PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: EbroTim on January 26, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
-
Does TDA have a position on the following?
Player A raises pre-flop to 2,000. Player B reraises to 7,000. Both push their chips forward. Dealer announced raise after each player's raise. Player C announces call, and pushes 2,000 forward. When the dealer informs Player C that the bet is 7,000, he says that he thought the bet was only 2,000. Player D has not yet acted.
How should the TD rule?
A. Give Player C his full range of options (call, raise, or fold) -- and if he decides to fold, he may retract the 2,000 he placed out.
B. Allow Player C to either place out an additional 5,000 for the call, or fold and forfeit the 2,000.
C. Commit Player C to calling the full 7,000.
Thank you for your participation in this discussion.
-
EbroTim:
I think the TD needs some additional information before he can make an informed ruling, specifically, "Why didn't Player C know that Player B had raised"? Was he sleeping, not paying attention because the "tunes" in his headphones were so engrossing, texting his 'fans', etc., etc., etc.
If additional digging convinced me that Player C was not paying attention to the action, I would give him the option of folding leaving the 2,000 in the pot or calling the 7,000, I would not let him raise.
TDA Rule 41 on Accepted Action, regardless of the feelings of some, requires that players pay attention to the action and "...determine the amount of an opponents bet before calling...". The 2nd part of this rule does not apply as he did not ask for a count and get incorrect information.
Based on the example you have provided, I don't see any extenuating circumstances to let him fold and retract the 2,000.
Chet
-
I think we have been recently discussing a similar situation at the end of this thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.msg7048#msg7048
I personally have not completely abandoned the "option to top-up or forfeit the amount already in the pot", and think that it is appropriate in certain situations; however, I know that some 'prominent' TDs are of the view that the new Accepted Action rule requires the player to call and no option is given. In their view, the "option to top-up" is pre-AA practice.
In this particular example, with no other facts to draw upon, and it would seem that no one else is at fault other than the player, and the difference in amounts is not too extreme (which I feel is an important factor but strict AA proponents would probably disagree), in a "serious" game, I would not have an issue with forcing a call here.
-
Embro Tim,
First of all I would offer one more option: Allowing a retraction or call only.
My ruling would be based on two factors; The reputation of the player, and correcting the mistake before substantial action has occurred. In your explanation, you mentioned that Player D had not yet acted. Therefore, I would consider Player C's action a complete misunderstanding of the amount of the raise.
I have always been against TDA #41 Accepted Action. However, because of the it's weak language, I would still be in compliance with the rule; using good old rule #1 to override the possibility of forcing any players involved in the hand, to either win, or lose more than they should.
Chet and Ken have both taken the more strict approach, which is also in compliance with Accepted Action. Is there anyone that can say any ruling is wrong?
-
I would enforce the call. Verbal is binding, and players need to pay attention. I have seen a ruling in a 10k buy-in event where Player A was all-in (clearly announced), Player B (wearing headphones-thought he was calling big blind) stated call. Player B was forced to make the call as he verbalized it. Player A hadn't even had time to push out a stack before B had insta-called.
If Player C had just pushed out the 2k, I would have given him the option to fold and sacrifice the 2k or make the full call.
-
Tristan,
I will not argue that there are many situations, as you described, where a player insta-calls. They would probably call any amount. My decision is based on an obvious unintentional call. I will never support any rule that forces a player to put chips in the pot, when a better option is to correct the misunderstanding as long as another player has not acted.
I have seen enough dramatics on youtube videos (from major events) where some players will take advantage. Pretending that their intent was to call a much lesser amount, only to win with the nut hand at the showdown.
-
Per TDA Rule 34: Players must act in turn. Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Chips placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot.
Per TDA Rule 41: Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation.
Per OP's description, Player C "announces" call then pushes 2000 forward... this is non-standard action at the mercy of the TD. I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time. The only time I might consider leaving the 2k in and allowing him to fold is if the difference in $ was egregious and/or put him all-in. But again that's at my mercy, by rights he should call given the specifics of this exact case IMO.
NOW... if the guy had pushed the 2000 out silently, then after pushing the chips he mumbled call I might consider letting him leave it in and fold...
-
Nick,
Oh, but I meant that in that scenario that Player B did make a mistake. He thought he was calling the big blind, not an all-in. He was knocked out of the tournament on that mistake. (But in reality, he should not be wearing headphones if it leads to him making those type of mistakes.)
I understand what you are saying about misunderstandings, I just have a hard time ruling against a verbal statement.
-
If Player C just pushed, (and said nothing) he would be liable for 2000 only.
Nick I don't think there's a TDA rule that specifically says he's only liable for the 2000. There is a TDA rule that says the 2000 put in the pot in turn must stay in. Whether to force a call or allow the guy to fold and forfeit the 2000 here, IMO, is a TD decision. As I mentioned in previous post, I'm more inclined to consider it in this situation than if the guy declares "call" first.
Your rule, (and the majority) will not consider the intent of the Player...correct?
Under Rule 1 you can consider all facts that you deem relevant. Obviously different TDs may deem certain factors more important than others. Players accept the rule of the floorperson, per Rule 1, when they buy in. Also to remember: TDA Rule 36 which is one of the few rules that's underlined: "It's the players responsibility to make his intentions clear", not the TDs responsibility to read the guy's mind.
Specifically to the point of intent, certainly that's something a TD can consider. What in general I think we want to stay away from is writing intent into the rule, so for example a rule like this would cause problems: "Chips in turn must stay in the pot if the player intended to angle shoot"... we want to stay away from requiring an assessment of intention, and try and find rules that are black and white: if this happens then that, if something else happens, then something else.
The progress that was made at the 2011 Summit on "misunderstanding" bets was to require chips in turn to stay in the pot. That was nearly unanimously agreed to. It's probably a good idea to discuss whether further language can be adopted to specify what happens to the remainder of an undercall, and under what conditions; or if the membership decides that each situation has to be handled case-by-case using Rule 1. At least we know that the chips in turn must stay in the pot.
[Admin note: this post was mistakenly edited by MikeB in red, see following]
-
Sorry Nick, I told someone to remind me not to post after midnight. I meant to hit the quote button and quote your post in a new post but apparently I hit the modify button and so ended up deleting a fair amount of your question, but hopefully retained most of the key points of it. My replies are above, in your post, in red.
I've already linked this thread to the topic of undercalls in proposed rule discussion... I'm going to also link it under a slightly different topic of "bet misunderstandings". Thanks again.
-
Mike,
No problem. I'll try to recall what I wrote and see how your answers apply.
