Tournament Director Exam Question (1 Viewer)

[Poker Zombie]

I don't feel tardy.

 

[JustinInMN]

If any player at the table argues that the hand should be killed, I would look at the Dealer, and I do not doubt that he would agree with the ruling and he would kill his own hand. I stand by this ruling based on TDA rule #1: The best interest of the game.

What would you do if the player to either side of the dealer made this mistake?

 

[DoubleEagle]

What would you do if the player to either side of the dealer made this mistake?

Same. Dead hand.

 

[Poker Zombie]

What would you do if the player to either side of the dealer made this mistake?

Again, I'd have to rule in the best interest of the game.

TDA rules don't exactly cover self-dealt home games. They are written with the intention of making casino games uniform between card rooms. While many of us homegamers try our best to emulate the casino experience, we have to look long and hard at "the best interest of the game". In most cases, the best interest is to "have fun".

Knowing the players is really helpful here, and an advantage we have over casinos. Regardless of his position, knowing the player that accidentally looked at the cards (at least I think I know who it is, I wasn't there), I do not perceive any angle-shoot. Therefore, there is no reason on this first offence to penalize the player - it is not in the best interest of the game. If he did it again, the hand would absolutely be killed, and the next time he would sit out an orbit.

It was a mistake. Treat is as such, and move on. It is in the best interest of the game.

 

[Frogzilla]

EP's turn call amount is returned

• SB's turn bet amount is returned
• burn cards are returned to the proper location
• turn action begins with SB

Allowing dealer to act now with extra information is wrong, since neither previous turn action had that info. Better to return the bets and restart action with all players having the new info.

This part seems crazy to me. I’d be extremely unhappy as one of the other two players. Is there any precedence for returning a called bet in any rulebook? In my opinion, that’s way more disruptive to both other players than the dealer getting extra info.

As my TD ruling at my house: stick it to the dealer or let it fly based on how experience/skilled dealer is. Experienced winning player- your hand is dead. Newbie losing player who probably doesn’t even know what to do with the added info- let it slide with stern warning and how to prevent in future.

Edited to add: I wouldn’t let the dealer raise on the turn. Only call/fold.

 

[ChaosRock]

Again, I'd have to rule in the best interest of the game.

TDA rules don't exactly cover self-dealt home games. They are written with the intention of making casino games uniform between card rooms. While many of us homegamers try our best to emulate the casino experience, we have to look long and hard at "the best interest of the game". In most cases, the best interest is to "have fun".

Knowing the players is really helpful here, and an advantage we have over casinos. Regardless of his position, knowing the player that accidentally looked at the cards (at least I think I know who it is, I wasn't there), I do not perceive any angle-shoot. Therefore, there is no reason on this first offence to penalize the player - it is not in the best interest of the game. If he did it again, the hand would absolutely be killed, and the next time he would sit out an orbit.

It was a mistake. Treat is as such, and move on. It is in the best interest of the game.

You state that you'd rule this way because it's for the "best interest of the game" as if it's a fact, which is definitely not. Or at a minimum, highly debatable. How is it good for the interest of the game that the guy who fucked up gets an advantage over those who did not fuck up?

 

[Taghkanic]

It might make things a lot easier if the dealer just said, “Dammit, I screwed up, and my hand should be dead. I fold, even though I was going to call, to avoid a total clusterfuck.” Then nothing else needs to change.

Of course, that is imperfect as well, since the dealer in theory could have gotten information which turned his planned call into a fold... Say, two cards of the same suit as his hole cards, taking away two outs from his flush draw.

But it still seems like a better outcome than all the other alternatives.

 

[Poker Zombie]

You state that you rule this way because it's for the "best interest of the game" as if it's a fact, which is definitely not. Or at a minimum, highly debatable. How is it good for the interest of the game that the guy who fucked up gets an advantage over those who did not fuck up?

When I say "the best interest of the game", I mean "the best interest of my game". It's not high stakes poker, it's a night of fun. Yes, we are sticklers when it comes to rules, but I'd be lying if we haven't given a pass to a new player that did the "I'll see your X and raise you Y". They get that pass once... once, and only if I have every belief that it was accidental, and every player at the table believes that it was an honest mistake.

