PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit => Topic started by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 08:08:57 AM

Title: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 08:08:57 AM
I have some questions regarding the new 2011 rules.
     # 8. Balancing Tables B
I am having difficulty understanding, or trying to follow, the placement of the button. Maybe using seat #'s might help?

  #9:  Number of Players at Final Table. I have known for years that stud tournaments played 9 at the final table. I just want to know why?

  #38 Raises: (formerly TDA Rule #31) Before attending the 2011 Summit, I was told that the Discusion Forum was the best way to bring a rule to the table for change. During the past 18 months nothing brought more to the forum, or was debated more than Rule #31, yet the rule remains exactly as it was in 2009? Over a year ago, I was told that the rule would be addressed.

  #42 Anyone that follows the Forum, or was at the Summit, knows how I feel about Accepted Action. IMO, the slight changes in wording from the WSOP rule #91 is not enough. Underlining the last sentence of rule #37 only adds to the confusion. Also, adding rule #1 is another indication that more work is needed on this one. Suggestions: Shared responsibility from all parties involved in the hand, the bettor, the dealer and the caller.
  During the summit, the Venetian had an excellent rule about accepted action. Everyone applauded when it was read. Shortly after that it was requested that it be read again, but it could not be located. I'd like to see that one in writing.
I thought that combining the last line of #37 with #42 would be better than just adding rule #1.

Your thoughts.



  
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 02, 2011, 10:16:35 AM
Nick:  I really don't understand your question to rule 8.  In my mind it is perfectly clear.

In Part A, there is no mention of the button as it is not applicable.  Part B addresses what happens with the button when a non-flop (Stud, RAZZ, etc.) and a flop game is involved.  It says quite clearly, in my opinion anyway, that when the LAST HAND of a Flop game (Hold-Em OR Omaha) game is finished, the button is moved to the position it would be in IF THE NEXT HAND WAS STILL the same game.  The button is then FROZEN in that position until the non-flop (Stud, etc.) round ends.  When the Flop game resumes, the button will be in the correct position for the first hand, based on where it was when the last flop round was played

So, if you want an example:

A.  The button is in seat 4 for the last hand of the Flop Game round.  Seat 5 would have been the SB.
B.  After the hand is completed, the button is moved to Seat 5 and is FROZEN in that seat until the NON-Flop Round is completed.
C.  When the game again changes to a Flop Game, the button is in seat 5 where it should be, Seat 6 will be the SB and so forth.

Does that clear things up?
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 10:23:19 AM
Yes, that is all I asked for. Thanks. What about the other rules I mention?
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 02, 2011, 10:40:06 AM
Rule 9:  My and I stress this is MY opinion on rule 9.  The purpose is to eliminate the need to have two short handed tables regardless of the type of game.  So in a flop game it eliminates the need to have two 5 handed tables, in stud it eliminates the need to have a 5 and 4 handed table until you get down to 8 and so forth.  But I could be all wet on my interpretation on this one.

Rule 38:  I don't have any question with Rule 38.  As to why it wasn't discussed, I can't answer that as I was not able to attend this years Summit.

Rule 42:  I understand that you don't like this rule.  However it was adopted by a majority of the membership as I understand it.  I have tried to find the Venetian Rules, but I have not been successful as of yet.  That said, somewhere in this process a decision has to be made about the amount of chips "at risk" by the calling player.  In my opinion the calling player is the "line of last resort" as it is this player that has to make the final decision.  I have some mixed feelings about the player being held to incorrect information, but the line has to go somewhere and this is where the TDA has decided it should go. 

At this point, I think we need to let this rule stand and it can be reviewed, modified, deleted whatever at the next summit.

You asked about my thoughts on the other rules and now you got'em   ;D
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 02, 2011, 11:34:51 AM
I have some questions regarding the new 2011 rules.
     # 8. Balancing Tables B
I am having difficulty understanding, or trying to follow, the placement of the button. Maybe using seat #'s might help?
Hi Nick: Several versions of this were drafted before settling on "move to exactly the position it would be if the next hand was holdem". Because sometimes there's a dead button, etc. and the button does not always cleanly move from one seat number to the next. So it's just left as "exactly where it would be if the next hand is holdem". And from there, whatever player would have the BB if the game were holdem is the player moved during stud. I know it's a mouthful, but it's not easy to write it any more plainly than it is. See also Chet's answer on this.
  #9:  Number of Players at Final Table. I have known for years that stud tournaments played 9 at the final table. I just want to know why?
The best answer I think is that if they played less, say 8, then when you're down to 2 tables you'd have one table playing with 4 players in a 7-stud game which is quite short of players. Using 9 as the final table you have two tables of 5 playing when you're at the final 2.