When I wrote: "If Player C just pushed, (and said nothing) he would be liable for 2000 only." The rest of my quote that was omitted made reference to; announcing call first. You said: "Nick I don't think there's a TDA rule that specifically says he's only liable for the 2000. There is a TDA rule that says the 2000 put in the pot in turn must stay in. Whether to force a call or allow the guy to fold and forfeit the 2000 here, IMO, is a TD decision. As I mentioned in previous post, I'm more inclined to consider it in this situation than if the guy declares "call" first.
The point I was trying to make was: Because Player C "said" call first, he becomes liable for the full amount, TDA # 34 Verbal Declarations in turn are binding. The intent of the player was the same but, because he voiced his unintentional call, he is at the mercy of the floor. If Player C just pushed 2000 forward, thinking that was the bet, he would not have been liable for the full 7000, correct?
I have always taught players to make their intentions clear by announcing their bets and raises. The current rules send a message that silence might be a safer way to go.
My thoughts: Player C did not know there was a raise to 7000 in front of him, he pushed 2000 forward and said "I call."
The floor is called, what are the possible solutions? I will add the options EmbroTim listed with option D that I also thought would apply:
A. Give Player C his full range of options (call, raise, or fold) -- and if he decides to fold, he may retract the 2,000 he placed out.
B. Allow Player C to either place out an additional 5,000 for the call, or fold and forfeit the 2,000.
C. Commit Player C to calling the full 7,000.
D. Allow Player C to call 7000 only, with no option to raise.
My first question pertains to TDA # 32 Substantial Action. Does this rule apply to our situation, or not?
Second question: Can we ever; stop the action and correct a wager before substantial action occurs?
-
I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time.
Agreed.
I'm going to go out on a limb and call it for myself at 99.999% of the time. I gotta leave 0.001% open for miscellaneous argumentative, nonsensical player statements that may by powerful enough to persuade me otherwise :D
-
I would like to submit a similar situation that happen to me just few days ago in a main event of 770 euro buy-in tournament in a italian casino
small blind 800 (table position 6) big blind 1600 (table position 7).
utg raise 3200 (position 8) position 10 raise all-in for 13000
before position 1 acted, small blind ask to the dealer how much is the UTG raise.
dealer announced 3200
at that point position 1 said call and trow 3200.
dealer call me to rules the situation.
and after the dealer explain to me all the action he also told me that he may have been tricked by the announcement . I said to the table that by the rules the player that made a statement is should be obliged to complete the bet to the all in bet cos is "accepted action" rule, but i have to consider all the situation, the position of the players involve in the hand and what happend just before that player 1 said call
the misunderstanding could be easy make not cos was distracted but for the dealer announcement in this case.
by the way the position 1 didn t have music or was distract by any ipad or similar.
so I said to the table that my decision was made by this rule
1: Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as top priorities in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.
other floor man told after that in this way I set a dangeruos precedent, and for them they let player 1 make a call to the all in cos it easyer and no gives any trouble in future.
but i am still convinced that was the best decision overall.
what you would do in my shoes..???
thanks in advance.
-
Hi Spades. I do think your situation is very similar. It is unfortunate that the dealer answered the small blind's question when seat 1 hasn't acted yet - I would prefer that the dealer tell the SB to wait his turn. In any case, I think the general trend is to force a call of 13000 under the accepted action rule... In the end, the player does have to pay attention. And although I would prefer that some relief be given to the players if a dealer is asked for an exact count and gives the wrong information, the accepted action rule currently does not provide for such relief.
I understand that the player might have been thrown off by the dealer's statement, but I would like to know whether the all-in chips were pushed forward by seat 10, and whether the dealer announced all-in. In my view, if the bet was in clear view, it is the player's fault for not counting it, and being "distracted". On the other hand, if seat 10 whispered all-in to the dealer and did not push his chips forward, I may give him the option to top-up the call or fold because in fairness, there is no way to visually verify the bet -- but I know that strict accepted action proponents will not even allow this! I am curious what you decided... Did you let him take the 3200 back, or allow him to fold but leave the chips in?
In the past, my default would have been to give the option of topping up to 13000 or fold, but I do feel bound by accepted action not to give that option anymore. I do look forward to getting some clarification on when rule 1 may be applied as an exception - in my view, one of the primary factors should be whether the full amount of the wager to be called is in clear view. This is consistent with the general consensus that poker is a visual game.
On a related note, suppose at the summit, it is decided that accepted action is to be applied strictly, and that all undercalls must always be topped up for the full amount. Does it make a difference whether a player announced "call" and then put in the wrong amount, or if he simply put in the wrong amount silently? I don't think it should make a difference - we shouldn't be giving players an incentive to not verbalize their actions, and putting chips in then pot does signify an intention to continue in the hand. This may need to be clarified as well.
-
I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time.
Agreed!
I said to the table that by the rules the player that made a statement is should be obliged to complete the bet to the all in bet cos is "accepted action" rule, but i have to consider all the situation, the position of the players involve in the hand and what happend just before that player 1 said call
so I said to the table that my decision was made by this rule
I am a little confused what your decision was Spades!
other floor man told after that in this way I set a dangeruos precedent, and for them they let player 1 make a call to the all in cos it easyer and no gives any trouble in future
I presume means you allowed the player to fold, leaving the 3,200 in the middle. We tend to be leaning towards enforcing a full call nowadays, but I would not have real issue with going either way providing you gave a reasonable justification for ruling that the player could do something other than call the all-in of 13,000
Regards
Stuart
-
I understand that the player might have been thrown off by the dealer's statement, but I would like to know whether the all-in chips were pushed forward by seat 10, and whether the dealer announced all-in. In my view, if the bet was in clear view, it is the player's fault for not counting it, and being "distracted". On the other hand, if seat 10 whispered all-in to the dealer and did not push his chips forward, I may give him the option to top-up the call or fold because in fairness, there is no way to visually verify the bet -- but I know that strict accepted action proponents will not even allow this!
I would likely give the player the benefit of the doubt if two things did not happen; if the dealer did not announce all-in (or toss out an all-in button), and if the all-in player did not push out a stack. Because if those two things did not happen, it could be pretty hard for the player to know what the correct action is. However, if either one of those things did happen, it has to be that the player was not paying attention to the action.
I would always back up a TD if they made a call that they feel is justified...based on fairness and best interest of the tournament.
As a dealer, I have stopped a player when they looked to be about to put out the wrong amount and inform them of the current action just to be sure they know.
-
Spades,
I'm a little unclear on your decision, also.
Tristan, I like what you said about how you handled similar situations, when you were dealing. Stopping an obvious under call is the action of a good dealer. There are too many, IMO, that want to enforce the strict side of the most controversial rule in the 12 year history of the TDA.
I would never force a player to call 4times the bet he thought he was facing, unless action followed.
Finally someone is breaking down the complexities that can be created by "Verbal is Binding."