This I believe is the same circumstance. It appears to be an honest mistake. I'd rather let a minor, no angle intended mistake just float by, unless it upset anyone at the table. This was early tournament, and not for stacks. Different situation, different player, it might warrant a straight kill the hand rule.

I can not see, under any situation, backing up the action to the start of the round.

 

[ChaosRock]

I can not see, under any situation, backing up the action to the start of the round.

Neither do I, obviously.

When I say "the best interest of the game", I mean "the best interest of my game". It's not high stakes poker, it's a night of fun. Yes, we are sticklers when it comes to rules, but I'd be lying if we haven't given a pass to a new player that did the "I'll see your X and raise you Y". They get that pass once... once, and only if I have every belief that it was accidental, and every player at the table believes that it was an honest mistake.

Your exemple is not comparable since it does not impact the hand in any significant way. Looking at the burn cards before acting closing the action does, significantly.

There’s no question we differ on the meaning of integrity of the game.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I compare the two, because they are both accidents. Bothe cases involve a player getting additional information (one in actual cards, the other in opponent reactions). The integrity of the game is held in balance by the integrity of the player that has the extra information. If you do not trust the integrity of the player that says he was going to call, then I will support you and order the hand dead. The same thing for the string-bet mistake. That player very well may have been gaining extra information by string betting. While I am likely to let the new player slide once, if anybody at the table questioned my game's integrity, I would support the harder rule.

The question is, do you trust the integrity of the player that gained the information?

As the hardest ruling in this scenario, I'd have to treat it as if the player reached across the table at a casino and just grabbed the two burn cards. From a casino perspective, this player would need to be escorted off premises for unruly behavior. Because this is not being discussed, I think we can agree that this was an accident, and should be treated as such.

 

[ChaosRock]

I really should have stayed away from commenting on your post. SMH...

 

[Frogzilla]

The more I think about it, taking away the ability to raise turn seems really good balance.

 

[JustinInMN]

Same. Dead hand.

If that's the case then at least it's consistent.

I guess my point is this is the only justification for the exam answer.

Dealing position doesn't matter, added information mid round does not matter.

There isn't an explicit rule that says peek at the burns, your hand is dead. before I saw this thread today, I didn't think there was any reason for this to exist.

So I think I have been persuaded that killing the hand is probably in the best interests long term, (and I would say the correct ruling if the burns are under the pot where they belong) I think there is a case for treating accidental instances (regardless of which player) as an exposed fold if it was an accident and the burns weren't placed correctly.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think there is a case for treating accidental instances (regardless of which player) as an exposed fold if it was an accident and the burns weren't placed correctly.

Ugh, then this means the dealer could be creating himself an angle by improperly dealing.

It's weird to me that the ruling must be cut and dry when no explicit rule exists, but I think I keep convincing myself it's right.

 

[Jordan Downs]

I agree with @BGinGA.

In addition to that, the “Outside of the box” way that our poker league and cash game crew deals the cards eliminates that problem. Or I should say, it hasn’t happened yet.

We put the flop burn card under the window card of the flop, the turn burn card under the turn and the river burn card under the river card. Depicted in the photograph below.

Every time I play somewhere new, many players really like the cards dealt like that and adopt the practice

Feel free to give it a try in your next game

 

[JustinInMN]

I agree with @BGinGA.

In addition to that, the “Outside of the box” way that our poker league and cash game crew deals the cards eliminates that problem. Or I should say, it hasn’t happened yet.

We put the flop burn card under the window card of the flop, the turn burn card under the turn and the river burn card under the river card. Depicted in the photograph below.

Every time I play somewhere new, many players really like the cards dealt like that and adopt the practice

Feel free to give it a try in your next game

View attachment 268773

I feel like this was a cooler.

But it seems a reasonable alternative to burning under the pot.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I agree with @BGinGA.

In addition to that, the “Outside of the box” way that our poker league and cash game crew deals the cards eliminates that problem. Or I should say, it hasn’t happened yet.

We put the flop burn card under the window card of the flop, the turn burn card under the turn and the river burn card under the river card. Depicted in the photograph below.

