Author Topic: Verbal vs. physical (chip) betting: is clarification of precedence needed?  (Read 2792 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
This is one of several topics in the following thread on Two Plus Two:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/65/mttc-live/interesting-rules-geek-question-blackhawk-circuit-main-1440829/index3.html

Accepted action is also extensively discussed.

Note that RRoP only states: 9.  A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over a differing physical action. [Section 3: betting & raising, para. 9]. This leaves it unclear as to how timing affects the ruling: what if the physical chip push is first, the language is so vague as to leave the impression that the verbal statement still takes precedence.

Does this need to be clarified?

Thanks to Tristan Wilberg for bringing attention to this thread.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 11:05:56 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Are you thinking about something along the lines of:

A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over any different physical action made after the verbal statement.


While the posters in the 2+2 thread debate AA, they don't know we've already hashed it over on this forum for years on end... Like it or not, the reality is that AA will apply now almost any time that the caller can be blamed for getting the count wrong -- whether or not he may have been misled by the player, or even the dealer. 

Apparently, Rule 1 can still apply though. But I believe that TDs who are still learning the ropes will have difficulty determining when an exception should apply to allow the caller who was unaware of the count some relief.

I had mentioned my "deaf person" approach in previous threads: If I had my way re AA, I would really like to see in either the rules of at least the procedures a note that Rule 1 can certainly be applied to situations where there is a discrepancy between the chips put into the pot and the amount of any verbal declaration. Note this is different from situations in where big denomination chips are hidden within a stack clearly pushed forward, since the player can easily ask for a count or for the dealer to break down the stack, and so arguably he should bear any risks associated with not doing so. I am talking more about the situation where, say, a player throws in one or few chips but the bet is in fact a larger amount, and someone calls not knowing that the wager is much bigger, especially in an all-in situation where an all-in button is not used. If the visual clearly doesn't match the verbal, I think the bettor should bear some responsibility for not putting the correct amount of chips into the pot; some relief for the caller may be warranted.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Ken,

 I'll say we've rehashed AA ::)

 In short; I definitely agree that the bettor should bear some responsibility.

 I also still believe the rule should be eliminated!  ;D

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Are you thinking about something along the lines of:

A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over any different physical action made after the verbal statement.

Effectively, yes....

To address the 3 possibilities (before, simultaneous, after), perhaps something like:

"Players may bet by verbal declaration or by pushing out chips. If they do both, whichever occurs first is binding. If simultaneous, the verbal declaration takes precedence."

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike, I like it.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
"Players may bet by verbal declaration or by pushing out chips. If they do both, whichever occurs first is binding. If simultaneous, the verbal declaration takes precedence."

I like it as well.  It eliminates a grey area.

_________________________________

With the situation described:

"Player a opens. Player b pushes all chips forward and says 9900. Player a calls. Both players table their hands." (b actually has 19900)

I'm guessing that most of us would have ruled it as Accepted Action if it happened preflop, postflop, or on the turn because of the tabling of hands before the action was complete.  If it happened on the river, most of us would have ruled it as a bet and call of 9900 because of the verbal.




Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
"Players may bet by verbal declaration or by pushing out chips. If they do both, whichever occurs first is binding. If simultaneous, the verbal declaration takes precedence."

Gets my vote.

Although I am intrigued by Tristan's observation, and I do think that's what I would do... which certainly throws in a wrinkle with things.


Anyone in favor of explicitly setting out that deliberately misstating the amount of the wager after chips have already been pushed forward (i.e. with the intention to mislead) be subject to penalty?  I mean the push-miscount, and not the push-opponents asks how much-informal answer/miscount.