  #38 Raises: (formerly TDA Rule #31) Before attending the 2011 Summit, I was told that the Discusion Forum was the best way to bring a rule to the table for change. During the past 18 months nothing brought more to the forum, or was debated more than Rule #31, yet the rule remains exactly as it was in 2009? Over a year ago, I was told that the rule would be addressed.
What questions do you have on #38? The only question I recall in 2011 was regarding whether the rule should have the language "largest previous legal bet or raise" i.e. if a player had put in an all-in wager in but less than a "legal bet or raise" then the raise would have to be of legal size. When this was discussed the conclusion was that an all-in wager that is less than the minimum required is by definition not considered a bet or raise but rather an "all-in wager". So, by saying that if the player puts in at least 50% of the previous bet or raise, by definition that means a legal-size bet or raise. And when it says "must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise" again, by definition the largest previous bet or raise would be of legal size or it wouldn't be called a bet or raise in the first place.    Is that the primary issue you have with the rule? Perhaps some clarification on that point might be warranted.

  #42 Anyone that follows the Forum, or was at the Summit, knows how I feel about Accepted Action. IMO, the slight changes in wording from the WSOP rule #91 is not enough. Underlining the last sentence of rule #37 only adds to the confusion. Also, adding rule #1 is another indication that more work is needed on this one. Suggestions: Shared responsibility from all parties involved in the hand, the bettor, the dealer and the caller.

  During the summit, the Venitian had an excellent rule about accepted action. Everyone applauded when it was read. Shortly after that it was requested that it be read again, but it could not be located. I'd like to see that one in writing.  

I thought that combining the last line of #37 with #42 would be better than just adding rule #1.

As to Accepted Action, there are really two clear "contingents" on this issue: the strict-interpreters and the more lenients. And at this point there's not a super-majority in either camp... Probably the more lenients applauded the Venetian language but the strict interpreters didn't. Also there's a segment in the middle who believe that Rule 1 is always implied and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.  I think there's another issue involved and that goes to the nature of your tournaments. If you tend to have extremely large tournaments and you don't see the same people week after week, I think there's a tendency to prefer strict interpretation because it is so clear and unmistakable who is responsible: always the caller... that gives you "maximum functionality".  If on the other hand you see the same players on a regular basis and have a somewhat smaller turnout, then "maximum fairness" becomes a bit more important, hence the Venetian-type language which expressly allows for weighing the extent to which the caller took reasonable precautions to get the pot counted....   The only way to bridge these two positions is with the language as provided... heavily tilted to Accepted Action but with expressed recognition that Rule 1 may be involved in some decisions at TD's discretion. For example, I'm a little bit more in the lenient / Venetian camp but I recognize that explicitly stating it as they have it could cause functional problems with larger events.   The language adopted allows both venues to be compliant. We'll just have to see what everyone reports their experience with the rule to be.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 11:37:50 AM
Thanks Chet,
 I respect your opinion. Especially when you have similar feelings about rule #42. I really like the part about letting it stand and it can be reviewed, modified, deleted  ;D at the next summit. I don't think we should wait that long.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 03:03:44 PM
Hello Mike,
 Congratulations! You are a great addition to the Poker TDA board of directors.

I went back on the forum about rule #38 Raises. I realized that much of my discussion was via emails with Dave Lamb and Jan Fisher. My main concerns are the last sentence. In no limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I have explained myself on the forum many times. Think of a hand where the first player to act checks. The next player bets and the next player goes all-in with less than a ful raise. The first player that checked will have every option open to him, fold call, or raise. He can raise because the next player bet. The all-in is irrelevent. I could understand it better if the wording were changed. I see it as confusing.

 As far as Rule #42. It needs a lot of work. At the summit we were asked, if we could live with a rule after it was debated for a while. I was the only one that replied with no to accepted action. I still feel that way.

Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 02, 2011, 03:14:20 PM
As for Rule 42 what sort of changes can you envision when:
1: About 50% are in favor of strict accepted action and
2: About 50% are in favor of a more lenient "verified action" ?

As the rule is written now, it's based on 1, but venues which have a well-crafted verified action policy are covered under the "Rule 1 may apply" clause.

The only "improvement" would be if one side or the other can come to dominate and from the 2011 Summit floor discussion that seems a long way off. Again, I think the underlying reason is the nature of the tournaments that each camp manages which tends to have them favoring one standard or the other...
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 02, 2011, 04:39:51 PM
Mike,
 Why was it needed? There were much better suggestions than the one chosen.
Poker requires mutual participation. Players are obligated to be clear on all wagers, but the ultimate responsibility is with the player that is calling the bet. Telling a player that he has to put another 1000 in the pot because the player understated his wager is not good enough for me.

 TDA rules existed for 10 years without Accepted Action. Others have asked, and I am curious also, as to what happened in the WSOP that suggested a need for this rule?

 An improvement would be it's elimination.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 02, 2011, 11:10:35 PM
Great question Nick.... and there are several answers.

First, look back over the posts in this forum over the past 2 years and you'll find numerous questions regarding what to do in cases of "misunderstandings", and further, what if it's a "gross" or "minor" misundestanding, etc. etc....

The 2011 Summit went a long way towards clarifying this:
A: Note the new language in Rule 35 "chips placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot". This effectively says that if you have a misunderstanding about the bet size and you put less in, if you're the actor in turn you have to leave it in.

B: Note the new language in Rule 36 that 100% crystal-clarifies that out of turn bet will be returned if the action changes to the OOT bettor. Otherwise it is binding.

C: Then to the issue of Accepted Action. This clarifies that if a caller makes a mistake about the amount that has been bet, it's his responsibility to make the bet right. The TD can use Rule 1 in "certain circumstances" in his discretion. That means that if it is the policy of that venue to give allowance for the caller making reasonable effort to determine the bet amount, then the venue can invoke that policy. If it isn't, then it's strictly accepted action. Even those venues which are highly skewed
towards strict accepted action reserve the right to over-ride it with an implied Rule 1 if they consider circumstances gross enough to warrant it.

So I would say the principal application of Accepted Action is in getting bets right and in clarifying what happens if there's a misunderstanding of the bet.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 03, 2011, 05:05:36 AM
Mike,
 I am not oppossed to the caller being the responsible party on any bet. I am in disagreement with the rule as written. Example:

   42: Accepted Action
  Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling.

THAT'S IT!
              OR:
 
    42: Accepted Action
 Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling. In the event of a gross misunderstanding, or an inaccurate count from the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.

 IMO, telling players, that were given inaccurate information, (especially if they request a count), that they need to put all of their chips into the pot because the bettor understated his wager by 10,000 is nothing short of criminal.

I'M NOT AGAINST ACCEPTED ACTION.........ONLY THE WAY THE NEW RULE IS WRITTEN.

 
   
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 03, 2011, 09:17:01 AM
The Accepted Action language is very similar to that used in all WSOP events.

See WSOP Rule #91.

From your comments I take it that you are in the "more lenient" camp on this issue. That's why the Rule 1 clause was added. With the Rule 1 clause you have 100% latitude to make any ruling you feel is fair if there are "unusual" or "extreme" or "gross" circumstances... or IMO, as per specific language that a venue may have drafted which makes exception for a player who has taken reasonable efforts to count per their house standards.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 03, 2011, 09:49:40 AM
Mike,

 I am well aware of WSOP rule #91. I also think that rule #1 is there for any situation that may arise and it is not necessary to add it to any rule....it goes without saying. I am asking you, what is wrong with my suggested options for rule #42? Is it possible that others feel the way I do? Or, am I beating a dead horse?
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 03, 2011, 12:23:24 PM
Nick: 

Quit beating the poor horse!!  I think you have made your point.

As I said previously, let it stand for now and at the next Summit it can be addressed.  Since this was voted on at the Summit and adopted, I see no point in continuing, you have posted your objections and thoughts time after time. 

