PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Steven on July 07, 2013, 08:54:16 PM
-
Blinds are 4/8 in a limit game.
Player bets 6 all in on turn.
Next player says complete, which is not available in this sequence.
Do you now treat this as a call of 6 or allow him to raise to 14?
-
Hi Steven:
There's a whole contortious line of reasoning that leads up to it, but I favor requiring a min raise here to 14 total.
And it's not spelled out in any specific rule, but to me under Rule 1, "complete" always implies "I intend to increase the bet" (the closest analog of which is "I intend to raise" from the official terms of poker). This is more important in my calculus than the exact amounts involved ("all in for 6", "okay I make it 8" (erroneously)).
But at the end of the day, there is no exact translation of "complete" here so it's ultimately a Rule 1 decision IMO. To me the best interest of the game comes down to "How can I enforce as much discipline as possible here?". And in this case, I favor construing something tantamount to a raise to being a raise when it doesn't exactly apply.... If the bettor mumbles about it, he (and everyone else at the table), will be more cautious about their betting discipline in the future.
Because it's Rule 1, there's at least one and probably more opposite cases that can be made. One is that saying complete is numerically "8". What if the guy had SILENTLY pushed out a 5 and three 1s? It's less than 50% of the way to a full raise of 14 (which would be 10 total as either a 5 and five 1's or ten 1's), so that would be a call if just going by the chips pushed. But he didn't silently push out the 8, he declared something that says "i'm going to put more chips out". A) I don't want people having a shot they can take to test the tables interest in a raise and then smooth call and B) to me "raise" is implied anytime you verbalize something greater than a call amount.
However it was discussed in a few casual breakout groups before and at Summit VI whether to put such a question on the agenda. I must say the majority of people I heard from favor treating a declared amount exactly as they would treat the same amount of chips pushed silently, i.e. treat verbalizing "8" here exactly as you would pushing out 8 in chips silently. And the reasoning isn't so much that declaring 8 doesn't indicate an intent to raise, but rather it's procedurally easier for a dealer to remember to treat them the same. Your OP is in a grey area between the two, I think, where the player has gone beyond declaring a higher number that is less than an amount to raise; he is actually declaring a process of increasing the total bet. So he's put himself in this wobbly area and to really make people think twice about what they say I favor ruling a full raise to let people know they should take their betting seriously. It's not exactly the same, but distantly akin to the TDA language that says "I bet the pot is not a valid bet but it binds the player to making a bet, and if declared while facing a bet it binds the player to making a raise", because we don't want the guy taking a shot with "I bet the pot" then turning around and calling. But ultimately until something is put down in writing, it's a Rule 1 decision IMO that could be ruled either way (call or full raise), and I respect either. My least favorite thing here is to give the guy a choice: "sir you can't complete here, so would you like to call or raise"? Just like I wouldn't give him a choice if he declared "I bet the pot".
-
Hi Steven,
To me the word complete should not be recognized as a time tested universally accepted word for poker. I played poker over 55 years and never once heard it used at a table without "the bet" added to it. If I'm dealing, in your scenario, I return the extra $2 because you can't complete the bet in this case. To me, it's no different than putting 8 into the pot, the dealer should return $2 to the bettor. It's like saying "pot" in a game that isn't pot limit.
Based on Mike's explanation, it's just another unclear rule that can be called either way. I actually prefer Mike's least favorable suggestion; for the dealer to clarify the intent of the bettor. Why not? That's the best way to straighten it out. As long as the dealer pays attention and prevents others from acting. Players must make their intentions clear, or be at the mercy of the TD.
This would also be a good spot for one of those illustrations Mike suggested a while ago.
-
I do not mind asking the bettor to clarify his intent in the first instance, as suggested by Nick and for those reasons. If I had to make a snap decision, where there are clarity issues like there are here, I would tend to go with the lesser action (i.e. call).
-
This can be more complicated than it initially appeared to be. I agree with Ken, but what Mike said has me rethinking my response to another thread about saying "pot" in a game that isn't pot limit. If it's not permitted... so, a must call only, might be the best choice.
The main reason for intervention from the dealer, is based on the various problems that could take place without clarification. Let's look at Steven's original post:
Blinds are 4/8 in a limit game.
Player bets 6 all in on turn.