Spade, if I were in your shoes, I would have allowed the player in the 1 seat to retract his bet! In compliance with TDA Rule #1.
-
thanks to all...
the position 10 was clear on the statement and the chips was pushed.
my decision end to be let the player in position 1 stand 3200 in the pot and let him decide what to do.
spades
-
I've ruled on this exact scenario more times than I can remember. I ruled as Tristan, Mike B, and Poker Magee. Raise is in plain view and verbal in turn is binding. Not much slack to inattention.
-
mooredog,
I have a suggestion for you, and everyone that takes the no leniency approach to an incorrect call amount:
Issue a clear statement to all patrons before they are seated.
WARNING: Player's are responsible for all actions. If you are skipped on your turn to act, you must stop the next player from acting, or let the dealer know that you were skipped, because if you don't, your hand is DEAD! :D
Player's that are facing an unclear verbal bet, are liable to the full amount...whatever it is. >:(
Player's have no redress once they have acted, unless they bet out of turn, and the proper bettor decides to bet a different amount. ??? ::)
Furthermore: There will be no consideration given for any "gross misunderstanding" on any call amount, even if given the wrong information from the bettor, or the
dealer. :(
How am I doing so far?
-
WARNING: Player's are responsible for all actions. If you are skipped on your turn to act, you must call time before substantial action happens, or let the dealer know that you were skipped, because if you don't, your hand is DEAD! :D
Player's that are facing a raise that was visually placed in the pot or was clearly announced by the dealer (or especially both!), are liable to the full amount if they verbalize "Call"...whatever it is. >:(
Fixed! ;) :P
-
Tristan,
I was joking...I hope you are too!
-
Nick:
I like it and I am not joking!!
Any TD worth his/her salt can always invoke Rule 1 in the case of an inexperienced player who really needs some help instead of discipline or in case of some extremely unusual circumstance that warrants same.
I do, however, think your idea of a statement at the beginning of the event covering the items you listed, as well as others as need be, is a great idea!
Otherwise, I am in the camp of those of feel that a player whose failure to pay attention to what is going on is not going to get any benefit from me.
Any by the way, I still don't have a problem with Rule 41, especially in large multi-table events.
Chet
-
Hello Chet,
After 1700 posts, it's good to know you agree with one (1) of my suggestions. ;D
I will now agree with one of yours...TDA Rule #41 is for large multi-table events....
Unfortunately, the objective of the TDA is to draft a standardized set of rules...not one that divides T.D's and forces differing opinions, every time the subject arises.
Do we really have to adopt every rule that the WSOP introduces? Let them have theirs, and let the rest of the poker world proceed as normal. By normal I mean before the 2011 TDA Summit.
-
Tristan,
I was joking...I hope you are too!
I think we were both not joking about our viewpoints, but we were both making lighthearted remarks! ;D
Announcements prior to the start are always a good idea!
-
Tristan and Chet,
Announcing any rules, that might differ from room to room, is a good idea isn't it!
Educating the players beforehand can save a lot of headaches for everyone.
How about a little flier to pass out...Player's: Are you familiar with TDA Rule # 41? If you are not, please take the time to read and understand it. The rule will be strictly enforced. Our card room will assume no liability for any financial loss incurred by any tournament player due to ignorance of our house rules!
It should be signed by every player at the buy-in.
-
I also like Nick's "new rules" subject to Tristan's clarifications. Let's do it! ;D
-
Nick: For a variety of reasons, many, many poker rooms or events have rules that differ from the recommendations of the TDA. Some of these are mandated by local authorities, some are mandated by "upper management", some are mandated by the Poker Room or Event Manager, etc., etc.
I can certainly see where Rule 41, Accepted Action can resolve many issues in the MT events. Especially where you have participants of many different languages and staff of just as many different languages and/or experience. I have adopted Rule 41 in my small events as well, especially where there a a couple of regulars who have a habit of "stretching the rules" from time to time. Has solved issues and personally if I have an angle shooter that doesn't like it, too damn bad.
I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water when an individual event can just decide that Rule 41 doesn't "fit" their venue.
Chet
-
Chet,
You can defend TDA #41 all you want. The rule is in need of a serious overhaul. IMO, the TDA rules should be basic, fundamental, and easy to work into house rules anywhere.
Others on this post are also in favor of TDA #41, but they are also asking for a few adjustments that would make the rule better.
A quote from Tristan: " Player's that are facing a raise that was visually placed in the pot or was clearly announced by the dealer (or especially both!)" will be obligated to call the full amount. This would be acceptable because it offers some protection to a player given wrong information from opposing players or the dealer.
There have already been issues with Accepted Action in last years WSOP. Is there anyone out there that wants to put their name, as the proud author, of Accepted Action? Chet, it was you, wasn't it? ;D
I'm going to ask this unanswered question from over a year ago, one more time. Is there anyone out there that can explain, what terrible event occurred that would make such a rule necessary?
-
By now there are umpteen threads discussing Rule 41. As to what makes it necessary, there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)... Accepted action makes clear that the bet is what's pushed out, regardless of an error in dealer count (with a Rule 1 exception for really large errors, see at end below...)....
Consider this situation, which has been posted previously, 4 players...
Player A: All in, pushes stack
Player B: call
Player C: how much is it? Dealer answers" looks like 96K"...... C calls
Player D: how much did you say... dealer answers" whoops, missed a chip, it's 101K.... D calls
Player A wins, the actual chip count is 106K.... If you don't have accepted action, then B owes 106K, what does C owe? 106, 96, or 101? What does D owe? 106, 96, or 101? If you go by dealer count, then C owes 96 and D owes 101.
NOW... if either C or D wins, how much will they win? The entire 106? or will C win 96 or D win 101? Since B called, will B owe 106 to C or D, or only 96 to C or 101 to D? If, say, C can't win the entire 106, but only what he had at risk (96), then what happens to the other 10 from A who's all-in? Return to treasury or...?
Accepted action gets rid of ALL of this...
NOW... if the miscount is egregious, that's what the Rule 1 exception, clearly stated, is there for. It was the addition of the Rule 1 language that broke the logjam at the 2011 Summit and led to adoption of the rule by super-majority present.
Lastly I'd point out that I haven't heard that many problems with this rule as written...
Food for thought.
-
I run 8 tournaments a week, and while I (rarely) have had situations where I needed to apply rule #41, I have never had it turn out to be a big deal.
It is a bigger deal on this forum than it has been in any tournament that I have run! :P
-
Mike,
You are basing your example on an incorrect count by the dealer, correct? What makes everyone think the dealer will get it right after the showdown? It has to be counted at some point, why not when a player considering a call asks?