I happen to agree with you TO A POINT (see my prior post), but I don't see too many other members jumping on your wagon.  It appears to me you are in a minority here, a very vocal minority, but still a minority.

If you don't stop beating the poor horse, I am going to have to consider having the SPCA visit you!  ;D

Chet
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 03, 2011, 12:35:56 PM
Mike,

 I am well aware of WSOP rule #91. I also think that rule #1 is there for any situation that may arise and it is not necessary to add it to any rule....it goes without saying.
The problem is that some of the more lenient camp wouldn't accept the rule without explicitly stating that Rule 1 may be involved. And their reasoning is understandable. If I push out all-in 120k but it's miscounted to the caller as 95k and I'm called and I win the first thing I'm going to do is demand my full 120 k under the accepted action rule. If Rule 1 isn't explicitly stated, but it's invoked on the spot by the TD, I'm going to complain that I'm being singled out, and there's nothing in the AA language that says anything other than the caller is subject to the full correct bet, yes ?  By having the last sentence explicitly mentioning the obvious (that Rule 1 can be invoked at TD's discretion): A) the full membership including prominent leaders of the "most lenient" camp agreed to the language. The vote was overwhelming to adopt it as it's now published AND  B) when I complain that I want my full 120K, if the TD feels that the caller made reasonable efforts to get a correct count, the TD can explicitly point to the language and say "sorry sir, but the rule does in fact give me the explicit right to make an exception in this unusual case".

I am asking you, what is wrong with my suggested options for rule #42? Is it possible that others feel the way I do? Or, am I beating a dead horse?


Just my personal opinion here:

42: Accepted Action
  Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling.

A: This doesn't say what happens if the caller doesn't determine the correct amount for whatever reason(s)
B: I suspect there were numerous venues that wouldn't have voted for this shortened version... you can always propose it at the next Summit, and of course see what opinions you receive on the forum. but also C: this wasn't what was voted on overwhelmingly.

 42: Accepted Action
 Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling. In the event of a gross misunderstanding, or an inaccurate count from the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.

The intent of the sentence you added here is indeed permissible under the Rule 1 language explicitly added to the Rule to get it adopted. The more "strict" camp didn't want to have any explicit mention of Rule 1 and the "in the middle camp" didn't want the explicit statement about "misunderstanding" because that might invite callers to always protest that they made a reasonable effort when in fact they didn't. I suspect the "more lenient" camp would prefer language as you have it here, but again that's just my personal guess. So, bottom line, the very best answer is probably that this language is what was needed to get the rule approved by all camps.  I truly think that from the functional standpoint, the way you say you want to interpret these situations is 100% compliant with the rule as written... do you not think the rule allows you to evaluate circumstances the way you say you prefer to do it?    

Thanks for exploring this, it helps to flesh out the meaning of the Rule, what the options are under it, etc.   If there's a super-majority in favor of amending the language, that can always be proposed at the next meeting.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: MikeB on August 03, 2011, 01:01:46 PM
Further on this topic of Accepted Action there's more heavy lifting that will come up on this topic. And it's a good idea to discuss this. It was brought up at the 2011 Summit but left for future resolution.

Case: Player A bets all-in and pushes out remaining chipstack, say 125k, but for whatever reason it is under-counted as 95k and Player B calls and pushes out 95k
What does Player A receive if he wins? 125k or 95k?
What does Player B receive if he wins? 125k or 95k?

Some in the more lenient camp proposed that if Player B made reasonable efforts to have the stack counted, that Player B would receive 125k if he won, but pay only 95k if he lost. Not only is that what they proposed, but in fact is what they say they are doing in situations where Player B made reasonable counting efforts.

Others felt this was an untenable situation where a player could win more than he can lose and that provided Player B made reasonable counting efforts, he should win or lose 95k and the 30k extra should be taken out of circulation rather than awarded to Player B if he wins. But then some felt that was bad to take chips off the table.

Others in the strict camp felt the problem was solved because Player B would win or lose the full 125k. Yet another reason why they support strict accepted action.

Nobody proposed that Player A would not be considered all-in. i.e. that if Player B wins, he only gets 95k and the other 30k is returned to A who can continue playing.

