Comments for The Poker TDA http://www.PokerTDABlog.com The Poker Tournament Directors Association Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:44:05 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Showing a mucked hand by chet http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=168&cpage=1#comment-37 chet Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:44:05 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=168#comment-37 rbivans, I must disagree. Robert's Rules of Poker, v.10, Chapter 3, Poker Etiquette, Mucked Cards, says, "When a player mucks a losing hand that was called by another player, rules dictate that other players at the table may ask to see the mucked hand if it is easily identified; however, it is considered poor etiquette to ask to see a discarded hand except in a situation where collusion is suspected." This is based on Chapter 2, sec. 3.6: The Showdown, sub. 5. "Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showldown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked...." Folks may get upset with player C, but he/she has every right to request to see the mucked hand. rbivans, I must disagree. Robert’s Rules of Poker, v.10, Chapter 3, Poker Etiquette, Mucked Cards, says, “When a player mucks a losing hand that was called by another player, rules dictate that other players at the table may ask to see the mucked hand if it is easily identified; however, it is considered poor etiquette to ask to see a discarded hand except in a situation where collusion is suspected.”

This is based on Chapter 2, sec. 3.6: The Showdown, sub. 5. “Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showldown, even if the opponent’s hand or the winning hand has been mucked….”

Folks may get upset with player C, but he/she has every right to request to see the mucked hand.

]]> Comment on Showing a mucked hand by rbivans http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=168&cpage=1#comment-36 rbivans Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:12:03 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=168#comment-36 Player C should not be granted the privilage to see player A's mucked cards because only player B is obliged to show his hand as his was the called bet. Upon seeing that player B has player A beat, player A has the option to muck his hand. (This is unless local house rules require all hands at the river to be shown.) Player C should not be granted the privilage to see player A’s mucked cards because only player B is obliged to show his hand as his was the called bet. Upon seeing that player B has player A beat, player A has the option to muck his hand. (This is unless local house rules require all hands at the river to be shown.)

]]> Comment on Two players in a hand by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=169&cpage=1#comment-35 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:08:07 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=169#comment-35 The hand plays out here. There is no way to tell if player A was going to call or not. The player not in the hand should be given AT LEAST a warning not to talk about the hand (I would give him a 1 orbit penalty). He is in violation of One Player to a Hand. The hand plays out here. There is no way to tell if player A was going to call or not. The player not in the hand should be given AT LEAST a warning not to talk about the hand (I would give him a 1 orbit penalty). He is in violation of One Player to a Hand.

]]> Comment on Mucked vs Dead Hand by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=172&cpage=1#comment-34 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:04:14 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=172#comment-34 First off, if this is a tournament, the hands should have both been exposed as soon as there was an all-in and a call with no more action remaining. That being said, in most casinos, if the 'winning player' asks to see the hand of the 'losing player', that hand becomes live and can win the pot. The hand touching the muck is irrelevent as long as it is clearly identifiable. Furthermore, the verbal declarations of 'fold' or I fold' do not render a hand dead at showdown. They will render the hand dead if the player is facing a bet or if action remains and it causes another player to act. The decision was correct here. First off, if this is a tournament, the hands should have both been exposed as soon as there was an all-in and a call with no more action remaining. That being said, in most casinos, if the ‘winning player’ asks to see the hand of the ‘losing player’, that hand becomes live and can win the pot. The hand touching the muck is irrelevent as long as it is clearly identifiable. Furthermore, the verbal declarations of ‘fold’ or I fold’ do not render a hand dead at showdown. They will render the hand dead if the player is facing a bet or if action remains and it causes another player to act. The decision was correct here.

]]> Comment on A player picked up another players hand by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=173&cpage=1#comment-33 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:58:20 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=173#comment-33 If there has not been any action on the hand, I would declare a misdeal. Otherwise, unfortunately, both players now have a dead hand. This will seem very unfair to the player on his left, but I don't like letting him play the hand after another player took his cards off the table to look at them. If there has not been any action on the hand, I would declare a misdeal. Otherwise, unfortunately, both players now have a dead hand. This will seem very unfair to the player on his left, but I don’t like letting him play the hand after another player took his cards off the table to look at them.

]]> Comment on When nature calls by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=174&cpage=1#comment-32 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:55:17 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=174#comment-32 In a perfect world, the TD would have been there to stop the player from leaving the table with action pending. However, in this case I would have had the TD (or the dealer for that matter) turn over player A's hand and complete the hand with a stern warning to player A when he returned. I believe this is the fairest outcome here and OPTAH is not violated because of the mandatory showdown after an all-in and a call. In a perfect world, the TD would have been there to stop the player from leaving the table with action pending. However, in this case I would have had the TD (or the dealer for that matter) turn over player A’s hand and complete the hand with a stern warning to player A when he returned. I believe this is the fairest outcome here and OPTAH is not violated because of the mandatory showdown after an all-in and a call.

]]> Comment on Acting out of turn by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=177&cpage=1#comment-31 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:47:35 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=177#comment-31 In most casinos, the players bet will stand if the action doesn't change when it becomes that players turn. What constitutes 'Action Changing' may vary between casinos. A check or fold by an intervening player will make the bet binding. If an intervening player calls, it will be dependent on the house rules whether or not the bet stands. In most casinos, the players bet will stand if the action doesn’t change when it becomes that players turn. What constitutes ‘Action Changing’ may vary between casinos. A check or fold by an intervening player will make the bet binding. If an intervening player calls, it will be dependent on the house rules whether or not the bet stands.

]]> Comment on Rule 37 by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=178&cpage=1#comment-30 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:43:49 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=178#comment-30 In the US, unless there was an all-in before the river that completed all action, players show in order of their action. Closest to the button shows 1st. (This is assuming a cash game of course, the all-in hands would already be exposed in a tourney) Also, players with a suspected winning hand are encouraged to show immediately. In the US, unless there was an all-in before the river that completed all action, players show in order of their action. Closest to the button shows 1st. (This is assuming a cash game of course, the all-in hands would already be exposed in a tourney) Also, players with a suspected winning hand are encouraged to show immediately.

]]> Comment on Mucked winning hand? by pdrhodes http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=183&cpage=1#comment-29 pdrhodes Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:38:43 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=183#comment-29 Assuming players B and C had chips left, player B has folded here with action still pending and can no longer claim any rights to the pot. This was not a showdown situation where she could have retreived her cards. Showdown between A and C at this point for the main pot. Assuming players B and C had chips left, player B has folded here with action still pending and can no longer claim any rights to the pot. This was not a showdown situation where she could have retreived her cards. Showdown between A and C at this point for the main pot.

]]> Comment on 1st card dealt to button exposed??? by stuamurr http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=243&cpage=1#comment-28 stuamurr Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:48:43 +0000 http://www.PokerTDABlog.com/?p=243#comment-28 Poker TDA rules are now quite specific in that in the evnt of an exposed card the button may receive two consecutive cards. Regards Stuart. Poker TDA rules are now quite specific in that in the evnt of an exposed card the button may receive two consecutive cards. Regards Stuart.

]]>