PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2015 Summit => Topic started by: Brian Vickers on August 22, 2014, 12:44:41 AM
-
Proposal:
When a betting round begins heads-up, any action OOT is binding.
Reasons:
Currently, if A and B are the only two players in the pot on the river, Action is on A, and B says "bet 500," A must arbitrarily "check" for B's bet to stand. How many of you have seen this scenario though: A is first to act and hasn't done anything, B bets 500, A throws out the 500 chip thinking he is now calling, B then argues that A's 500 bet changes the action and B should be able to take his bet back. The way the current rule reads, if A doesn't "check" and then "call" then B is correct, this is a bet of 500 that would change action. My feeling is that this should not be allowed to happen. My recommendation is listed above, and with my recomendation in place, this ruling on this scenario would be a bet by B and a call by A.
-
Brian:
Very worthy proposal for consideration at the 2015 Summit. A player at this year's Bay 101 WPT suggested that same rule to Matt and me.
-
Hello Mike and Brian,
I've always felt head to head should be governed by a separate rule set. Dealers must be considered as one of the persons to even consider substantial action. Also, I am still very confused about action changing, when the OOT player's action, should never even be considered. When the OOT is the offending player, why should he be allowed any advantage?
I agree, this needs to be addressed, and changed.
-
Link to a related discussion thread:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1087.msg9479#msg9479
-
This is already covered by Accepted Action. A bet and call. Action is accepted. Next hand.
-
Thomas: How can you consider an out of turn action covered by Accepted Action?
-
Thomas: How can you consider an out of turn action covered by Accepted Action?
Because a bet was made and called. The action is accepted. The same as in Pot Limit cash games: An over-bet was made and was called. Action is accepted.
I liken it to this scenario that happened in the 10k Stud 8 tournament:
Player A (Seat 3) Late Registrant just arrives to the table and is the bring-in first hand. Betting is 100-200 with a 50 bring-in. Player A puts in 200. Player B puts in 200. The Dealer says Raise, Player A puts in 100 more (300), Dealer says Raise, Player B objects, floor is called. Player B says that Player A bet 200, I called 200.
The floor in this case allowed the raises.
However, it was decided after more discussion amongst ourselves that the better ruling would be Accepted Action. Bet and Called.
So back to our NLH scenario here we have Non-Action by Player A, then a Bet of 500 by Player B and then Player A throws in a 500 chip to call. Under Accepted Action that's a Bet and Call. Action is accepted. Next hand.
This eliminates any further ambiguities.
As Dave Lamb would say, you always rule in favor of the lessor. Meaning less damage to any player. So in this case, that means enforcing the 500 bet and call. Not allowing, the bet to be retracted and giving Player A all his options back or worse forcing Player A to leave the 500 in and giving Player B all his options because "Action Changed". Some rules super-cede other rules and in this case Accepted Action is the better ruling.
-
Thomas: How does the bring-in bet 200 when the limit is 100-200?
-
Thomas, I don't believe most interpret accepted action in a way to cover heads up OOT action. I've heard many times in many rooms from floors and dealers that the original action must check for the bet to stand just like in a multi-way pot. What I was proposing was a universal acceptance that if you act out of turn heads up the other player can simply react to the bet with the need to arbitrarily check first and of course that you are still subjct to penalty if you are repeatedly acting OOT.
-
Thomas: How does the bring-in bet 200 when the limit is 100-200?
Not sure what you mean "How" Nick? He put out 200 (black 100 chips) and was called.
-
Thomas, I'm sure I'm missing something because I'm having a tough time following your example. You say the bring-in is 50 and the player brings it in for 200? How can the mext player raise 100 more? Like I said, I'm not understanding your scenario at all...sorry.
-
Thomas, I'm sure I'm missing something because I'm having a tough time following your example. You say the bring-in is 50 and the player brings it in for 200? How can the mext player raise 100 more? Like I said, I'm not understanding your scenario at all...sorry.