So, bottom line, if you are prepared to make a ruling other than strict Accepted Action in the case of what you rule to be a gross miscount when the caller made reasonable efforts to get a count, then you have to have a policy as to what happens to the difference if the caller wins in an all-in situation... does it go to the caller or is it removed from the table? Hopefully this issue can be explored at the next Summit also.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 03, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
Chet and Mike:
 If I thought that I would have to wait for the next summit I would have rode off into the sunset with the damn horse. I brought up all of the new rules that I thought should be re-evaluated, IMO. I was under the impression that we were going to go over them and possibly make some changes if we ALL felt there was a need. Chet, if you think that the majority don't agree with me maybe we should wait for more than 3 people to respond.

 Why not ask some of the TDA members for some feedback, and see what they think. After all over 90% of the members were not at the summit. I'll bet that, if given some options, the current rule would be changed.

 I've made my suggestions, and I've started some discussion..haven't I?

By the way....This is the one I like:
Some in the more lenient camp proposed that if Player B made reasonable efforts to have the stack counted, that Player B would receive 125k if he won, but pay only 95k if he lost. Not only is that what they proposed, but in fact is what they say they are doing in situations where Player B made reasonable counting efforts.
 I would only award Player B the 125k if he had enough to cover the bet. The other option is to remove the extra chips of Player A (if he looses) because no player should have chips to play another hand after going all-in and losing the pot to any player that had him covered.

Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 03, 2011, 07:12:06 PM
Nick: 

The TDA Rules and any changes thereto are proposed, discussed and voted on at the bi-annual Summit.  That is the way it has been for as long as I can remember.  It is unfortunate that more members could not attend, myself included, but that is the way it is.  Unless there is a real serious technical, practical or legal problem with a TDA Rule, I don't know of any material changes that have been adopted OUTSIDE of the Summit process and in my opinion that is the way it should be. 

Yes, only us 3 have been involved in this discussion to date and input from others is certainly welcome and desirable. 

As I said previously, I believe that since the rule was adopted by a majority of the members present at the Summit, it should stand as is.  It has been in the WSOP rule book for several years and it doesn't seem to me that there has been any significant problem associated with it. 

How about if you take up a Homework assignment due at the next Summit?  Monitor the Forum and any other forms of input for serious poker players, TD's and other card-room folks and keep a record of the activity regarding this subject.  You can post your findings from time to time and we can discuss in 2013. :)

Finally, I know that almost every event I have ever attended that uses the TDA Rules makes some changes in one or more rules.  I see no reason that this rule should be any exception.  What I am saying is that if you are running an event and advertise that you use TDA Rules you still can make an exception here and there and not include the wrath of whomever monitors such things.  On the other hand, don't be surprised if you have a big bru-ha-ha about incorrect chips and no rule to cover it. 

That said, I cannot remember any time I have ever been involved in such a problem as a player or a TD.  'Course, that may be due to the fact that I have never been involved in any event where you started with more than 10,000 chips and had more than 50 players.  I just don't see this being a significant problem in the smaller day to day events around the world. 

Chet
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 04, 2011, 06:02:40 AM
Chet:
 I was at the summit. It was a heated debate and one of the more popular suggested rules was from the Venetian. You weren't there but you can still watch it. We were  also told that in 2009 after the summit 1.0 was modified and there were changes made before they came up with the final draft.
 I feel that this is the perfect way to voice my opinion. If you are not interested in my input, that's okay.

 I want to see every poker room around the world adopt the TDA Rules.Rule #42 is not going to bring any new rooms to the table.

 In my opinion, (the following might be offensive to those in favor of #42):
  1.) It shifts the responsibility from the bettor to the caller and it should be shared. Per TDA #37. (in part) it is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.
  2.) It is too lengthy
  3.) It is the only TDA rule that necessitates adding rule #1 (which automatically applies to all rules).
  4.) It could raise thoughts of collusion between players and dealers.
  5.) It is not necessary.

Chet,
 You say that this rule has been used in the WSOP for years. I see nothing in the written rules prior to 2011 that defines accepted action. Perhaps I've missed something. I would like to see it.

Finally: There is NO valid reason, to keep any rule on the books for two years if we can make it better.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 04, 2011, 10:24:50 AM
Nick: 

Continued discussion between us is not going to solve this and it shouldn't.  I have said everything I have to say on this topic for the time being.  If other members wish to chime in with different details or points of view, I may have more to say, but for now I see no point in continuing.

