we can't be 100% sure the best hand really won.

If you decide to skirt the letter of the rule, and call for tabling of sidepot-hands only in sequence, then you need to insist all of those hands be tabled if there's an all-in player in ANY pot of that showdown...

[Nick C]

Hello Mike: First of all, I want to thank you for always taking the time to respond to my questions. You describe my suggestion as " skirting the letter of the rule." I only see it as the proper way to assure that no player will ditch their hand prematurely. We have had instances when players have asked us what they should do when players muck their hands because an all-in player (not contesting the side pot) has them beat. It is an easy mistake to make, when you see a better hand than yours face-up on the table.

The only method I have ever used, is the only proper method that I still teach. I will always insist that the all-in player or players, will table their hand when the pot they are contesting is being decided. The all-in can never muck their hand without showing it. Cash games, of course, are different. If a player decides to muck a winning hand, that's their mistake and they have no one to blame but themselves. Tournament poker is different...so all players must show their hands to guarantee that the proper winner receives the pot they are entitled to. There must still be a proper order of showdown to protect all players. My suggested method is the only way to decide side-pot winners without confusion...that is: in the reverse order that they were created.

We have also addressed the subject of insisting that all players, in for all bets, show their hands at showdown. Not only when there is an all-in. This is the ONLY way to guarantee that there is no chip dumping, or collusion, or any type mistake that would give any pot to an undeserving winner. I'm sorry but, this would be the only way to "protect" the integrity of the game.

Let's at least address this important fundamental procedure. In my opinion, it makes no sense the way it is.

[MikeB]

Hello Mike: First of all, I want to thank you for always taking the time to respond to my questions. You describe my suggestion as " skirting the letter of the rule." I only see it as the proper way to assure that no player will ditch their hand prematurely. We have had instances when players have asked us what they should do when players muck their hands because an all-in player (not contesting the side pot) has them beat. It is an easy mistake to make, when you see a better hand than yours face-up on the table.

So you're in favor of changing the rule, well understood. That will come up in sequence and those in favor will have ample opportunity to argue the case.

The only method I have ever used, is the only proper method that I still teach. I will always insist that the all-in player or players, will table their hand when the pot they are contesting is being decided. The all-in can never muck their hand without showing it.

Again, you're clearly in favor of changing the rule, fair enough... What about players other than the all-in... do you insist that they all table their hands as well ?

Cash games, of course, are different. If a player decides to muck a winning hand, that's their mistake and they have no one to blame but themselves. Tournament poker is different...so all players must show their hands to guarantee that the proper winner receives the pot they are entitled to. There must still be a proper order of showdown to protect all players. My suggested method is the only way to decide side-pot winners without confusion...that is: in the reverse order that they were created.

This suggestion will certainly be reviewed when the all-in showdown rule comes up for discussion. Keep in mind that if you find yourself with more than one sidepot developing, and you feel it's in the best interest of the game to keep cards facedown and award the pots in sequence you can always choose to do that. By "skirting the rule" that wasn't intended as a pejorative, if you feel that's the best way to manage a given all-in showdown, so be it.

We have also addressed the subject of insisting that all players, in for all bets, show their hands at showdown. Not only when there is an all-in. This is the ONLY way to guarantee that there is no chip dumping, or collusion, or any type mistake that would give any pot to an undeserving winner. I'm sorry but, this would be the only way to "protect" the integrity of the game.

Again, this will certainly come up for discussion. Keep in mind that historically it's not been very popular with players and would slow the game down if you insist on reading every hand at every showdown, all-in or not. It also removes the element of player mistake which many feel is part of the game.  Remember the classic mistake Phil Ivey made in misreading a winning flush at the WSOP Main Event final table... he decided not to table his hand and what a difference it might ultimately have made. There's a tradeoff: I do want the best hand at showdown to win, but on the other hand I recognize that reading your cards properly is part of the game... so far the best solution we have is voluntary tabling in non all-in showdowns... if you table then your hand must be read and cannot be killed if it's the winner... but if you misread your hand and don't table, it's your error.

Thanks for the interesting ideas.

[Nick C]

Mike,

Your last paragraph explains exactly why we must seriously consider changing the current rule. Will you agree, if there were an all-in player involved in that infamous winning hand that Mr Ivey mucked, he would have won the hand...I wonder how many players were affected in later hands? Possibly even eliminated because the player that beat them had "extra chips" donated by Phil Ivey.