Next player says complete, which is not available in this sequence.
Do you now treat this as a call of 6 or allow him to raise to 14?
Let's say that the next player (after the complete announcement) says raise and puts 22 out? Or, he says call and puts 14 out...or; he says call and puts 8 out. It has to be corrected. We can also run into a problem with the Player that said complete, stating his intention was only to call after the next player raises to 22. I hope this is making sense, because there are so many scenarios. Bottom line: If the rules say you can't do something, or in this case verbally use unacceptable language... it should be meaningless, and you can only call.
-
I'm going to go with Mike on this one. I feel that it is in line with the 'I bet pot' stance that was solidified at the Summit. I think we can all agree that the intention was to put more chips in the pot than calling. Giving them an option to do something less allows for more angle shots in the long run...and actually encourages players to use improper terms.
I am in favor of ambiguous terms being the lesser of the two amounts, especially because we cannot determine intent...but in this I think the intent is pretty clear cut.
-
Tristan,
You say you agree with Mike. He covered just about every scenario? He said: " My least favorite thing here is to give the guy a choice: "sir you can't complete here, so would you like to call or raise"? Just like I wouldn't give him a choice if he declared "I bet the pot".
Are you saying you are not in favor of stopping the action and clarifying the bet? How can any action continue when we don't know what the bet is? An automatic call is a perfect fix. If the player intended on raising he'll learn a lesson... Say raise!
I'm going to take another look back at the thread that covered "betting pot" when not playing pot limit. It does lean more in the direction of an intent to raise, and I believe that's what the summit favored. I won't swear to it so I'd better wait for the new rules before I start squawking :D
-
I favor requiring a min raise here to 14 total.
When I said I'm going to go with Mike on this one, I was referring to the above line. ;)
-
If we treat it like an "I bet pot" situation, then he must bet some valid amount here, at his option, under the current rules. If the player actually wants to call, we would still force a raise? As a further example, if the limits were 5/10, he may very well have meant to "complete to 10" as opposed to raising to 16. I know that his intent was to put in more chips than the call amount, but I am not sure how it is much different from him actually announcing a total that is insufficient for a full raise. Have to agree with Nick here.
-
If we treat it like an "I bet pot" situation, then he must bet some valid amount here, at his option, under the current rules.
Good point.... Under the new rules, declaring "I bet the pot" when facing a bet is a required "valid raise"... to specifically avoid the problem of a bettor facing a bet, declaring "I'll bet the pot", then just turning around and calling...
-
If I had to make a snap decision, where there are clarity issues like there are here, I would tend to go with the lesser action (i.e. call).
And I don't have a problem with this ruling either... the key for me is instilling discipline in betting and raising,... Whether you say:
A: You are verbalizing an intent to increase the bet I'm going to hold you to a raise here...
OR
B: You are verbalizing a bet that isn't applicable here I'm going to hold you to a call....
You are telling the table they better watch what they do because you may rule contrary to their intentions and it's their duty as players to make their intentions clear.
You're not telling them "whenever you do something unclear [and maybe get a free read or instill some confusion at the table] I'll ask you what you are trying to do and then give you an array of options for you to choose from".
-
To all:
The few of us that have participated in this discussion, for the most part, have covered valid reasons to support either a call, or raise. In my opinion, that's the problem. I don't care which decision becomes the final rule. However, I would like to see something "solid." If you use an unacceptable statement when facing a bet; it WILL only be recognized as a call, (passive). or it must be a minimum raise...That's it, one or the other. This is the only way to stop the players that have no consideration for the dealers, other players, or the tournament directors.
-
Nick:
I have to disagree a bit. Having rules that are set in concrete sounds like it will solve all problems, but it will not. You have been around long enough to know that every situation is a little bit different from every other situation. I believe that it is best to allow the TD some discretion, so that the solution can be adjusted to fit the circumstances of the individual situation.
As far as putting a stop to the player that continues to "push the envelope" and has no consideration, there are other options available for that person, as you should well know.
Chet
-
If I had to lump non-standard verbal declarations, I would view 'complete' as an aggressive action similar to 'I bet pot' and not a passive action, that is why I would treat them similar...especially since the rule will be implemented soon. I just don't view them as different enough to have a different standard.
