Tourney What tilts you? (3 Viewers)

[Old State]

In tournaments, players who fail to table their hand in a showdown that involves an all-in. I strictly enforce this rule as a dealer and tournament director, and I do not play in tournaments where this rule is not enforced.

Great call! I forgot about this but it happens all the time in home games. Drives me nuts and it’s one of the few things I will speak up about at a game where I’m not hosting. These are the rules and everyone is eligible to see the hand and gain info. It’s kind of a sleazy and cowardly move IMO.

There are also those who try to just show one card! Maybe even worse as this shows they know the rule and are trying to get away with something.

I’ve never seen it not enforced at a casino but I’ve seen players try it. If the dealer doesn’t speak first they usually hear it from the other players.

 

[MattyMatt]

That's a 150 raise from 100 to 250, so next minimum raise is 400 from that 250.

That's not how the rule is written. Any raise (not all-in) must be at least the size of the previous bet or raise in that round."

In my example the action went;

1. bet 100
2. total wager 250

250-100 is as you point out 150. Therefore, the wager (bet) is 250 total, the raise amount is 150, and the remaining 100 is the call amount. The minimum raise can therefore be the smaller of either the size of;

• "the previous bet" which was 250, or
• "or raise" which was 150

Since we're talking about the minimum it seems clear to me it's the smaller of the two, which in turn means the part of the total wager/bet that constitutes the raise, i.e. 150. That it says "previous bet" seems to clearly imply that the first person to make a wager doesn't actually raise anything, and is just making a "bet". So that needs to be taken into account in this rule. Therefore, the new minimum total wager/bet after a minimum raise will be:

250+150=400.

NOT 250+400=650.



For reference:

http://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/

A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.

 

[WedgeRock]

I think the "prior bet or raise" refers to situations where there is no raise (just a bet). If you are raising, it must be at least equal to the previous bet; if you are re-raising, it must be at least equal to the previous raise.

 

[MattyMatt]

I think the "prior bet or raise" refers to situations where there is no raise (just a bet

If you are raising, it must be at least equal to the previous bet;

It says "raise" and "or raise", literally.

if you are re-raising, it must be at least equal to the previous raise.

A re-raise is just a raise that happens after another raise. The only time at least the TDA rules even mention "re-raising" it's simply procedural, and it has nothing to do with any amounts. Look at the example section:

Rule 47: Raise Amounts. “The largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round”.

This line refers to the largest additional action or “last legal increment” by a preceding bettor in the current round. The current round is the “current street”, i.e. pre-flop, flop, turn, river in board games; 3rd – 4th – 5th – 6th – 7th street in 7-stud, etc.

Example 1: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. Post-flop, A opens with a bet of 600. B raises 1000 for total of 1600. C re-raises 2000 for total of 3600. If D wants to raise, he must at least raise the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is C’s raise of 2000. So, D must re-raise at least 2000 more for a total of 5600. Note that D’s minimum raise is not 3600 (C’s total bet), but only 2000, the additional raise action that C added.

Example 2: NLHE, Blinds 50-100. Pre-flop A is under the gun and goes all-in for a total of 150 (an increase in the bet of 50). So, we have a 100 blind bet and an all-in wager that increases the total by 50. Which is larger? The 100 is still the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, so if B wants to re-raise he must raise at least 100 for a total of 250.

Example 3: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. On the turn A bets 300. B pushes out two 500 chips making the total 1000 (a 700 raise). It is 1000 to C to call. If C wants to raise, it must be “at least the largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is B’s raise of 700. So, C’s minimum raise would be 700 for a total of 1700. Note his minimum raise is not 1000, B’s total bet.

Example 4-A: NLHE, Blinds 25-50. A raises 75 to 125 total. Notice that 125 total = 50 (bet) plus 75 (raise). The next raise on this street must be “at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise”, which is 75. B now raises the minimum (75) to 200 total. C then re-raises 300 for total of 500. We now have a bet of 50, two raises of 75 and a raise of 300 for total of 500. If D wants to re-raise, “the raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round”, which is now 300. So, D must raise at least 300 more to a total of 800.

Example 4-B: Same as 4-A. It’s the same 500 to D, but there’s just been one raise of 450 by A to a total of 500 and B and C have both called. So, there’s a blind bet of 50 and a raise of 450. “A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round”, which is A’s raise of 450. So, it’s 500 for D to call, and if D wants to re-raise he must raise at least 450 for a total of 950.