In your example: Player B insta calls Player A so he's locked in to whatever the actual count is. Player C asks the dealer and he realizes he made a 5000 mistake...at this point the dealer and Player C should correct the bet to the additional 5000. If Player C complains the floor should be called to make a decision. Player D knows he is calling 101K (no problem here).
After the final tally, we discover that the count was wrong again, it is 106k..I'm called to the table.
Player A wins he gets 106k from B because Player B called without asking. Player's C and D will lose 101k each.
If Player B wins he gets all of Player A's chips and 101k from Player's C & D.
If Player C wins, (we will assume he called the corrected additional 5K) so he gets 101K from each player A, B, and D. He will not get the extra 5k from Player A's all-in...the extra 5K will be removed from tournament play and Player A will be eliminated.
Player D will also receive the same as Player C.
We are only asking for these corrections, when and if a count is requested by a calling player. If Player A goes all-in and pushes 106K and all player's called , the way Player B did, then we can insist that all calling player's are responsible for the full amount. I will repeat: Those that oppose Accepted Action don't like being committed to an incorrect quote after asking for a count.
I would not object to a rule that forces all players to commit to the proper amount if they were misquoted but the quote was 80% of the actual count, or something to that affect.
Tristan, I just read your post, and my guess is you have some good dealers that can count. They can sort out a situation before the problems we discuss occur. If a calling player asks how much it is to call, they should get the right count from the dealer.
-
In your example: Player B insta calls Player A so he's locked in to whatever the actual count is.
Agreed, which is 106 to win, 106 to lose
Player C asks the dealer and he realizes he made a 5000 mistake...
No, player C asks the dealer and the dealer says 96K.... if we go by the dealer count that C the caller got at the time (which seems to be what Accepted Action opponents want), C received a count of 96 and called 96, yes?
at this point the dealer and Player C should correct the bet to the additional 5000.
Player C learns that it's 5K more after Player D asks what the count is... so, do you allow Player C to change his mind and retract his bet, or stick at 96K, or do you insist he increase his call to 101 K even though he only called 96K based on a dealer quote at the time he committed to call? If you insist he raises his call... then as far as it looks to me, you're enforcing accepted action!
If Player C complains the floor should be called to make a decision. Player D knows he is calling 101K (no problem here).
After the final tally, we discover that the count was wrong again, it is 106k..I'm called to the table.
Player A wins he gets 106k from B because Player B called without asking. Player's C and D will lose 101k each.
But, as above, C only called 96K... unless you force accepted action on him and say he has to agree to the higher count given to D.... BTW, what if the count to D was "whoops, looks like it's 121k"... if I understand, D is going to have to call the 131k (if he wants to call), but C, what happens to him? He was quoted and called 96K, now the dealer is saying the count is 121k b/c the dealer just found another 25k chip
If Player B wins he gets all of Player A's chips and 101k from Player's C & D.
Again we have the problem that C only called a dealer count of 96k
If Player C wins, (we will assume he called the corrected additional 5K) so he gets 101K from each player A, B, and D. He will not get the extra 5k from Player A's all-in...the extra 5K will be removed from tournament play and Player A will be eliminated.
Player D will also receive the same as Player C.
Keep in mind that both C and D, if they win are going to raise *&^%$ claiming that they had the entire 106K covered and they want it all. The TD will have to explain to them that they can only win or lose what the dealer quoted... then they're likely to say "the dealer said "about 96K" not "exactly 96K".... how do you handle disagreements about what the dealer said?
We are only asking for these corrections, when and if a count is requested by a calling player.
Right, but that's what the opposition to accepted action is based on yes, that each caller should only be liable for what the dealer quotes him if I understand the argument against AA.
I would not object to a rule that forces all players to commit to the proper amount if they were misquoted but the quote was 80% of the actual count, or something to that affect.
That is 100% permissible under Rule 41, last sentence. At your specific venue, you can have that language and still be TDA compliant. That's what the final discussions on Rule 41 concluded, and that's why that last sentence is in there. Personally I think a percentage is worth discussing, just not sure you can get everyone to agree to the exact number, or any number. A fair percent of members are probably going to want to leave it at Rule 1 at TDs discretion.
-
Mike,
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer me, and also for your thought provoking response.
I guess your biggest objection was the slight confusion created about Player C. After Player C called the 96K and Player D again asked the dealer how much it was...this is when the dealer should stop the action, correct Player C to the additional 5k and continue on to Player D. I assumed that Player C would have no problem increasing his call another 5%.
Facts I'd consider:
#1.) If the count is correct we have no problem.
#2.) When facing an all-in bet: Any insta-call commits that player to the complete amount wagered.
#3.) If the calling player requests a count, why not give it? It has to be counted at some point.
#4.) I'd really like to see a rule that would share the responsibility for an accurate amount wagered between the bettor, the calling player and the dealer.
I also feel the need for a standard rule that would force players to complete a wager if they are within a specific percent of the correct amount.
-
Tristan, I just read your post, and my guess is you have some good dealers that can count. They can sort out a situation before the problems we discuss occur. If a calling player asks how much it is to call, they should get the right count from the dealer.
I think you missed what I was trying to say. We do have some good dealers here, but at times situations have occurred in which I had to apply rule #41. I have not had objections from the players when I did have to use it.
I assumed that Player C would have no problem increasing his call another 5%.
If this is true, than none of them should have a problem increasing the call to 106k. As the increase from 101k to 106k is less than 5%.
I personally feel that a count MUST be made by the dealer when a player, in turn, asks how much it is. This count should be done in such a way that it is clearly countable by the players as well. After this, if there is an error in the amount stated, there is a shared responsibility. Not by just the raiser, bettor, caller, or dealer...but by every player at the table as any player is supposed to point out an error as they see it occurring.
-
Tristan,
How can you say you have no problems with the current rule, and then suggest we change it to a shared responsibility? The current rule does not allow the dealer to say anything. I agree 100% with what you are suggesting for accepted action. Your suggestion changes the current rule completely, and would make it much more acceptable!
-
How can you say you have no problems with the current rule, and then suggest we change it to a shared responsibility?
Huh? I didn't suggest a change! I was pointing out how the rule works well when it goes hand-in-hand with internal card room policies.
The current rule does not allow the dealer to say anything.
It does not prevent a dealer from doing so. Our internal policy works just fine with the way #41 is currently written.
Most places either have dealers break down all bets and state an amount, or in the case that I prefer, just break down bets or raises when asked or repeat any amount that is verbalized. Either way works fine with AA, all AA does is give us a 'standard' ruling and shift the blame from being totally on the dealer. It does also have the "As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion." just in case you feel the need to go away from the 'standard' ruling.
-
I do have a suggestion for those that feel Accepted Action is perfect the way it is:
Post a warning to all patrons:
PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!
