PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: BROOKS on October 06, 2016, 05:08:24 AM
-
Blinds are 200/400
Preflop - UTG verbally says all in, dealer announces, and player pushes his stack out.
Folds to cut off who throws out a 500 chip and says call at the same time.
Right away other players speak up making sure he realized he just called the all in.
Cut off says he didn't know the player was all in and was just calling the big blind amount of 400
Is there any way that this could be considered an undercall and we might let him fold without calling the all in?
(and if so is he losing 400 or 500?)
Player said it, dealer said it, and chips were pushed out. (no we don't have all in buttons, if I had any power we would)
I feel that it was his responsibility to pay attention to the action. The only reason he could not have known UTG was all in, was because he wasn't paying attention. And it's not like he just threw out the chip as an undercall, he verbally said call when action was on him.
I would like to know how others would rule in this situation.
I have been reading a lot about undercalls, and I know that if this were post flop betting and the all in was the opening bet, he would have to call. I'm thinking the verbal "call" is what matters most though?
-
It might be an expensive lesson, but players need to learn the rules, including the rule that they need to pay attention and follow the action.
He said "call." What else could that mean?
I'd rule it as a call of the all in amount.
-
Brooks,
Another great question.
This has been debated forever and the answer will always depend on the lesson that you want to teach any player that acts without being certain of the wager he's facing.
All rules state that verbal is binding.
Robert's Rules: Betting & Raising...#9 Verbal Is Binding....There are other rules that allow for a gross misunderstanding.
Robert's Rules Betting & Raising...#13 ....
However, if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you. At pot-limit or no-limit betting, if there is a gross misunderstanding concerning the amount of the wager....
This does not answer your question and it certainly appears that the calling player paid no attention to the action. What you didn't mention was the amount of the all-in? Should it even matter? An all-in of 100 more might make your decision easier than if it were 2,000 more. I would like substantial action to be considered, too.
-
Verbal is binding... I agree with both Dave and Nick.
-
Hi Max,
Your reply only reinforces the need for more specific examples so we can separate a "mistake" from a "gross misunderstanding." I do not agree with Dave...not in every situation.
Not sure I quite agree with verbal is binding as "etched in stone." There will always be other factors to consider...the amount of the raise or all-in, a player being misled by another player or even the dealer, has substantial action occurred? the experience of the player, the history of the player, the intent of the player are a few examples.
I said it was a great question and I know that the great majority will stick with the "strict" enforcement of the rule.
Not to complicate a perfectly debatable subject but...what do you do if the next player (Button or SB), calls 400 after the cut off?
-
How could the next player think, he calls 400???
Cut Off said "call", not "call 400"!
All players, who followed the game, would know that there is an all-in and a call from the Cut Off...
Verbal declaration (in turn) = binding!
Other factors like experience or intent?
Not in this situation, it´s clear!
-
How could the next player think, he calls 400???
Cut Off said "call", not "call 400"!
Because he threw out a 500 chip when saying call
-
How could the next player think, he calls 400???
Cut Off said "call", not "call 400"!
Because he threw out a 500 chip when saying call
So what?
Players often throw in a single small chip when calling a large bet.
-
Yes Dave, but in that situation they shouldn't.
Steff0111...you said: "how could the next player think, he calls 400???
ANSWER: "Folds to cut off who throws out a 500 chip and says call at the same time.
Right away other players speak up making sure he realized he just called the all in.
Cut off says "he didn't know the player was all in and was just calling the big blind amount of 400"
PLAY: BETS AND RAISES TDA 2015
Act In Turn.... B) Players must wait for clear bet amounts before acting. Ex: NLHE, A says “raise” (but no amount), and B quickly folds. B should wait to act until A’s raise amount is clear.
-
How could the next player think, he calls 400???
Cut Off said "call", not "call 400"!
All players, who followed the game, would know that there is an all-in and a call from the Cut Off...
Verbal declaration (in turn) = binding!