It's perfectly consistent.

 

[Polochris]

When the individual waits to show his/her cards at heads up showdown, when they are the aggressor. Dude! You are betting and being aggressive. You need to show first!

 

[DoubleEagle]

People grabbing change out of the pot before action is closed

Unfortunately, my group does this and it drives me crazy! Most players when in the small blind will immediately take change and then put it back in when action gets around to them.

I implemented a change requiring them to wait until action was complete before making change, but I was told “this is just stupid.” We did it for two weeks and I gave up and they went back to their old ways.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Unfortunately, my group does this and it drive me crazy! Most players when in the small blind will immediately take change and then put it back in when action gets around to them.

I implemented a change requiring them to wait until action was complete before making change, but I was told “this is just stupid.” We did it for two weeks and I gave up and they went back to their old ways.

We have had a caller make change, then a raise, re-raise, change maker called, raiser all-in, re-raiser all in for less. then the problem of where did the change come from.

Create a problem, never come back.

In fact, if you need your change that badly, stay the f*** home.

 

[Jampiece]

The bet was $4. No need to throw out 16 quarters!!!

Yup there it is. That's my pet peeve.

 

[Jimulacrum]

We have had a caller make change, then a raise, re-raise, change maker called, raiser all-in, re-raiser all in for less. then the problem of where did the change come from.

Create a problem, never come back.

In fact, if you need your change that badly, stay the f*** home.

It kills me when this kind of thing happens. Don't mess with people's active bets, ever. Just wait for the round of betting to finish before you get your change. Is it really that hard?

 

[Poker Zombie]

It kills me when this kind of thing happens. Don't mess with people's active bets, ever. Just wait for the round of betting to finish before you get your change. Is it really that hard?

I get it - some people are afraid their change will be forgotten. I know, I am one of those people.

Instead of instantly making my change though, I place my hand in front of me (physical hand, not my cards) and support it off the table with the number of chips I'm expecting back. This prevents me from forgetting my own change, and when the dealer gives me my change my hand is right there to pull it in to my stack.

Nothing ever needs to be said, unless I hear "pot's right" and my hand is still in an unnatural location.

 

[WedgeRock]

I get it - some people are afraid their change will be forgotten. I know, I am one of those people.

Instead of instantly making my change though, I place my hand in front of me (physical hand, not my cards) and support it off the table with the number of chips I'm expecting back. This prevents me from forgetting my own change, and when the dealer gives me my change my hand is right there to pull it in to my stack.

Nothing ever needs to be said, unless I hear "pot's right" and my hand is still in an unnatural location.

If I fold with an overchip and there is still action, I will usually just announce, "I need $x change" and correct change is received when action is done.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If I fold with an overchip and there is still action, I will usually just announce, "I need $x change" and correct change is received when action is done.

I would be fine with that. Really, anything is good if it's not annoying, and not preemptively making change.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Nothing ever needs to be said, unless I hear "pot's right" and my hand is still in an unnatural location.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

When the individual waits to show his/her cards at heads up showdown, when they are the aggressor. Dude! You are betting and being aggressive. You need to show first!

When I call a bet at showdown and the aggressor hesitates, I just table my hand. This accomplishes a couple of things.

First, it keeps the game moving. There's no "you show," "no, you show" BS and we can get to the next hand.

Next, it allows the aggressor to muck without showing. This hesitation is almost always a failed bluff, and I want players to keep bluffing into me. By forcing him to show his bluff, it discourages him from doing it again.

Rarely is the information gained by forcing him to show first worth it. And once in a great while, the aggressor hesitates as a form of slowroll because he knows he's winning but wants to see my hand. No biggie IMO.

 

[Outkicked]

When there is a fish spewing chips all over the place and he decides to see if he can hit is inside straight draw or two outter (like he does every hand) and hits it against you and then spews all of your chips to everyone else at the table, luckily it hasn’t happened in a long time but when it does it’s beyons frustrating, most times you can turn it around but sometimes it just one of those nights

 

[Schmendr1ck]

When there is a fish spewing chips all over the place and he decides to see if he can hit is inside straight draw or two outter (like he does every hand) and hits it against you and then spews all of your chips to everyone else at the table, luckily it hasn’t happened in a long time but when it does it’s beyons frustrating, most times you can turn it around but sometimes it just one of those nights

This is what I call "a normal session."