Every time I play somewhere new, many players really like the cards dealt like that and adopt the practice

Feel free to give it a try in your next game

View attachment 268773

I may try this. It's unorthodox, but I can see how it works. Also, it would slow the game just a tad as the burn card goes into a specific location. This would help prevent the burn-and-turn "Wait I haven't acted" situation.

I know that the situation can be avoided by the knock before the burn-and-turn... but I rarely hear non-professionals (myself included) knock.

 

[BGinGA]

But it seems a reasonable alternative to burning under the pot.

Fwiw, when I deal in a pass-the-deal game, I use the dealer button as a placeholder for the burn cards (tucked underneath) -- mostly because it is always directly in front of me, and the pot is NOT always collected and deposited in front of the dealer.

Better than the common "toss burn card into muck" technique I often see in home games.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Better than the common "toss burn card into muck" technique I often see in home games.

This drives me f’ing crazy!

 

[Poker Zombie]

When I can, I reach across the table to collect/protect the muck, but I understand that it's not always possible when dealing from the end. However, there are always chips (SB and BB) in my reach, and that's where my burn cars go. The DB covers the muck. If the muck is inaccessible, the DB just sits there.

I too hate people that muck into the pot.

 

[longflop]

Fwiw, when I deal in a pass-the-deal game, I use the dealer button as a placeholder for the burn cards (tucked underneath) -- mostly because it is always directly in front of me, and the pot is NOT always collected and deposited in front of the dealer.

Better than the common "toss burn card into muck" technique I often see in home games.

I do the same thing, its worked just fine so far.

 

[WedgeRock]

As my TD ruling at my house: stick it to the dealer or let it fly based on how experience/skilled dealer is. Experienced winning player- your hand is dead. Newbie losing player who probably doesn’t even know what to do with the added info- let it slide with stern warning and how to prevent in future

@ChaosRock, you should have kept my hand live!

 

[WedgeRock]

It might make things a lot easier if the dealer just said, “Dammit, I screwed up, and my hand should be dead. I fold, even though I was going to call, to avoid a total clusterfuck.” Then nothing else needs to change.

My instinct at the time (not because it affected me, but because I thought it was the right ruling) was to expose the cards to the other players. In the future, I will absolutely announce my mistake and discard my hand. In the hand in question, I would have felt really dirty raking that pot when my trip sevens hit the river.

What I will *not* do in the future, I will *not* announce an intent to call before the mistake. That's sharing information that is not necessary to the decision to kill my own hand that could affect the action afterward.

 

[WedgeRock]

If you do not trust the integrity of the player that says he was going to call, then I will support you and order the hand dead.

@ChaosRock was at the other table, not within sight or really earshot. He came over, asked one person to tell him what happened. I explained the situation and he ruled. I did not tell him I intended to call as that was not relevant to the ruling, IMO. After he killed the hand, I told the table my intentions and dealt the river.

I agree with you, @Poker Zombie, that sometimes you make exceptions for newer players. I didn't feel my experience warranted consideration in this decisison.

 

[WedgeRock]

Better than the common "toss burn card into muck" technique I often see in home gam

The importance or not doing this is easily demonstrated when the muck pile has to be counted down to make sure the dealer burned correctly. Hopefully, nothing disastrous has happened to that point. Such an easily avoidable situation.

 

[Poker Zombie]

@ChaosRock was at the other table, not within sight or really earshot. He came over, asked one person to tell him what happened. I explained the situation and he ruled. I did not tell him I intended to call as that was not relevant to the ruling, IMO. After he killed the hand, I told the table my intentions and dealt the river.

I agree with you, @Poker Zombie, that sometimes you make exceptions for newer players. I didn't feel my experience warranted consideration in this decisison.

This played exactly as I would expect with a high-integrity player. If anyone asked you to fold, you'd accept your mistake and fold.

You misled me with the "sunsets and beach walks" comment, to think it was Detroit Dad, who I would assume would have an equally high integrity.

Calling on Paulo to make the decision (not in hand, unaffected by the decision) was the correct move.

 

[WedgeRock]

Calling on Paulo to make the decision (not in hand, unaffected by the decision it was his house) was the correct move.