Ok I'll see if I can be more detailed.
Game is 7 card Stud. Limits are 100-200 with a 50 bring-in.
Player in Seat 2 is the Bring-in and mistakes 2 black chips for 2 green chips. He puts in 200.
Dealer says complete. *****Side note - This is another good dealer and he could have saved this headache by correcting the bet immediately. He did verbalize it to the table while continuing the action. But these "PROs" are so distracted by miscellaneous electronic devices that they don't pay attention to what dealers say anymore and just visually observe the action and act on impulse in the early stages of a tournament.*****
Fold around to player in Seat 7.
Player sees 2 blacks chips as the bet. He puts in 200 to call.
Dealer says Raise. Seat 1 folds.
Player in Seat 2 says to the dealer, "He raised?" Dealer says "Yes". Seat 2 says then I raise and put in 300.
Player in Seat 7 says "Wait, I didn't raise. I just called. He put out 200 and I put out 200, I call."
Floor is called.
Keep in mind this in not a "scenario" this is a real hand in the 10k Stud event.
There are 3 possible rulings here and none of them are wrong. But each ruling is definitely better than another ruling.
You're the floor Nick. Go.
-
Sorry Thomas, I just can't even begin to wrap my brain around this scenario. I'll have to come back to this one when I can think straight.
I'm back. First of all: with the bring-in 50 the most he could have bet was 100, not 200. Therefore the next player was not allowed to call 200. Then the next player raises to 300? How in the hell did any of this happen?
I realize that substantial action has occurred but if I were called to make a decision, I would have backed up to the bring-in, correct his bet by allowing him to bring it in for 100...then I would return 100 to the player who thought he was calling the bring-in...and then I would have made the raiser take back 100 and make his raise the only legal size it could be...200. That's my call and I'm sticking to it and I'm going to have a nice conversation with your "good dealer." :-\
Hey, that's a little high on the bring-in for 100/200...is it not?
-
I'm back. First of all: with the bring-in 50 the most he could have bet was 100, not 200.
True. But that's not what happened.
Therefore the next player was not allowed to call 200.
Again true, but that's not what happened.
Then the next player raises to 300? How in the hell did any of this happen?
This did not happen. Read it again. The Player in Seat 2 who brought it in for $200 raised to $300.
I realize that substantial action has occurred
Correct.
but if I were called to make a decision, I would have backed up to the bring-in
correct his bet by allowing him to bring it in for 100...then I would return 100 to the player who thought he was calling the bring-in...and then I would have made the raiser take back 100 and make his raise the only legal size it could be...200. That's my call and I'm sticking to it and I'm going to have a nice conversation with your "good dealer." :-\
[/quote]
Substantial action trumps everything. It is too late to correct the bets. There were 4 folds in between and a call, in addition to another fold behind the caller.
Hey, that's a little high on the bring-in for 100/200...is it not?
The limit was 25 ante, 50 bring-in, 100/200 limit. With a 30,000 starting stack, no that's not too high.
-
Thomas: Once long ago I suggested using names for players when describing these scenarios. I'm getting dizzy with "Player #1 and Player #6, and then we use Player A, and Player D." Or "The Button raised the UTG after he was called by the Cutoff" ::)
I'll read your post again, (for the tenth time), and see if I can sort it out. :-\
-
Thomas: Once long ago I suggested using names for players when describing these scenarios. I'm getting dizzy with "Player #1 and Player #6, and then we use Player A, and Player D." Or "The Button raised the UTG after he was called by the Cutoff" ::)
I'll read your post again, (for the tenth time), and see if I can sort it out. :-\
Ok... I'll repost with names :)
-
Ok I'll see if I can be more detailed.
Game is 7 card Stud. Limits are 100-200 with a 50 bring-in.
Eli is the Bring-in and mistakes 2 black chips for 2 green chips. Eli puts in 200.
Dealer says complete.
Four players, Joe, Bob, Bill, John all fold around to Frank.