 

[Poker Zombie]

When I call a bet at showdown and the aggressor hesitates, I just table my hand. This accomplishes a couple of things.

First, it keeps the game moving. There's no "you show," "no, you show" BS and we can get to the next hand.

Next, it allows the aggressor to muck without showing. This hesitation is almost always a failed bluff, and I want players to keep bluffing into me. By forcing him to show his bluff, it discourages him from doing it again.

Rarely is the information gained by forcing him to show first worth it. And once in a great while, the aggressor hesitates as a form of slowroll because he knows he's winning but wants to see my hand. No biggie IMO.

1. By requiring the aggressor to show first, you teach them that it is ok to use the tactic vs the other 8 players at the table. By showing first you are actually slowing the game down, not speeding it up.
2. By showing first, and allowing the aggressor to muck, you are preventing your opponents from gaining information that they have a right to see (especially in a tournament setting). If the aggressor was a friend/spouse and you are protecting them... that would be defined as collusion.

Rules are there for a reason. Follow them.

 

[Coyote]

Isn't the aggressor allowed to muck and concede the pot anyway? (genuine unanswered question)

 

[Jimulacrum]

1. By requiring the aggressor to show first, you teach them that it is ok to use the tactic vs the other 8 players at the table. By showing first you are actually slowing the game down, not speeding it up.
2. By showing first, and allowing the aggressor to muck, you are preventing your opponents from gaining information that they have a right to see (especially in a tournament setting). If the aggressor was a friend/spouse and you are protecting them... that would be defined as collusion.

Rules are there for a reason. Follow them.

Fair point in #1. It works out to be faster in the current hand, but it's a bad example that will eat up time later. However, the downside to insisting that the aggressor show first is what Schmendr1ck said: it discourages the aggressor from bluffing on the end. It's a trade-off either way, but if someone in your game is being that stubborn about showing all the time, it sounds like a good time to find someone else to fill the seat.

I disagree vehemently with #2, but it's two separate issues:

2a. In cash, no one has a right to see anyone's cards unless they're shown to another player. You can invoke "I want to see that hand" at showdown if you were dealt cards, but that rule is intended to stymie collusion, not educate players about their opponents, and you'll quickly become unwelcome if you do it more than once in a blue moon. As much as you might want that information, you're not entitled to it.

2b. In a tournament, everyone who gets to showdown must table their hands, so the aggressor is actually breaking the rules by mucking (assuming a normal/TDA rule set). If anything, the caller insta-tabling speeds things up, since the aggressor must show and he's just holding out for the caller. Whatever the case, holding up the game when you have to table anyway is a KITN-level offense.

Isn't the aggressor allowed to muck and concede the pot anyway? (genuine unanswered question)

In a cash game, yes. In a tournament, no. (This is in general, House rules may vary, of course.)

 

[Poker Zombie]

2b. In a tournament, everyone who gets to showdown must table their hands, so the aggressor is actually breaking the rules by mucking (assuming a normal/TDA rule set). If anything, the caller insta-tabling speeds things up, since the aggressor must show and he's just holding out for the caller. Whatever the case, holding up the game when you have to table anyway is a KITN-level offense.

This is not true. In a tournament, hands are shown in order unless one or more players are all-in. If there is an all-in, cards are tabled face-up as soon as there is no more possible action pending.

I particularly pointed out in my post that point #2 was referring to tournament play.

Isn't the aggressor allowed to muck and concede the pot anyway? (genuine unanswered question)

I have seen venues where this was ruled both ways. However, if the aggressor chooses to muck, their cards are dead and the last remaining player does not need to show either, because they have the only live hand.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

By requiring the aggressor to show first, you teach them that it is ok to use the tactic vs the other 8 players at the table. By showing first you are actually slowing the game down, not speeding it up.

I'm assuming you meant "teach them that it is not ok to use..."

I disagree that it sets a bad example. I actually think it sets a good example of "If you think you have the best hand, table immediately." It avoids "he should show first" and "I paid for that information" arguments and lets you focus on playing the game.

Obviously if you have a player who is a chronic hesitator, he gets a talking-to about slowing the game down and order of tabling. If he continues to be a problem, well, I can speed the game up again by not inviting him back.

