Author Topic: Substantial action: How should it be defined?  (Read 7246 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« on: May 12, 2015, 05:58:56 PM »
The substantial action definition had been cut shorter some years ago letting now a FOLD + CALL being a substantial action (for exemple) ... And it's too fast! Way too fast in my opinion!

I understand the definition had been shortened to fight some angling or any abuse BUT now I have a rude time applying this rule to most of case were the players are innocent of those angling.

I hate when a rule is made against 1% of sheaters but actually anoy and punish 99% of the rest straight players. I think even in many high standing tournament the "new general spirit" is to soften the rules to free those 99% players (even if sometime to time an angling UGLY one escape from our watching) but let's keep the #1 special rule together with our professional instinct to catch them sooner or later without anoying the clean players with those rude rules.

I would vote to go back to "2 actions including chips" (at least ... ;)

In my Arrogant Opinion.

Regards,
GG
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 12:09:05 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2015, 07:30:50 PM »
Hello GG,

 I remember being at the 2011 Summit when Matt Savage defined Substantial Action as any three actions or two actions both involving chips. Somewhere between the Summit and the release of version 2.0 it was changed. I actually went on a radio podcast with Chris Cozenza and Scott Long, (The publishers of Ante up Magazine) and discussed Substantial Action. The problem was, it was changed and I was giving the wrong information to anyone that was listening.

 I'm with you on this one, I'd rather see two actions (both involving chips) as opposed to the current ruling.

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Substantial action
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2015, 11:12:58 PM »
Being discussed at length, at least IMO in this thread http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1103.15 (See page 2)

We discussed this in heated debate in 2011 when the TRUE rule was adopted.

2011 version - Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two player each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise or call); or B) any combination of three actions (Check, Bet, Raise, Call or Fold).

I am completely bewildered at how it got to the 2013 version. I don't remember this topic being brought up at all. I think someone made a tragic typo and put it in print.

2013 version - A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

The 2013 version is COMPLETELY ASININE!!! No one in the history of poker ever defined substantial action as one bet and a fold. NO ONE!!! NOT EVER!!!

Don't feel like your being rude GG. Follow your instinct and know that you are right to follow the 2011 version. The 2011 version would have been best written as:
Substantial Action is:
A) any two actions in turn that involve putting chips in the pot (i.e. any bet and call or 2 calls or raise and a call in turn); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

Somewhere somehow someone or some group got very confused. I'd pull my hair out, except I have none.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2015, 12:08:38 AM »
Just to clarify....

The 2011 Poker TDA Rule on Substantial Action was ultimately modeled largely on the then-current 2011 WSOP Rule 81 on Substantial Action (which was in effect at the WSOP prior to the TDA Summit), and which reads:

Rule 81..." Substantial action is considered: three folds, three checks, two or more calls, a fold and a call, or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold"

You can view the 2011 WSOP Rules here: http://www.wsop.com/2011/2011-WSOP-RULES.pdf

There was some initial misunderstanding of the Substantial Action proposal as it was discussed on the floor of the 2011 Summit, as it was vaguely defined in part as "two actions with chips". Some initially interpreted that to mean that BOTH actions had to involve chips. It was finally clarified partly in light of the then-standing 2011 WSOP Rule above, to mean two actions at least one of which involves chips.

The clarification also took into account significant discussion on this forum after the Summit in 2011 as to what was intended on the floor, including this thread from July 2011:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.0  You can see from that discussion that several participants at the 2011 Summit strongly argued in favor of the current language as being the actual meaning at the time.

Four years later, the TDA Substantial Action Rule 35, and the WSOP Substantial Action Rule 87-C continue to be of similar language. 2015 WSOP Rule 87-C reads: If substantial action occurs, a misdeal cannot be declared and the hand must proceed. Substantial Action is either: A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds); OR B) any combination of three actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, or fold). [/u]

Hope this helps as to the history of the current rule. Like all rules, it will be open for debate at Summit VII
« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 07:50:11 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2015, 06:10:52 AM »
Gentlemen:

 In regards to Substantial Action...At the 2011 Summit the rule that was decided was NOT the current rule.

 http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Poker_TDA_Rules_2011_Version_1.0_Handout_docx_redline_changes.pdf

 If you go to the TDA Summit 2011 Day 2 you will hear Matt Savage clarify what we decided the day before. There are other treads from way back (2011) that covered this error. As Thomas stated, somewhere between Versions 1 & 2, it got changed. You can listen to Matt on Day 2 about 8:30 into the discussion. Here it is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC56txeJd5M

One other note: A fold and a call would only pertain to pre-flop...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 07:38:21 AM by Nick C »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2015, 04:58:28 PM »
Gentlemen:

 In regards to Substantial Action...At the 2011 Summit the rule that was decided was NOT the current rule.

 http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Poker_TDA_Rules_2011_Version_1.0_Handout_docx_redline_changes.pdf

 If you go to the TDA Summit 2011 Day 2 you will hear Matt Savage clarify what we decided the day before. There are other treads from way back (2011) that covered this error. As Thomas stated, somewhere between Versions 1 & 2, it got changed. You can listen to Matt on Day 2 about 8:30 into the discussion. Here it is: 2011 TDA Summit Day 2 - Voting Day

One other note: A fold and a call would only pertain to pre-flop...

Thanks for the video Nick.

At 8:28 - Matt states: Substantial action is 3 checks or 2 actions with chips
At 8:50 - TDA audience member asks if a fold would be considered an action with chips or a check
At 8:58 - Matt responds: A Fold is not and action with chips, so an action with chips would be Bet, Call.