Frank sees 2 black chips as the bet. Frank puts in 200 to call.
Dealer says Raise.
Jimmy and Jack fold.
Eli ask the dealer, "He raised?" Dealer says "Yes". Eli says then I raise and he put in 300.
Frank says "Wait, I didn't raise. I just called. Eli put out 200 and I put out 200, I call."
Floor is called.
There are 3 possible rulings here and none of them are wrong. But each ruling is definitely better than another ruling.
You're the floor Nick. Go.
-
Thomas:
I'd ask to be taken off the floor, because I'd have no idea of what they're playing. In a 100/200 limit stud game with a 50 bring in, if I remember correctly, the biggest bet the bring-in can make is 100...not 200. A structured stud game does not allow the "high" end of the structure until fifth-street unless there is an open pair on forth street. This is where I'm lost, and I can't imagine any dealer, that I've ever known, allowing two black chips to be wagered...and then saying complete! ::) I'd probably go over to the table and say what the hell's going on?
In fact, unless there is someone else out there that knows what Thomas is trying to tell me, I'd hate to see you (Thomas) try to explain it again. Damn, that used to be my favorite game and I don't have a clue. ???
-
Hello, Thomas...are you out there? Anyone? Mike B...Ken...Brian...Chet?
-
Nick, I think that is what was so messed up, Eli put out 200, dealer said complete but it should have only been 100. At this point the dealer should have slid the extra 100 chip back to the player but it appears he did not.
Frank sees 200, thinks 200 is the bet, then puts out 200 intending to call.
Since Eli's bet really should have only been 100, not 200, Frank's 200 is being viewed as a raise in this example.
My floor call? Bet is 200 and let's go to 4th street. Reason? Eli may not have been able to make it 200 but both Eli and Frank have shown that they are each amenable to playing for 200 so the least damaging thing I can do is to have them both continue to the next street for 200. At one point both Frank and Eli had 200 in chips sitting in front of them. By allowing Eli the chance to make it 300 we may have been unwitting accomplices to Eli's original intended angle shot for all we know.
The other two floor calls that could be done:
A) Eli's original bet is ruled 100 and since Frank says he didn't want to raise, we make Frank put in 100 instead of 200 and go to 4h street. I'd be ok with this one.
B) Chips is chips, and bets is bets. Eli completed to 100, Frank raised to 200, now Eli makes it 300 and action is reopened. I don't like this one.
-
Brian,
If that's what happened, I'd yank that dealer out of the box so fast, it would look like a disappearing act from Siegfried & Roy.
I'd prefer Eli's original bet is 100... (Your letter A)
Thanks for sorting this one out...holy crap, never heard such a messed-up stud hand...ever! ::)
-
What Brian said
-
Thomas: That's it? That's your answer? Tell me, is that dealer still employed?
-
Thomas: That's it? That's your answer? Tell me, is that dealer still employed?
Of course they are.
Maybe there's some minor details I left out because I didn't think they were important enough.
The dealer said "complete" This alerts everyone on the table that bet is completed to 100. The dealer shouldn't need to do more than that.
He did tell Eli to take one of the extra chips off of his bet. However, by the time it got around to Frank (who was too busy on his iPad playing a video game to notice or pay attention to the action) he looked and saw 2 black chips and also put out 2 black chips.
That's why the dealer says "Raise". Because in his mind, he's already alerted the table that it's 100 to call, he's already asked Eli to take a chip back off his bet and now a player has put in 2 chips which constitute a raise. Even after the dealer says "Raise" and two additional players fold behind, Frank never stopped the action and corrected the dealer. He went back to playing his video game.
Now the action is back on Eli.
Eli sees a 2 chip bet and asks the dealer if Frank raised. The dealer says "Yes", because Frank never corrected him. Now Eli raises and Frank objects. Hopefully that adds additional insight.
-
Please see:
Binding OOT action - proposed rewrite of #38A http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1155.0 (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1155.0)