By showing first, and allowing the aggressor to muck, you are preventing your opponents from gaining information that they have a right to see (especially in a tournament setting). If the aggressor was a friend/spouse and you are protecting them... that would be defined as collusion.

The information point is arguable but ultimately a matter of opinion rather than rule. Tabling out of order and allowing your opponent to muck doesn't violate any rules.

And as for collusion, there are a million ways that a couple could collude at the table, and this is way low on my list of what I should be worried about.

Rules are there for a reason. Follow them.

What rule am I not following by showing my hand first and allowing my opponent to muck? I was talking about a cash game, but even in a tournament, you're only required to table your hand if a player is all-in.

 

[Coyote]

I asked exactly because I 've seen it ruled both ways (in cash games) and attended bitter arguments about all this.
My idea of fairness is that either everybody shows, or nobody shows.
Edit: if the agressor shows and the caller concedes, the latter should not be required to show, unless it's NOT a friendly table.
Probably, a more correct rule is that, if you concede the pot, you don't have to show.

 

[Poker Zombie]

What rule am I not following by showing my hand first and allowing my opponent to muck? I was talking about a cash game, but even in a tournament, you're only required to table your hand if a player is all-in.

TDA rule 16a:
"The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, the player who would act first if it were a betting round must table first "

Obviously, this is for tournament play only. When discussing poker rules, it is important to differentiate between tournament and cash game play. Because this thread is in the "Tourney" section of the forum, I thought we were discussing tournaments.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

TDA rule 16a:
"The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, the player who would act first if it were a betting round must table first "

Obviously, this is for tournament play only. When discussing poker rules, it is important to differentiate between tournament and cash game play. Because this thread is in the "Tourney" section of the forum, I thought we were discussing tournaments.

Your quote is out of context. The complete text of 16A is (my emphasis added):

16: Non All-In Showdowns

A: In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded, 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, the player who would act first if it were a betting round must table first
(i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.).

So by my understanding, forcing the last aggressive player to table only comes into play if the players do not table or discard. This is a rule that establishes what to do in a "you show first" "no, YOU show first" situation.

It's not a requirement that the last aggressive player must always table first.

EDIT: This is rule 16A in TDA 2015 and earlier, rule 17A in TDA 2017v3.

 

[Frogzilla]

Never mind, I read the comment literally right above this. Sorry

 

[Poker Zombie]

Never mind, I read the comment literally right above this. Sorry

The first to act.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Your quote is out of context. The complete text of 16A is (my emphasis added):

So by my understanding, forcing the last aggressive player to table only comes into play if the players do not table or discard. This is a rule that establishes what to do in a "you show first" "no, YOU show first" situation.

It's not a requirement that the last aggressive player must always table first.

There is a rule indicating that the winning hand should show spontaneously. i.e. if you have the nuts.

Showing so your opponent does not have to, just so you can protect them... that's wrong.

 

[MatB]

what tilts me most.. is someone in a conversation when its their turn to act.... you say "hey.. your action.." they still engrossed in convo.
You say again.. ":your turn to act"
they look at their cards and fold. And you knew they were folding too.

What the eff

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Showing so your opponent does not have to, just so you can protect them... that's wrong.

Where did I ever say that I showed to protect my opponent? I'm showing to move the game along and to take advantage of my opponent, not protect him.

There is a rule indicating that the winning hand should show spontaneously. i.e. if you have the nuts.

I looked for this rule in TDA but wasn't able to find it. Can you point me to it?

 

[BGinGA]

Thread title: "What tilts you?"

Answer: Players who don't act when it's their turn to act. And that includes players at showdown who refuse to either fold or show when action is on them.

If I'm not the aggressor (or first to act in rotation order, if applicable), I'm not showing jack-shit until the correct player acts. Waiting until it's my turn is never against the rules, and it will never inadvertently cause some kind of issue (if a player didn't think the betting had actually ended, or mis-heard an "ALL-in" vs "cALL", etc.). It's never wrong to wait until action is on you to show, but it can potentially create a huge mess to show prematurely.

That's a good enough reason for me to follow the rules, every single time, regardless of cash game or tournament. Make the time-wasting asshat either show his hand or fold; I"m not the one at fault here (but could be the one at risk).