-
By now there are umpteen threads discussing Rule 41. As to what makes it necessary, there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)... Accepted action makes clear that the bet is what's pushed out, regardless of an error in dealer count (with a Rule 1 exception for really large errors, see at end below...)....
Consider this situation, which has been posted previously, 4 players...
Hi all: I'd like to jump in here, although I do feel it has been a week of rehashing old discussions from old threads - it really must have been Groundhog Day!! :)
First, I do feel that many TDs have just come to accept Accepted Action and its faults, so I think I'm being realistic when I say that it is unlikely that this will be changed at the Summit, even if it does go to debate. I feel that the current trend in the industry is to take a hard line with players, putting more of the responsibility on the calling player, even in situations where he may have been helpless to prevent an error, and even in situations where the blame can partly be attributed by others, including the bettor, other opponents, the dealer, and sometimes even the TD!
The related discussion on undercalls and the trend to now treat these as Accepted Action problems is one example -- situations where there has been a gross misunderstanding of a bet or where a player called but did not know that the call amount was for more -- even when the mistake was clearly not the player's sole fault -- is now more commonly ruled as a forced call regardless of the circumstances, under the guise of Accepted Action. The trend is: no more retractions, no more options to top-up or fold. It is the caller's fault, simply put. Accepted Action.
I can sympathize with this hardline stance. The rule is certainly much easier to enforce. It is more "objective" if you will, as there is only one result to apply - the caller is always deemed to accept the action. It gives a way for the TD to avoid criticism from players who disagree with rulings because the TD can always simply point to AA and say "see, the rule says so". Now, the reference to Rule 1 is there, that is true, but there was little guidance on when this should be enforced. So let's face it, this has led to the new reality, which is fewer and fewer TDs relying on Rule 1, and more and more TDs being less inclined to even bother trying to apply Rule 1, since simply pointing to AA solves the problem quickly, and requires little judgment.
I will admit: if everyone simply followed AA strictly, we would have much more consistent rulings across the board. That is certainly a worthwhile objective. I admit though, that my criticisms of AA are a bit philosophical in nature.
Perhaps we feel we have been subject to so much player abuse that we have become afraid of making difficult calls, for fear of making the "wrong" one. Perhaps some TDs are becoming so lazy that they feel it is much easier to point to a black-and-white rule and say "my hands are tied", rather than taking time and effort to think through the specific facts of each scenario to determine what action is most appropriate from what could be a range of possible decisions. Perhaps it is easier to enforce a one-rule-fits-all situation that even the most inexperienced TD can apply, then to make the effort to train those TDs on how to assess whether a different outcome might be appropriate.
But in all of this, I feel it is easy to forget that our main priority as TDs should always be fairness. It is the top priority in the decision-making process, after all. TDs should never be discouraged from trying to work out situations to determine what the fairest solution should be. That is our job. In my view, blindly applying a rule for the sake of administrative expedience may be the easy way out, but it may not be fair.
In this regard, I have three additional comments:
1. I have always been in favor of providing relief to a calling player when he has relied on what has been purported to be an exact count from the dealer. A number of other rule books contain a similar provision to this effect and there is a reason for it -- being unable to rely on a count that has been provided in good faith from someone who is supposed to be impartial, reeks of unfairness. Other players who have an interest in seeing the count corrected, e.g. the bettor, should share in the responsibility to ensure that the count is correct. Having all parties sharing in the responsibility to prevent irregularities is in the best interests of the tournament.
2. I appreciate the difficulties of offering the protection I speak of above in certain situations, e.g. multi-way situations as Mike so aptly described. Mike's case is a good one -- it would be a huge mess when there are three callers, involving all three different dealer counts. But just because that particular multi-way situation exists, shouldn't mean that it is appropriate to apply AA in all other situations. Mike said that people thought Rule 41 was necessary because "there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)". However, if the real reason for Rule 41 is that we needed a better way to deal with problems that occur with the highest frequency, then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking. I submit that what are probably most common are heads-up situations, or more generally, situations in which only one count is at issue. And if that is true, why can't we provide some relief to a player who relies on the count of a dealer that stands uncorrected? Fine, apply AA when there are multiple miscounts involved. But this doesn't mean it is fair to apply AA in situations where there is only one count in dispute.
3. Finally, if we are indeed stuck with AA for good, then at least some guidance on when Rule 1 is applicable should be given. In my view, the most important would be that a player should be entitled to relief under Rule 1 if for some reason the caller would have been unable to correctly visually verify the amount of a wager (e.g. if the chips were not pushed in, an all-in button was used but not pushed out, or chips were hidden, etc.). I've said before that a "deaf person" should be able to discern the amount of a particular wager by looking at the state of the table, and if he can't, Rule 1 might well apply: Poker is a visual game - if the "picture" is not clear to the caller, he should have some relief. I also would consider the dealer failing to make a verbal announcement (e.g. raise, all-in) as relevant, although I personally think it is secondary.
This is my 5 cents. (we just phased out the penny)
-
K-Lo wrote: 2. then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking.
What isn't nearly so rare is:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: Whoops, looks like 101K
Add to that the occasion when the final count is further off... 106K on the final countdown.
This year's WSOP had more televised miscounts than I've seen in awhile.
K-Lo wrote: Now, the reference to Rule 1 is there, that is true, but there was little guidance on when this should be enforced.
It's very likely there will be extensive discussion of Accepted Action at the 2013 Summit. Among the suggestions I'm guessing we will see specific thresholds suggested like "count off by more than X percent" or "if the revised count puts the caller all-in", or something of that nature with pro-and-con debate on same.
-
K-Lo wrote: 2. then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking.
What isn't nearly so rare is:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: Whoops, looks like 101K
Add to that the occasion when the final count is further off... 106K on the final countdown.
Hi Mike: Yes I agree this is more common than the four-way example. Even more common still:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: I counted 96K "Okay I call"
... 106K on the final countdown.
But I'd say even more common still is the simple case involving two players, and dealer gives a single count which turns out to be wrong. IMO, there is no need to throw out the possibility of providing a fairer rule in heads-up play, just because problems might arise in if the rule were to be enforced in (rarer) multi-way scenarios.
-
First, I do feel that many TDs have just come to accept Accepted Action and its faults, so I think I'm being realistic when I say that it is unlikely that this will be changed at the Summit, even if it does go to debate.
There's no question it will be debated, scenarios and experiences presented, etc. etc.
But in all of this, I feel it is easy to forget that our main priority as TDs should always be fairness. It is the top priority in the decision-making process, after all.
.... and best interest of the game.. There's a great deal of interest of the game that is served by clarity and predictability.
Not arguing against anything you're saying, just that ALL of this needs to be considered.
-
Not arguing against anything you're saying, just that ALL of this needs to be considered.
That explains why this year's summit will be two weeks long. ::)
Yikes!