I understand your reasoning behind holding it to a call though, and I'm not opposed to anyone making that ruling.
-
I can accept that... Once the "I bet the pot" rule is changed, then I think treating the two situations in the same manner is justified.
-
To all:
The few of us that have participated in this discussion, for the most part, have covered valid reasons to support either a call, or raise. In my opinion, that's the problem. I don't care which decision becomes the final rule. However, I would like to see something "solid." If you use an unacceptable statement when facing a bet; it WILL only be recognized as a call, (passive). or it must be a minimum raise...That's it, one or the other. This is the only way to stop the players that have no consideration for the dealers, other players, or the tournament directors.
Interesting suggestion. If we can accumulate enough examples of this, perhaps it's a good topic for Summit VII? Note to self: Start a New Suggestions category.
-
Mike,
Thanks for your reply, but do we always have to wait two years? Why not collaborate with the board, and if we can come up with a positive change, fix it now. Just thinking out loud...again :)
-
Nick: Have you not figured out how the TDA works yet?
The TDA BOD does not make the rules on a unilateral basis. The BOD, as well as, those of the general membership who are so inclined, presents proposed rules, changes, additions deletions, etc., etc., etc., for discussion as the Summit which are held every other year. After considerable discussion, as you well know, the those members present vote on the proposals. Some are adopted, some are not and some are "tabled" as there are not sufficient votes either way to make a majority.
I fail to see how anything that has been discussed in this forum is so earth shattering that it needs to be acted on outside of the "normal" course of TDA business through the Summit process. If there is something so serious that it cannot wait, the TDA has sufficient "wiggle room", through Rule #1 to resolve same.
Again, my 2 cents,
Chet
-
Chet,
I'm afraid at the rate we're moving, with the every other year summit, I won't be around to see any progress. I don't like the way the rules are voted on. And I don't know why we have to wait for the summit. We have just about every means of communication available. Why do we spend time on this forum? I thought it was to bring attention to current rules that need to be altered? Or voice your opinion whenever you feel it might make a difference. I'm sorry but relying on the votes from 150 members in attendance is (IMO) not the way to get the best rule passed.
I'd really like to hear from some of our new board members...or any other board member. Why don't we encourage some of the players to join? The TDA Forum is open to everyone, isn't it? We need to somehow reach a compromise. Driving a wedge between TD's and players is certainly not in the best interest of our game.
Let's try to forget Rule #1...It should only be used when all else fails.
Chet, How do you feel about this years Summit?
-
Nick: I was not able to attend and I have not had the time to look at the video, so I cannot comment one way or the other.
As to the process the TDA has set up to develop and discuss the rules, it has been that way since the TDA was created. Is it the "best" way, or is some other way "better", I don't know. Personally, I don't have any problem with the process as it is. Rules get created and implemented for a relatively short time 20 or so months and during that time those rules get evaluated and changes can be proposed, etc., for action at the next Summit.
As far as using modern technology to change the process, that is certainly possible. But, using your own thoughts, there are only about a dozen or so members who regularly participate in this forum, whereas over 150 members participated in the Summit. Would more members participate in the forum (or something similar) if that was the technology used? I don't know. Further, the forum is open to anyone, in other words, any Tom, Dick or Harry can become a member and have an equal say. There is no way to know what that persons knowledge of the games are. I think you and I are in agreement that there have been persons who have posted in this forum that at a minimum seem to have very little knowledge of the games and rules thereof. Is it a good idea to open the rule-making process to people with little or no knowledge or experience, I am not sure about that?
I don't understand your comment about players not being encouraged to join. I have never heard anything from any member that could in any way be considered or construed as excluding players from membership. To my knowledge, only one individual has been spouting off about players being excluded and I don't give that person's opinion much weight, maybe an ounce or two at best. Players were in attendance at the 2009 Summit and as I remember Barry Greenstein proposed a rule about multiple chip bets that was adopted. Again, if I remember correctly a player by the name of Brent Carter (?) was present for the whole summit and had a lot of input to the discussion. So, the argument that players "don't have a say", doesn't carry any weight in my book. Finally, you have players on the board. Matt regularly plays in some events at the WSOP, Linda is probably recognized more as a player than as a TD and there are several other members who also are players.