This is Day 2... the voting day. Video link is above in Nick's comments

Prior to that 2011 TDA Summit Day 1 - Issue Day

The topic of Substantial Action is begins at 1:54:00 during the topic of Rule #27 Misdeals. It appears that the board is in favor of a universal 3 actions across the board and there's some debate as to whether two actions is enough to constitute substantial action and Dave Lamb asks the audience members to give reasons for advocating 2 actions vs 3 actions.

At 2:04:00 I address the board and advocate 2 actions involving chips or 3 actions (checks, folds etc), meaning 2 players putting chips in the pot in turn and seemingly persuade the board and audience with my language of the rule, as the next audience member reiterates what I said. During the address even Dave says "You are now rewriting the World Series rule for.... "
At 2:06:00 Dave asks how many are in favor of adopting the WSOP Policy.

Unfortunately the WSOP policy and what I'm advocating are slightly different.

At 2:09:45 - Matt fields an audience question.
At 2:09:58 - Jan says it has to be 2 actions with chips. 3 actions or 2 involving chips.

I can see where the confusing is coming from Mike B because of the WSOP language of "A bet and a fold" as being 2 actions involving chips.

To clarify for the advocacy of a language change it is better said: 2 actions in turn that commit chips to the pot or 3 total actions.

Simple and easy to understand.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 05:02:35 PM by WSOPMcGee »
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2015, 11:52:38 AM »
I always thought a call and a fold was not significant enough.  I have gone along but don't agree with the current iteration of the rule. 
My preferred version of the rule would be:

"Substantial action has occured when one of the following two circumstances have taken place: A)Two players have voluntarily put chips into the pot (i.e. calling, betting or raising) or three total players have acted (i.e. call, fold, fold or check,check, check)"

Or alternately:
"Substantial actions is defined as: A) Two actions which both involve voluntarily putting chips into the pot or B) Three total actions of any kind"

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2015, 03:09:50 PM »
Brian: That's what I thought it was after the 2011 Summit.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2015, 04:02:53 AM »
TY guys. OK I feel less alone.

Because there is actually some confused interpretation from the TDA members themselves, I will now define Sub Action as "3 actions or 2 involving chips" (so no check and no fold). Doing this I KNOW MY RULE WON'T FOLLOW THE EXACT 2015 TDA ENGLISH TEXT and I'm not happy of that but I will do it until some meeting day (next one?) a CLEAR MAJORITY of the member vote for ANY CHOICE witch I will follow whatever it is! I just hope they won't agree for a check or a fold in those 2 actions ... Way too fast for me who would even dream for 3 ACTIONS WHATEVER!  :D

GG
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 04:05:17 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2015, 06:52:19 AM »
I agree with you but your example of "check" "fold" is not a good one. The question is: any three actions (for sure) or two actions (both) involving chips...or, two actions (one) involving chips and the other any action, fold, call or raise.

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2015, 12:26:56 PM »
Brian: That's what I thought it was after the 2011 Summit.


I believe it was, but the wording was changed after the 2013 summit, if I recall correctly.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2015, 12:47:26 PM »
ARG so it's hard to write it clearly Nick: I was saying that 2 actions with only one involving chips is WAY TOO FAST and I won't use it anymore until it's clearly voted this way by a majority of members!

So until then I will only use 3 actions or 2 actions BOTH including chips (Bet-Call or Bet-Raise or Call-Call or Call-Raise) so NO check NOR fold if only 2 actions (so a Bet-Fold is NOT a substantial action IMO until any clear vote).

GG
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 01:11:45 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2015, 02:13:47 PM »
To review the origins of the TDA Substantial Action rule:

1: At the 2011 Summit, after much discussion, the general consensus was that the TDA would adopt the WSOP substantial action language, which the WSOP had in place prior to the 2011 Summit. If you listen to the 2011 audiotapes I believe it's Dave Lamb who proposes "well, do we just want to adopt the WSOP language". A consensus was quickly formed, and the specific details followed from there.  You can scroll up to Reply #3 to see the WSOP language at the time.

2: There was some initial confusion as to whether "2 actions with chips" meant A) both players had to put chips in, or B) whether there had to be 2 players acting, at least one of which put chips in.

3: The rule was written initially as "2-A", but after much e-mailing, review of the WSOP language, and early comments on this forum, the rule was changed to conform with the WSOP, which was the general goal voted on at the Summit in the first place.

As with all TDA Rules, SA will be reviewed at the 2015 Summit.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 02:15:29 PM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2015, 06:01:25 AM »
TY Mike.

Unfortunatly I can't joint the 2015 summit but I will follow the result if clear vote on the SUBSTANCIAL ACTION is done.

I will also closely watch if changes or precisions are made on the SHOWDOWN area witch is IMO producing the most complicated ruling situations.

Regards,
GG

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2015, 08:36:11 AM »
Mike:
 The confusion comes from the 2011 Summit. We were both there and if you go to  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC56txeJd5M  about 8:30 minutes into day 2 you will clearly hear Matt give the wrong definition. I do not recall any discussion on the forum to correct it or clarify it. I know because I went on the Ante up Magazine Pokercast and gave the example that we were given at that summit. Next thing I know, it was changed in Version 2. Let's see if we can get it right this time. I really don't care, one way or the other, but I would like the dealer to count as one of the persons if they prompt further action.