-
Hey Ken,
Great post.
I especially like your 3 added comments, IN PART:
#1 I have always been in favor of providing relief to a calling player when he has relied on what has been purported to be an exact count from the dealer. & the bettor, should share in the responsibility to ensure that the count is correct. Having all parties sharing in the responsibility to prevent irregularities is in the best interests of the tournament.
#2 why can't we provide some relief to a player who relies on the count of a dealer that stands uncorrected?
#3 Finally, if we are indeed stuck with AA for good....
These are good enough reasons, in my book, to insist that change is needed.
Establishing a percent on an unclear bet is a good way to start. How much is a gross misunderstanding? I have seen it written, in an obscure rule from the past, that 80% was used.
-
First off, I would just like to say I have nothing but respect and admiration for you all. Sometimes, when it comes to written speech, things like that are not conveyed as well. You guys are the ones that participate the most on here and try to help the most people come to the best decisions possible. I am actually really glad that out of the people who participate the most, there are many varying opinions. This causes us to all see things from a different perspective.
It's kinda funny, I argue against changing AA for much of the same reason that K-Lo is for it. I feel like the more stipulations we add, the more we tie our own hands as tournament directors. Yes, we can always go against the written rules via rule 1, but the more defined the rule is, the more opposition we will get from players when we do go against what is written...at least that is what I have found.
I do give the benefit of the doubt to a player any time I feel they did not share responsibility. (Breakdown not visible, hidden big chip, etc.)
One other item of food for thought:
Consider the normal 2 player situation. An all-in and a call.
Roughly half of all (what should be) Accepted Action situations, involving a miscount, go unnoticed. If the calling player wins and has the all-in covered, even in the event of a miscount, they will get the all-ins stack. Dealers do not usually re-count in those situations and the calling player is never going to point it out. The caller then gets the benefit of accepting the action without the risk. So the caller has an advantage over the all-in player.
The other half of the time, when the calling player loses, is when these situations are usually discovered. If we side with the caller for counting errors, when they were clearly visible, the caller also has the advantage. Calling players are not going to point out a visible error when they would stand to benefit from it. Example (If we are to adapt something like 80%): A pushes all-in. I am Player B. When I ask the dealer for a count, the dealer states 75k, but I can clearly see that it is actually 100k. I have 300k in my stack. I know that I only will have to risk 75k to call the 100k. Because if I win, the dealer is just going to push me Player A's stack as I have them covered. But if I lose, I could then push out 75k and if the miscount is noticed, I would only be bound to the 75K still since it was less than 80%. So now on both sides of the issue, caller winning or caller losing, the caller would have the advantage...and I do not view that as fair.
If you look at it that way, AA does appear to share responsibility.
In the case of the call winning, the all-in, in a miscount, has no recourse.
In the case of the all-in winning, the caller, in a miscount, has no recourse.
These two things are fair, provided the miscount was clearly displayed for players to see. And if it is not, we use rule 1 to make the most fair call possible.
-
Hi Tristan:
As usual, I really like your reasoning.
I do understand not wanting to tie down the hands of the TD with rules that are too specific. In fact, I think the TDA rules are purposely more general in nature so as to accommodate minor variations in policy. But I do think there is some value in providing at least some discretionary language to show that the TD can consider various factors when applying Rule 1. E.g. rule 1 MAY apply at TD's discretion, particularly in situations where the opponent's bet is not in clear view, or where it is otherwise reasonable to conclude that the caller was deceived as to the nature or the amount of the wager. I don't think this ties the TD down in any way, and in fact, it makes the decisions that are exceptions to the general rule more transparent. I fear that without such a qualification, the rule seems to effeectively require too high of a standard in order for an exception to be made.
With respect to the two player example, I have mixed feelings about it. I see what you are saying, but I do feel there is a difference between sharing what is effectively the penalty at the end of the hand (if the caller wins, the all-in has no recourse and vice-versa), and sharing responsibility to prevent an irregularity from occurring. In your example, the caller only has an advantage in both cases IF when the dealer is asked for a count, the bettor does not intervene to confirm the amount. I do feel that all parties at the table, but especially the players involved in the pot, have a shared responsibility to confirm the accuracy of the dealer's count before the hand is played out. There is no incentive now for the bettor to correct an incorrect count from the dealer, and I think that responsibility should be shared. Now occasionally, there may be situations where the caller may get a break when an incorrect count of a dealer is relied upon and where the bettor, if he chooses not to help verify the count, may be liable for more; however, I am not so certain that this "premium" is unjustified - the caller may be at the mercy of the dealer to receive a correct count (the dealer is supposed to be impartial) and bears a risk when relying on that count... The bettor on the other hand bore no risk, as his bet did not depend in any way on misinformation from a dealer. In fact, I wonder if the result is any different from what happens when the caller asks the dealer for a count, it is given without correction from the bettor, the caller puts out the chips for the call, and the dealer scoops it all together into the main pot before continuing (which is often done)... If the call amount was actually short, isn't the result the same?
An interesting discussion, I must say. I doubt we'll be able to get broad-based support for the EPT-type wording anyways, but a nice compromise would be a little clarity on when rule 1 might apply.
-
I have a question for everyone. How did you handle similar situations before Accepted Action? ??? Let's look at Mike Bishop's example:
Player A "All-in" > pushes chips
Player B: How much is there? Dealer: 96K "Okay I call"
Player C: How much? Dealer: Whoops, looks like 101K
Add to that the occasion when the final count is further off... 106K on the final countdown.
-
Good points K-Lo. Some clarifications might be in order when it comes to AA.
I have a tough time seeing the bettor and the caller as being much different in the two person scenario. How many times have you seen a player not be able to count their own chips? It is painfully obvious at times when you bag and tag or ask for individual chip counts to post.
Both players are focused on each other and trying to figure out their pot odds, outs, and tells from the other player.
Both players are relying on the card room professional for their count. (Dealer)
Human nature prevents us from wanting to look stupid in front of other people. Even if the bettor or the caller think the amount presented doesn't match with what the dealer says, they aren't going to speak up unless they are quite sure. And this is happening at a time when they both are very distracted.
So, I guess, what I am trying to say is that if we implement things to protect the caller in situations where they lost and there was an incorrect count by the dealer, then we need to implement things to protect the bettor when the situation is reversed. Doing that would require dealers to re-break down all-ins that lose to make sure the amount was correct with what they stated...and that just sounds labor intensive.
So, I think it is best we leave it like it is, but just add a little more in clarification.
When a player, in turn, asks for a count on a bet or raise, the dealer will clearly break down the bet into easily countable stacks (4, 5, or 20 chip). If the dealer then states an incorrect amount, no player will have any recourse as the bets were clearly displayed. All players can protect themselves by visually verifying the amount and not relying only on the amount verbalized by the dealer.