In my opinion, the only person trying to drive a wedge is (you know who), I'll not post any names.
To me it seems like that position is kind of like the union that has gotten to the point trying to the company owners how to run their business. All you need to do is look at Detroit and you will get an idea of how well that works. And I am not anti-union, my position is "There is a place for every Union, but every Union has its place." I do think anyone representing the TDA is trying to exclude any player from membership nor are they trying in any way to drive a wedge between the player and TD communities.
Chet
-
Chet,
I always enjoy hearing from you. The forum just wouldn't be the same if we agreed...on anything!
Many of my comments are directed at the absent board of directors. I'm trying to get a response from more than one member of the board. Some haven't replied on the Forum that they founded in years :(? I don't want to hear about how busy they are either. How long does it take to respond to a member looking for an answer from someone other than me, or one or two other regulars. You can defend them all you want, you have that right. I don't like waiting years to resolve some of the issues that we are confronted with on a regular basis, especially when they can easily be resolved if we put our minds to it. I still feel that we could benefit by extending a personal invitation to some of the celebrity players that constantly bash us on "tweets" and other venues. If they want to discuss an issue they have with one of the TDA rules, I'd like to hear their arguments.
Please don't think for a minute that I'm trying to take any sides, and if you are referring to me as the person driving the wedge, I strongly disagree. I've tried to keep this Forum alive and I think my 1865 posts might have kept it going this long. It sure as hell isn't the participation of anyone else. If I didn't care, do you really think I'd waste the time to even comment?
-
I believe that voting at the summit is the best way. Most of the industry leaders were represented and if they can agree in majority on a subject, well, then it should be set. Not every person will agree with every thing, but everyone has the opportunity to go and to express their opinion. In the end, unification is the main goal. It doesn't mean that everyone agrees, but they are all willing to put aside their personal opinions for the greater good.
Remember, positive feedback is good! Let's try to focus on the greater good of unification and put aside our personal feelings on some of these subjects once the majority agrees. Even though every point that is brought up is valid, there are more valid points in favor of the way it got voted in...or else it wouldn't have been voted in.
As far as the BoD goes, they are very busy!! I can tell you this for certain because I am very busy and, at times, I go for days before I can come on here and look at posts....and I don't have as much on my plate as they do! I believe this is why Mike plays such a large role on these forums, because he can speak for the TDA BoD and can also relay anything super-important to the other board members.
Even though there is some frustration being expressed regarding this forum, know that many of the issues that were brought up (and resolved!) during the summit were things that stemmed from this forum. All of your efforts help; despite the fact that there are a limited number of people who provide feedback and discussion on this forum, there are a large number of them who come here for answers to their questions.
-
Tristan,
I can't agree that voting at the summit is best for a number of reasons. I'll wager that 30% in attendance probable live in Las Vegas. How can you say that all of the top industry leaders were present?
If I may, I'll take this time to voice the real reasons for my frustration. #1 I was unable to attend.
#2 Those that did attend did not address issues we've been debating from the forum. I really thought that several of the main posters on the forum (in attendance) would speak up when TDA #41 Accepted Action was not even considered for discussion.
Last but not least: How can you say: "Even though there is some frustration being expressed regarding this forum, know that many of the issues that were brought up (and resolved!) during the summit were things that stemmed from this forum. All of your efforts help; despite the fact that there are a limited number of people who provide feedback and discussion on this forum, there are a large number of them who come here for answers to their questions."
Tristan, As of today; there were 7751 posts in 846 topics by 1760 members. I defy you to find a single post that indicated a need for a rule that would change killing a players hand if they are not seated by the time the dealer dealt the last card to the button?
I rest my case...for now. :-X
-
Nick: You are not the person I was referring to as driving the wedge.
That individual is a well known player who apparently thinks that poker tournaments are held by the various venues solely for the players. The venues are a business period. They hold and sponsor tournaments for the sole reason of making money. How do that do that? Tournaments bring individuals into the establishment, those individuals often bring a friend or spouse or significant other. Those friends, spouses and significant others spend a lot of money that they most likely would not otherwise.