It will be very interesting to see how this issue plays out in the future.

Chet
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 05, 2011, 06:08:26 AM
Chet,
 You don't know how much I appreciate your participation and your opinion. Even when we don't agree. Whithout you on this forum, it would not exist. There must be other members that have something to say.
 Jasper you mentioned on another post, that you were still evaluating this rule. How do you feel now that we have brought it to the table?

 Stuart? DCJ001? Bart185? Spence? K-lo? Brian V? Anybody? You are the ones that will have to tell some players that they are no longer in the tournament because the amount they just called was actually 25,000 more than they were told!
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: JasperToo on August 05, 2011, 03:52:15 PM
I want to jump in here a bit and say that the horse is likely dead but I must confess to have a small problem with the rule myself.

It just seemed to me that this rule will end up slowing the game down a Bunch because you are going to have POTENTIAL callers wanting an exact chip count and, who knows but that some of them won't get up and go around the table to make sure there isn't a chip under the rail.....

I have been a victim of "gross misunderstanding" and feel like there is a place for a ruling that takes it into consideration in some rare circumstances.

The stealthy reference to rule 1, I think, gives enough room for those rare circumstances so I can certainly live with things that way.  I still think we are going to get a bunch of squabble from some players too.

That being said, Mike's point that we have had a chance to flesh out the meaning I think it is CLEAR that the rule can be used soft or hard in a way that most of us should be able to live with.


"Hey, Pardner, I think it's eye twitched....kick it again"
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 05, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
Thanks JasperToo,
 I feel a pulse. I know there are others out there. ;D
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 07, 2011, 09:21:02 AM
Mike B and Chet:

 I have gone through all of the posts since the new rules have been posted. There are questions, and suggestions for several of these new rules. There is always the mention of a possible change when version 2.0 comes out....EXCEPT FOR #42 ACCEPTED ACTION, for that we have to wait until the next summit?  ::)
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: chet on August 07, 2011, 03:07:34 PM
As I understand it, changes are made by the TDA BOD.  Since I am not a member of the BOD (and I don't think I should be) I don't have input into that process.  I am sure, based on what I can remember from the 2009 process that they will give careful consideration to items that need a "correction".

Personally, if I were on the BOD, I don't think there has been enough interest in ANY particular rule or part of a rule to this point to generate a change.

While Nick and I have been pretty vocal, especially about #42, I don't hear the wheel squeaking enough to warrant any additional grease, but that is just my opinion.

Chet
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 07, 2011, 04:03:22 PM
Chet,
 Maybe no one cares. I haven't heard anything against my suggestions either.
What difference does it make when you have good old Rule #1
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: pokerxanadu on August 14, 2011, 08:55:21 PM
Here is my input, as a lowly member, in regards to #42:

It is the calling player's responsibility to determine the bet amount of a player.  If the player wants an accurate count, he must ask the dealer.  If he doesn't, it is the player's fault and he must always be liable for the full amount of the call.  (Maybe one exception:  all-in player has some hidden chips found after.)

If the player asks the dealer for a count, it is the dealer's responsibility to provide an accurate count and the player's responsibility to make sure the dealer does an actual count.  Plus, it is the betting player's responsibility to ensure that all his chips are accounted for.  So each has some shared responsibility for an accurate count.  

For speed of the game and simplicity, most of the time players don't need an exact count.  But that determination falls on the player calling the bet.

So the player calling a bet has a choice:

1.  Accept an approximation of the bet amount.  In this case, it was the player's choice and any shortfall he should make up for.  A gross mistake invoking rule #1 should only be something extraordinary (like hidden big denomination chips, a standard rules violation).

2.  Ask the dealer for an exact count.  In this case, it falls to the dealer to provide an accurate count and the betting player to make sure he isn't shorted.  In this case, the player calling should always only be liable for the amount stated by the dealer, no matter what.  The betting player should make a correction before the action is complete if he thinks it isn't correct.