Something like that would be great, but training the dealers to break down bets like that is not really a TDA thing. More of an in-house issue.
-
So, I think it is best we leave it like it is, but just add a little more in clarification.
When a player, in turn, asks for a count on a bet or raise, the dealer will clearly break down the bet into easily countable stacks (4, 5, or 20 chip). If the dealer then states an incorrect amount, no player will have any recourse as the bets were clearly displayed. All players can protect themselves by visually verifying the amount and not relying only on the amount verbalized by the dealer.
Something like that would be great, but training the dealers to break down bets like that is not really a TDA thing. More of an in-house issue.
Yes, that is the essence of the type of relief that I think would be appropriate.
-
Tristan and K-Lo:
The word "can" is not an enforceable term. It merely means that something is possible, not that something should be done. Therefore, I suggest that the word "can" in the last sentence of Tristan's suggested language be changed to "shall" a term which is enforceable and clearly puts the responsibility on the player.
Chet
-
Tristan and K-Lo:
The word "can" is not an enforceable term. It merely means that something is possible, not that something should be done. Therefore, I suggest that the word "can" in the last sentence of Tristan's suggested language be changed to "shall" a term which is enforceable and clearly puts the responsibility on the player.
Chet
Yes!
-
Good point Chet!
-
OK... more on the "undercall"...
We've been debating whether or not players can still be given the option to "top-up" an undercall or surrender the amount already in the pot, or whether there is no longer such an option to give given the introduction of Accepted Action. Most (but not all) of us, would rarely even considering allowing a full retraction of the bet, despite being a clear option in Robert's Rules.
Recently, Matt S tweeted the following:
Guy bets 3700. I throw 1k chip in. Do I have to complete or can I fold & lose my 1K?<~Yes, cannot raise & pay attention!
Fair enough, it would appear that the "option" is still alive, at least according to Matt.
In contrast, there is this scenario:
Seat 6 says "raise it to 130K" and pushes out the 130K, Dealer also declares the raise
Seat 1 (who is wearing ear phones) now pitches in 10K more, Dealer now points out the 130K raise made by Seat 6
and Steve Frezer responded:
"Accepted action. There are no options... He has to pay attention, cant make the nice guy ruling, it will come back and bite ya."
All I am saying is... yes... it would be nice to have some consensus on whether any options are available and under what conditions.
-
I asked a question on reply #46. How would you rule before Accepted Action?
Ken, I'm sorry but I don't understand Matt's tweet ??? I'm missing too much information on this one. Why would I toss a 1K chip on a 3700 bet?
I'm sure I can fold.
The question is: Can I fold and withdraw my 1K?
Can I raise?
Do I have to leave the 1K in the pot, if I don't want to call?
Was the question answered?
Back to my question. Before AA what would you rule?
-
Can I fold and withdraw my 1K?
I say no. Money placed in the pot, in turn, must stay in the pot.
Can I raise?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: "36: Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. It is the player’s responsibility to make his intentions clear."
Placing an undercall in the pot and then raising does not fit any of these allowable methods of raising. That is also a string bet.
Do I have to leave the 1K in the pot, if I don't want to call?
Pretty much the same as your first question. Money placed in the pot, in turn, must stay in the pot. Yes, you have to leave it in.
-
The real question is whether the player throwing 1K in should be forced to call 3700 under the guise of Accepted Action, with no option to leave in the 1K and fold? I would have answered the same as Matt and Tristan prior to AA.. now not sure anymore.
-
If they said call, and then threw out the 1k...I would make them call.
If they throw out 1k without saying call, I'd give the option to chip up or fold and sacrifice the 1k.
I understand what you mean though... AA can be interpreted in a more strict way.
-
Hey Ken, congratulations on your 500th post!
Okay, So the way I see everyone's interpretation of AA, there is no way in hell to ever retract an incorrect amount placed in the pot in turn. :o
Somehow, it seems as if I've lost the support of several members that at one time thought there was something that "reeked" about a player being forced to surrender a short bet, or even worse...call the unclear bet even if given the wrong count by the dealer ::)
If the above is true, I suggest the following change be made:
Accepted Action Any player (acting in turn) calling a bet or raise must be certain of their action, or verbal declaration, because they are obligated to call the exact amount no matter what!
Now that's the way a rule should be written. It's terrible...but very clear. :D
-
Hey Ken, congratulations on your 500th post!
Okay, So the way I see everyone's interpretation of AA, there is no way in hell to ever retract an incorrect amount placed in the pot in turn. :o
Somehow, it seems as if I've lost the support of several members that at one time thought there was something that "reeked" about a player being forced to surrender a short bet, or even worse...call the unclear bet even if given the wrong count by the dealer ::)
Thanks, Nick. I hadn't even noticed. Maybe it will be a lucky post.
I personally think that TDs should retain the discretion to provide an option to top-up or fold, and to possibly retract incorrect amounts altogether. We should be able to use our judgment to determine what seems reasonable given the circumstances. In this regard, I believe we do share the same criticisms of this rule. Unfortunately, I just see that the trend at the "high levels" of the game is towards applying rules like AA very strictly -- and although I feel somewhat obliged to tow the party line if that is really where things are going, I feel that it is a bit shortsighted as it certainly doesn't serve novice players very well.
-
There is always the option for the TD to do what they feel is the most fair and best for the game! :)
Times when I have allowed the player to retract:
- When the dealer tells me he was leaning in the way, obstructing seat 1's view and no bet was stated.
- When a player went all-in, did not push out chips, and the dealer said (due to noise) that the player most likely could not have heard.
- Probably a few others, but I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Basically any time I feel the player was not responsible. But these times are very rare. Maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 50?
I will not make an exception for headphones. It is the player's choice to wear them, and if they miss action because of it...it is their own fault.
I will not make an exception for a player who had visual or verbal proof and was not paying attention. If they don't want to pay attention, that is their choice.
So 98%-99% of the time, I will rule as I said above. 1%-2% of the time, I feel that fairness allows a different call.
-
After 4 pages of response, I looked to the original subject title: (Player was not aware of raise amount. How should TD rule?)...The player was not aware....hmm, so because of Accepted Action; we are expected to either force the calling player to call the correct amount, or at least surrender the "short amount" they were willing to call? ???
Somehow, this does not serve the best interest of the game. I'll go back to comments from others on this subject..."something about this reeks!"
Come on TDA members, let's fix this one.
On Day 1 of the 2011 TDA Summit, Accepted Action was introduced. My first impression was; it was so ridiculous that it would never pass. As the debates and suggestions wore on, I began to realize that somehow, this rule was going to be added.