Chet
-
Chet,
Your always so philosophical when your explaining something to me. I know a little bit more, than you give me credit for, about poker, casinos and how to increase revenue. Contrary to what you believe. The obnoxious, pain in the asses that many of us cater to because of celebrity, chase more new players away than they attract. Ask any TD which players expect the most in comps and special privileges, and I'll lay odds, it's the loudest, most obnoxious, angle-shooting, lowdown son of a gun at the table. They whine and carry on every time they get outdrawn and think all the chips on the table should be surrendered to them, well...just because. ;D You might be surprised to find out how much you don't need them. I'll say it one more time; They keep more players from returning, than the players they attract.
-
Nick:
Now get a good grip on your chair, or maybe better you sit on the floor so you don't fall off your chair, but I am in total agreement with what you said about the loudmouth, obnoxious player.
My comment had more to do with the basic reason establishments hold poker tournaments. If they lose money, the event disappears. Just for example, take a look at the Four Queens Classic. It was a really nice event for several years, but in the long run was not a money making event so bye-bye and it is no more.
My point is that some of these players who get all the TV exposure, seem to think these events are held just for them.
They are wrong, in my opinion.
Chet
-
Tristan,
I can't agree that voting at the summit is best for a number of reasons. I'll wager that 30% in attendance probable live in Las Vegas. How can you say that all of the top industry leaders were present?
Tournament Directors and staff were there from PokerStars, WSOP, WPT, Commerce, Bay101, Venetian, Aria, Thunder Valley, Borgata, Ante Up and Card Player cruises, and so many more that I can't remember off the top of my head. Both of the large card rooms in MN were represented. There were even representatives from other countries. I don't like to answer a question with a question, but which industry leaders were missing? After you name the ones that were missing, then go back and read my post again...because I said "most of the industry leaders", I never said all.
If I may, I'll take this time to voice the real reasons for my frustration. #1 I was unable to attend.
#2 Those that did attend did not address issues we've been debating from the forum. I really thought that several of the main posters on the forum (in attendance) would speak up when TDA #41 Accepted Action was not even considered for discussion.
We went through every rule Nick. Read what Mike said (especially the part about AA at the bottom):
Far from the forum having "little impact" on the Summit agenda, the forum issues had tremendous influence. Please see the long list of suggested topics thread:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=30.0
Just a cursory review of the titles of those threads finds:
1: Raise rule on re-opening. Will be put into Illustration Addendum
2: When are cards dead at showdown: Done
3: ATSAH: Done
4: Tabling: Done
5: Forward motion at showdown: Done
6: More re-opening the bet questions… done, done, and done
7: Draw game rules, silent chip bets on minimum openers, etc… Tabled for Summit VII. FWIW, the rule was significantly discussed in pre-meetings, with a split panel, for example between calling a 1000 silent opener in the following example a 600 minimum open vs. a 1000 open: 2-7 lowball, blinds 150-300, the UTG tosses out a 1000, is this a min open of 600 or max for the chip? (1000). I will say that the house that uses the game the most favors the 1000 here. But all-in-all tabled due to heavier topics.
8: Rule 45, non-standard folds question, the term “reasonably have two different meanings” was added.
9: Extra chips found after chip race: done
10: Boxed cards / more misdeal language: Tabled, left to conventional rules for the moment. Summit VII material
11: Koroknoi vs. Baumann case, need a rule: done
12: Illustrations needed for raising rules: Done
13: Clarification on how to handle in-turn undercalls: when can they leave the bet in and fold, when must they call: done
14: Skipped player questions: Tackled the “Substantial Action Out of Turn” Issue: Done
15: Showdown Order, who shows first: Done, standardized globally.
16: Rule for premature discarding by player thinking they’ve won: Done
17: Revisions needed to re-opening the bet language: done
18: What constitutes tabling? Done again
19: Showdown: are verbal capitulations binding? When are cards retrievable / non-retrievable: done
20: New rule for minimum opener games: deferred to Summit VII but see above
21: Shootout tournament questions: deferred to Summit VII
22: Fix for Rule 37: done
23: Folding in turn when checked to OR when first to act: clarified, done.
There has been alot of discussion about Accepted Action on the forum, but nobody spoke up about it at the Summit that I'm aware of. Everyone had their opportunity, the AA rule was deliberately put on it's own slide with no other rules... just so the Summit could squarely focus on anyone's complaints...