So I think the rule should be:

Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the responsibility of all involved players to determine the correct count of any bet or call. A player may request of the dealer when it is their turn to act a physical count of another player's bet.  If he then receives an incorrect count from the dealer and acts on it, the player is liable for only the stated amount, but the player who made the original bet may correct the amount stated by the dealer before the other player acts.  If a player does not ask or wait for an exact physical count by the dealer before acting, the player is liable for the full amount of the bet even if it differs from any approximate or partial count given by the dealer or the other player.  Any uncalled chips are pulled back by the player except in the case of an all-in.

Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on August 21, 2011, 07:38:50 AM
Martin,
 I agree with most of what you wrote. That makes two of us that don't agree with TDA Rule #42.

I want to bring up another rule that I thought was going to be changed at the summit but, it remains the way it was from 2009. The only change was from #31 to #38. The last line needs to be changed.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: pokerxanadu on August 21, 2011, 08:18:42 AM
Thanks, Nick.  And I agree with you about rule #38 - the wording of the last line should be somewhat reworked.  Actually, the last line of #38 is not completely incorrect, as it is not the all-in raise that reopens the betting to someone who originally checked.  It is actually the bet of the player that is being raised by the all-in that reopened the betting.  I think something like this would cover it:

In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted, although an earlier or later player's bet or raise in the same betting round may do so.

Of course, that leaves begging the question of whether or not a check-raise of an all-in that is less than a full bet is kosher, when every other player has just checked, folded or called the all-in.  I believe such a check-raise should be valid, just like any other check-raise.  In this case, the final form of the rule could be:

In no-limit and pot limit, a raise that is an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted, although an earlier or later player's bet or raise in the same betting round may do so.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: K-Lo on September 01, 2011, 07:20:08 AM
I have a quick question regarding the last point in Rule 8:

"Play will halt on any table that is 3 or more players short."

Am I right to assume that "short" means "short of the max number of players at any other table"?  E.g. if we are down to 21 players, playing 7 per table, and one table loses 3 players, we are halting even though we may have been playing 8-handed for the entire tournament up till then. 

What if there are 3 tables left, at 8-7-7, and the last table loses 2 players, so now it is 8-7-5... Does play halt at the table with 5 players (until the tables are balanced)?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: pokerxanadu on September 01, 2011, 07:56:13 AM
I have a quick question regarding the last point in Rule 8:

"Play will halt on any table that is 3 or more players short."

Am I right to assume that "short" means "short of the max number of players at any other table"?  E.g. if we are down to 21 players, playing 7 per table, and one table loses 3 players, we are halting even though we may have been playing 8-handed for the entire tournament up till then. 

What if there are 3 tables left, at 8-7-7, and the last table loses 2 players, so now it is 8-7-5... Does play halt at the table with 5 players (until the tables are balanced)?

Thanks!

Yes, that's right.  The table with 7 players would be considered 1 player short, and the table with just 5 players would be 3 players short.  Time to balance!
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on September 01, 2011, 08:04:33 AM
Pokerxanadu is correct. Take one player from the 8 handed and send him to the table with 5.....7-7-6.
Title: Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
Post by: Nick C on October 02, 2011, 04:43:46 AM
It was suggested that I move this prior post regarding the new RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES

RP-1 I think the idea of an all-in button is great. I was wondering if anyone has experienced problems using it.
 a.  What happens if the all-in button is put in, by the dealer, and the player has more chips?
 b.  Exactly where should the dealer place the all-in button after the player goes all-in?

RP-2 I can understand how bringing-in bets can cause some confusion in multy handed pots, and I agree it is not a good dealer practice. I do think that it could be accepted when action is head-to-head. When a player makes a bet, and the other player pushes in a raise, I think that matching the players original bet and placing the equal amounts of the original bet (from each player) into the pot would make the raise amount easier to assess.

RP-4  My feelings on re-shuffle are; A scramble or mix of the cards, (not the standard shuffle) would better guarantee that no cards are exposed. The standard shuffle requires that the cards be gathered and picked-up facing away from the dealer before gathering them together for the first riffle. This would be unacceptable because it would expose the identity of remaining cards.

Your thoughts are always welcome.
 
 Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 05:47:51 PM by Nick C »

I also asked this question one month ago and never got an answer:

Will there be an updated (or amended) version of the 2011 TDA rules?
 

« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 05:47:51 PM by Nick C »

Logged