On Day 2, after more heated debates, (and the addition of the right to use TDA Rule #1), we were asked for a show of hands "if we could live with it"... for now? It was apparent that we were running out of time, and we had other rules that needed to be addressed. The new rule was introduced.
Since that Summit, Accepted Action has proven to be the most controversial and debated rule in the history of the TDA. I hope that some of the suggestions for change are seriously considered at the next summit.
The accuracy of every bet is the responsibility of the dealer to confirm. Ken mentioned; the dealers that fail to count down a stack, and just spill the chips into the pot! This is where the problems begin...the incompetent dealer. The correct dealer procedure would eliminate the need for Accepted Action.
When action is head to head: Player A bets 500 and player B insta-calls. Player B should be responsible for the exact amount pushed by Player A. (because he did not ask for confirmation). If Player A makes an unclear verbal declaration, that is a different problem. If we try to break down each possible situation, we will realize that chips in the pot is the safest way to get an accurate understanding of the intent of the bettor. Most situations that we face, in every day poker tournaments, do not involve hundreds of chips being wagered on a single bet...most of the time the bets are easy to asses, visually.
The correct count must be confirmed on every called bet. Period. In multi way pots, where a bet amount is unclear or a request is made for clarification, the dealer should stop any further action until the correct amount is determined, then, and only then, will action proceed. Why not? It has to be counted why not upon request?
I think everyone knows how I feel about Accepted Action. What surprises me is the way some of our members are weakening on their original feelings. After a year and a half of Accepted Action many have found a way to accept it, even though you know it's unfair. For the record: I was the one that opposed Accepted Action at the 2011 Summit...the only one!
-
Nick: I will grant you that Accepted Action is a very contentious subject and there are respected folks on both sides in this discussion.
I think only one or two of the members who have posted have indicated "real world" experience with this issue.
So my questions are:
1. In the real world of live poker tournament action, how many times has this rule been invoked?
2. What were the player reactions when told this rule was being invoked?
3. How many times has TDA Rule #1 been used when this situation arose?
If this is not something that comes up with some "regularity" then I believe we are making much ado over very little.
Chet
-
Leave it the way it is...it's perfect :-X
-
If they said call, and then threw out the 1k...I would make them call.
If they throw out 1k without saying call, I'd give the option to chip up or fold and ...
I think someone brought this up before... If we are permitted to do this, are we not giving players the incentive NOT to verbalize their actions?
-
Ken,
Your double negatives are making your last statement difficult to understand. :-\ Do you encourage verbal declarations?
-
Yes, I think we should always be encouraging players to verbalize their actions. I currently handle many situations much like Tristan, but if I were put into a corner, I don't think I can really justify treating non-verbalized undercalls and verbalized undercalls differently.
-
Yes, I agree. I've always encouraged verbal declarations for clarification. However, there is a good argument that supports the opposite. The rules, IMO offer more "protection" from a misunderstood call, or unintentional call when a player pushes the lesser amount forward, as opposed to saying call.
My best example: Player A bets 500, Player B Raises to 5,000...Player C says "call" and pushes 500 forward. The amount is corrected by the dealer and Player C says, "I'm out, I thought the bet was 500." The TD is called to the table and Player C is forced to complete his bet to a call of 4500 more than he intended.
Same situation except Player C says nothing but pushes his 500 (short call) forward. The amount is corrected by the dealer and Player C again says; "I'm out, I thought the bet was 500, not 5000?" The floor is called and Player C is offered the following 2 options: surrender his 500 or complete the bet to 5000.
If we do not consider substantial action, then I don't know what the answer is. There was discussion at the 2011 Summit and some agreed that the incorrect action could be corrected as long as the next player has not reacted (substantial action). However, this practice has not been used on any posts from our members. Depending on circumstances, Player C would be at least committed to surrender his 500 with no option to withdraw.
So how do we define "gross misunderstanding?" Should we never consider the actual "intent" of the player?
-
I think someone brought this up before... If we are permitted to do this, are we not giving players the incentive NOT to verbalize their actions?
This part is tough. You are right, in some ways it encourages people not to verbalize.
There is one subtle difference between the two though.
When a player says call, pauses, and then pushes out chips, they have an opportunity to get a tell. What if they said call and saw that flash of triumph on their opponent's face? Of course they only meant to call the big blind then! It is, in essence, very similar to a string bet.
Admittedly, players could try this with the silent undercall method, but it is much less likely. The error is more obvious.
I don't think that we can treat 'call' as an ambiguous term. Did they mean call the first bet or the second? What if they said call, the other player flipped their cards, and then claimed they thought they were calling a lesser amount?
If we are not happy with how these two situations are treated differently, there are really only two options. We make a verbal statement non-binding, or we make both situations a must call. I would think there would be more opposition to making verbal non-binding.
-
Tristan, you make good points. I think the strictest AA proponents will tell us that they should be the same though, and in both cases it should be a call under AA. It does seem harsh, especially when there is some evidence that no angle was being played and the wager was unintentional - but I believe that is where we are going this summit, assuming we are not supposed to be already there.
-
Quote from Tristan:
"If we are not happy with how these two situations are treated differently, there are really only two options. We make a verbal statement non-binding, or we make both situations a must call. I would think there would be more opposition to making verbal non-binding."
Why do we have only 2 options? What about substantial action? Why shouldn't it apply here? Is it only for action after a player is skipped? Or, After action has taken place on a hand where the dealer failed to move the button and instead of a misdeal, the hand continues because UTG 1 & 2 have acted before it was noticed?
There must be more protection for any player that is misinformed by the dealer, or was obviously the victim of a gross misunderstanding. Do you really believe, that allowing a correction to the proper amount before another player reacts, is not in the best interest for any game?
-
We are taking about the basic undercall situation where there has been no action at all following, substantial or not.
There must be more protection for any player that is misinformed by the dealer, or was obviously the victim of a gross misunderstanding. Do you really believe, that allowing a correction to the proper amount before another player reacts, is not in the best interest for any game?
Preaching to the choir. I do fear, though, that ship may have sailed long ago.
-
Ken,
It sounds to me like you have inside information on this years summit. I probably won't attend this year, so I will voice my opinion on the Forum. There are other rules that need attention for sure, but I know that Accepted Action will be the most debated.
If I'm preaching to the choir, why do you feel the choir's input won't change anything? Rules should be adopted because there is a need for them. They should also be easy to understand...Accepted Action is not a good rule and we were better off without it.
Chet, I'm beating the dead horse...again! ;D
-
I should point out; I don't mind having the two examples treated separate. It could discourage players from verbalizing in that situation in some ways, but I haven't seen it as having that effect in practice.
I feel that forcing the silent undercall to call the full amount automatically is a greater harm than slight discouragement of verbalization.
Just my opinion.