Other factors like experience or intent?
Not in this situation, it´s clear!
Nick, I also agree that not all situations are the same, players, dealer should pay attention, they dont always do... I think we can all agree that not all decision are always black and white, but hopefully TDA can help us 80% of the time and the other 20% we have use Rule 1: "The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules. Floor decisions are final." :)
-
Does anyone care to address my earlier question? "Not to complicate a perfectly debatable subject but...what do you do if the next player (Button or SB), calls 400 after the cut off?" In other words, they also missed the all-in...but they followed the incorrect bet in front of them.
Here is the original post:Blinds are 200/400
Preflop - UTG verbally says all in, dealer announces, and player pushes his stack out.
Folds to cut off who throws out a 500 chip and says call at the same time.
Right away other players speak up making sure he realized he just called the all in.
Cut off says he didn't know the player was all in and was just calling the big blind amount of 400
-
Does anyone care to address my earlier question? "Not to complicate a perfectly debatable subject but...what do you do if the next player (Button or SB), calls 400 after the cut off?" In other words, they also missed the all-in...but they followed the incorrect bet in front of them.
...
I can´t see an incorrect bet!
All-In was adressed, dealer has announced, chips were pushed.
Cut off in turn said "call"... He must call the all-in, because it was a correct bet.
After cut offs "call" the next player is in turn. How would he has been called in your example? By pushing silently one chip or by verbally declairing "call"?
-
Steff0111:
Let me put it to you in another example. Adam bets 500...Billy goes all-in for more...Charlie says call but only puts in 500 (not realizing the all-in) David reacts to Charlies 500 thinking he has called. Can we penalize David, too?
-
This is one of these situations... :D
For me Charlies situation is clear! Call of all-in!
Had David the chance to realize that Charlie called an all-in? -> Not madatory, but with attention: yes
Had David the chance to realize that Billy is all-in? -> Yes, he just have to look around the table
What about David?
When David said "call" unfortunately he has to pay the all-in.
When David just put out a chip, TD could make an other decision (with a warning for not paying attention)
I do not like the word "penalize" in this situation!
Every player behind Billy had the same chance to pay attention and follow the game!
Every player behind Billy had the same chance to realize an all-in.
It is not a penalization when a player has to put chips out after he called a bet. It is part of the game, covered by rules (even by verbal declaration).
For me it´s fairness towards all other players of poker, who called a bet and have to pay for the call...
-
In Steff's example, if you give Charlie a mulligan, you must also give it to David. But what if Charlie says he knew Billy was all-in, but David says he didn't? Or the other way around?
Can you give one player a mulligan, but not the other player?
For example, let's say David pushes out multiple chips, or even his whole stack, while saying "Call". Doesn't that imply that he knew Billy was all-in, and that he thought Charlie also knew it?
How about if David pushes out multiple chips, or his whole stack, but says nothing?
The only ruling that satisfies all of these scenarios is that Charlie and David must call the all-in. And that if David silently pushed his whole stack, he's all-in too.
I.E. It's the player's responsibility to know what the action is.
-
You guys are brutal :) You should hang a sign at your entrance: "ENTER AND PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK" Or "YOU SCREW UP YOUR ASS IS MINE" Or "ONE FALSE MOVE OUT OF YOU AND...." I hope you're all laughing...and guess what? I don't agree with either of you. ;D
-
;D ;D ;D
But therfore we have rules.
It is not possible that everyone can act as he wants to and explain or change it afterwards.
Think ( & ask) first, than act! Not the other way round...
-
Hi all,
Undercall: Verbal declaration is binding (general, non standard...)!?
NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)
Are 1st and 2nd ex. acceptable verbal declaration or we have to accept only “general” RAISE / CALL?
Could we tolerate 3th ex. After clerification (player could leave 12k in pot and make fold)?