As far as all players showing their hands at showdown, I believe this is the only way to guarantee that the best hand wins the pot. Awarding any pot to an undeserving winner can never be in the best interest of tournament poker. We often speak about the integrity of the game. How can we justify integrity, and the protection it offers for the vested interest of all players, if we award a pot to the second best hand because a player, novice or experienced pro (Ivey, for example), in for all bets, mucks the best hand?

We know that Phil made a mistake, right? I mean, he wasn't dumping chips...was he? His integrity led us to believe that he simply overlooked his winning flush. Let's eliminate the possibility that future actions could be intentional.

You'll be amazed at how many other problems a must show rule would solve at showdown.

[MikeB]

It's definitely an interesting subject. But in the words of Neil Johnson: "... if I could get even one player to agree to it".

Food for thought.

[Nick C]

Okay Mike, I hear you...but since when have we made a rule with prior approval from the players? 

Let's take a look at some of the advantages to a "Must Show" rule:  No chip dumping.
                                                                                            Reduce chance of collusion.
                                                                                            No suspicion of collusion, as a reason to ask to see a players called hand.
                                                                                            Prevents winning player from premature mucking.
                                                                                            Allows dealers to retrieve correct hands from the muck, with certainty.
                                                                                            Best way to guarantee that the rightful winner gets the pot.
                                                     
                                                                 The Disadvantages: Possible chance of slowing down the game... I really doubt that, I actually believe the exact opposite
                                                                                            will occur.

[MikeB]

The idea that TDA rules do not have player input is false...

TDs talk to players all the time, ask any TD how often players come up to them with questions and suggestions. Further, many TDA venues have official player advisory councils. That's why you hear at the Summit "... well, my players tell me this..."

Players also submit suggestions and criticisms both directly to the TDA, and indirectly through the media, etc.  

Not to mention that a very high percentage of TDs have been or are active players themselves, and many have also been dealers so they see the game from every angle.

Also don't forget one of the main disadvantages of showing every hand at every showdown from the player standpoint: losing players like to have the option not to show their hand, i.e. they don't want to give away more information than is absolutely necessary.

[Nick C]

Mike,

It's a called hand. Any player should be able to see a called hand. Why is it only okay when there's an all-in? Just show it...that's part of the game. How can players be allowed to muck any time they want? There must be others that feel the way I do. It was discussed at the 2013 Summit, and then it was forgotten.

There is no point in my continuing this conversation, I've said all I can. I just can't see the rule (TDA #15), protecting the integrity of the game.

[MikeB]

Yes, any player should be able to see a "called hand", but we should make clear what that is....Not every hand at showdown is a called hand for purposes of requiring the hand to be shown on request of it's callers. The only such hand is that of the last aggressor on the final street (if any). If you watch the 2013 Summit videos it's very clear that a super-majority of the Association supports this position. It wasn't written in the rules because it could leave the impression it's the only condition on which a hand must be shown on request.

You ask again why it's okay to require all hands to be shown in an all-in... this was answered above in this thread....the reason all hands are shown at an all-in is due to: A) a tournament life being on the line; and B) all players in the event, not just those in the showdown or at that table, having an interest in making sure the correct hand wins in an all-in.

It's very clear that you would like every hand tabled at every showdown, all-in or not, and this will definitely be debated at the 2015 Summit. And yes there definitely are others in support of that position. It was discussed at the 2013 Summit... it wasn't "forgotten", there just wasn't enough traction to vote it in at that time.

[Brian Vickers]

I think the only thing Nick was trying to get across is that in cash games when there is an all-in and side pots, the side pots are resolved in reverse order of creation and dealers are used to telling the main pot player not to show his hand until it gets to the main pot.  The reason that the procedure is that way is that if a side pot player sees that main pot players hand he might accidentally muck thinking he has lost while forgetting about the side pot that he may have won. It also is to help avoid confusion on eligibility for each pot when the dealer is trying to handle several side pots in a single hand.

I'm neither for nor against at this time, but I just thought I'd attempt to add some clarity there.

[Nick C]

Thanks Brian, I thought I covered it but, your explanation was perfect and well written.

[WSOPMcGee]

What Nick means is: When there is an all-in player, all players should turn their cards up for all pots in sequence as normal dealer procedure. Not just all at once just because some player is all-in and theirs 2 side pots undetermined.

Ok that was written horribly.

[Nick C]

Thomas: You are a little off tonight. I appreciate your support but, I think I've clearly explained the issues I have with Face Up For All-in's. What tops my list of reasons is: It does not comply with dealer procedure at the showdown.