And here's what I've observed with this rule since adoption. If a house cannot live with it verbatim, the house goes ahead and writes it's own exception language which is entirely permissible under the last sentence of the rule: "Rule 1 applies at TDs discretion". This allows the house to use AA to the extent they find it useful, and at the point where they feel compelled to have pre-written guidelines for exceptional situations, they have them.
If this were a major problem, in practice, for attendees you would have seen hands in the air... I was in the front of the room so maybe I missed someone's outcry on this, did anyone else see anyone wanting to initiate discussion on AA?
I know you don't like Accepted Action, but there were 180 people at the Summit that didn't raise a problem with it after using it for the last two years...you are entitled to your opinion, but for the greater good can you not accept it and go along with the other 99.5%?
Tristan, As of today; there were 7751 posts in 846 topics by 1760 members. I defy you to find a single post that indicated a need for a rule that would change killing a players hand if they are not seated by the time the dealer dealt the last card to the button?
Like I said before: Unification. WSOP changed their stance to TDA on some issues, TDA changed their stance for WSOP on some issues. PokerStars adjusted some of theirs to TDA standards, and TDA adjusted some for PokerStars. PokerStars adjusted for WSOP and vice versa.
Bottom line is, Neil presented his case for why he has the rule at the EPT and other PokerStars PTs and why, in his opinion, it should be that way. He did a very good job at it because after he was done and there was some discussion on the topic...everyone voted it in.
Even if some of the others may not 'like' the rule, they understood the reasoning behind it and they realized that putting aside their differences would help create a better environment for poker. It is hard on players to have to think about which event they are playing at and then know what the rules are, and it is hard on staff to have to deal with players that don't understand why the rule is different at different venues.
That is, in essence, what TDA is about. Never will every TD, Card Room Manager, Floor, or Dealer all agree on how any one rule should be written, but we can reach compromises that we can all live with.
-
Tristan,
I have the utmost respect for your opinion. Your reply was well thought out, and well written, as usual. I realize that many in attendance traveled great distances , and gave up precious time and money to attend the summit. I know, I was at the 2011 summit.
I would have liked to hear some discussion about Accepted Action from you, or Ken, or Brian or some of the other members that felt some changes should be considered for TDA #41. I am basing my feelings on past comments taken from the forum. This is one that you submitted last year:
Tristan
TDA Member & Veteran Poster
***
Posts: 239
Accepted Action question
« on: September 02, 2012, 12:11:31 PM »
Reply with quote
It has recently become a topic of debate at our establishment...how strict is accepted action?
Situation: Blinds are 1000/2000, player A raises all-in, Player B throws in 2000.
There are two opinions here. One is that player B has to call the all-in. "Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling..." Putting chips into a pot behind a bet signifies either a call or raise depending on the amount of chips. Giving player B an option to call the rest or sacrifice the 2000 and fold can leave opportunities for angle shots.
The other opinion is that making Player B call the all-in is too strict. They should be allowed to either sacrifice the 2000 and fold or call the full amount.
Thoughts?
Tristan,
There are so many questions about accepted action, on the forum, it would take hours to review them. However, I could not find a single post, (prior to this years summit) that mentioned the need to change TDA#26 At Your Seat. We will have to wait for Version 1, but it is apparent that the "first card off"rule will be adopted.
Chet,
Whatever you do, don't lose your sense of humor. ;D I need a good laugh to bring all this into perspective.
-
Thanks Nick,
Our previous TD had the more strict stance regarding their interpretation of AA back when I was assistant TD. I questioned how they interpreted that rule and have since changed how we do it.
I don't know if you noticed that at the Summit this year silent undercalls got brought up and adopted. This actually clears up some of AA regarding questions like the one I asked back then. I don't know the wording exactly, but somewhere along the lines of: "If there is only 1 bet ahead of a player and they silently put out an undercall, they will be deemed to be calling the full amount."
This means that the only time a player will normally get the option to 'chip up or fold' is if there is more than one bet amount out there (for example the big blind and then a raise and then a player puts in a call of the big blind).
-
For the league I run I use "All ambiguous statements will be taken as perceived". This seems to work for a small amount of players. Not sure if it is actually possible to be used as a blanket rule.
-
Welcome hiswadeness!
Can you explain further? I'm not quite sure I understand. Give us an example or two...thanks.