Ex. 4. is this: Example 1: NLHE, blinds 1000-2000. Post-flop, A opens for 2000, B raises to 8000, C pushes out 2000 silently. C has undercalled B’s bet. Per Rule 39-B, because B is not the opener (A is) and the round is still multi-way, at TD’s discretion C may be required to make a full call or allowed to forfeit the 2000 undercall and fold.
Ex. 5. Is there any difference between 3th and 4th?
-
NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)
1. Could be tricky because player said "Raise"
Now TD has to decide if verbal "Raise" is binding or take under consideration the amount of chips the player wanted to put in the pot "12.000" which is covered by 39B.
2. Same as 1
3 & 4 Since MP Player is not facing an opening bet, he can forfeit his hand and chips or complete to make a full call
5. is a bit different. Players often call with a low value chip but only a single overchip is considered as a call.
I would rule the following : Player can forfeit hand & chips or can call, in both cases I would declare a 1 hand penalty.
-
Hi all,
Undercall: Verbal declaration is binding (general, non standard...)!?
The role of a verbal declaration in an undercall is addressed in TDA Rule 39, both in paragraphs A and B and in the Illustration Addendum for Rule 39, Example 3.
Also, Rule 37 affirms the importance of: 1) whichever happens first: general action ("call", "raise") OR specific amount; AND 2) the primacy of a clear verbal declaration if it occurs simultaneously with pushing out a specific bet amount.
In the OP on examples 1 and 2, a clear general verbal action occurs before a specific amount is stated.
NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)
Are 1st and 2nd ex. acceptable verbal declaration or we have to accept only “general” RAISE / CALL?
In the OP it reads as though the player first verbalizes the general action ("raise" in Ex 1, "call" in Ex 2) then follows with the amount. Per Rule 39 the general verbal action ("call" or "raise") is binding if it occurs prior to announcing or pushing a specific bet amount.
Where this rule understandably causes concern is that there is a difference between a "seamless" verbal statement as in "raise, twelve thousand" vs. verbalizing with a pregnant pause as in "raise..... [pause]... twelve thousand". However, if we were to distinguish this difference in the rule how would that work? How would we establish a true pause vs a seamless statement.... perhaps a factor of time (i.e. a pause more than 3 seconds), or a factor of whether the player appears to be contemplating the amount before declaring it...or perhaps just leave it to TDs discretion? If the TD thinks the statement was seamless then the amount governs? For me, none of these seem workable to the point they would be consistently applied. OTOH, simply going with the language as it reads now, if a general statement ("raise", "call", etc) precedes the specific action the general statement is binding can be applied consistently even though there will be examples where the player clearly had a specific bet amount in mind that was less than that required by the general statement.
Could we tolerate 3th ex. After clerification (player could leave 12k in pot and make fold)?
3rd example is "specific amount first". Rule 39-B applies here as the action is neither heads up nor is the player facing the opening bet. At TD's discretion he would either be required to make the call or could be given the option to leave the 12k undercall in and fold. Keep in mind one of the central purposes of Rule 39 is to clarify when an undercall must be brought up to a full call and when the player might be allowed to leave the undercall in and fold.
Ex. 4. is this: Example 1: NLHE, blinds 1000-2000. Post-flop, A opens for 2000, B raises to 8000, C pushes out 2000 silently. C has undercalled B’s bet. Per Rule 39-B, because B is not the opener (A is) and the round is still multi-way, at TD’s discretion C may be required to make a full call or allowed to forfeit the 2000 undercall and fold.
That's a correct interpretation of 39-B as I read the example.
Ex. 5. Is there any difference between 3th and 4th?
Because both actions are "amount first", without first declaring "call" or "raise", the examples are similar. However there is a difference in amount. Let's say that instead of 36,000, the UTG pushed all-in for 12,500. Remember that 39-B does not guarantee the right to leave an undercall in and fold, it just gives the option in the defined situation in TD's discretion. Far fewer judges would likely give the option to leave the undercall in and fold if the player put out 12,000 against a 12,500 bet.
Thanks for the great case!