Author Topic: Substantial action: How should it be defined?  (Read 7235 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2015, 10:45:38 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.

This was answered in Reply #3 above. If you narrowly focus on just one statement by one person you'll never get full perspective on this issue.

One of the more important forum threads discussing the initial language is also cited in Reply #3 above.

It has been "right" if you take in the entirety of what was decided at the 2011 event, including all the discussion by all persons, which clearly was intended to adopt the then-standing WSOP rule. That is the bottom line. The Version 2 language is exactly in keeping with that rule.

Of course all rules will be up for review at Summit VII.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 11:05:34 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: How should it be defined?
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2015, 02:12:26 PM »
 The Version 1.0 was what we left the 2011 Summit with, and it was exactly what Matt stated. It wasn't corrected to what it is now until Version 2.0 came out weeks afterwards.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2015, 02:56:47 PM »
I guess this has to be repeated one more time .... Matt's statement was but one of MANY statements made on the SA issue. For whatever reason you don't seem to want to consider the entirety of the discussion at the Summit, or the discussion thread on this forum, which you participated in by the way....

Again, I would refer you to Reply 3 above...

It's just not constructive to contend that the intention from the Summit was anything other than to adopt the WSOP policy when you consider the entirety of the discussion.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2015, 03:45:40 PM »
Vote for me: "A call and a fold" is way too fast!

"3 or 2 BOTH including chips"

 ;D

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 #19 on: June 04, 2015, 06:20:08 PM »
Mike,

 I don't know why you want to debate this issue with me, I told you I really don't care what or how you want to define substantial action. All I want you to do is admit that the original rule that came from the 2011 Summit was changed when Version 2.0 was adopted. You did nothing wrong, and it was before you were named to the BOD. Matt was wrong and I've got a right to gripe because I'm the one that went on a national pokercast and preached the rule that "somehow" got changed.

 You make it sound like I don't understand what you've written. Let's try to fix it this time. I won't be at this years summit either...but if this forum has anything to do with the final drafted rules, you can count me and Guillaume down for Any 3 actions; or Any two actions both involving chips!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 06:22:16 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2015, 08:03:47 PM »
Mike,

Matt was wrong and I've got a right to gripe because I'm the one that went on a national pokercast and preached the rule that "somehow" got changed.

Okay, so looks like we need the entirety of the transcript, otherwise we'll just keep hearing "Matt was wrong on Day 2" so here it is

DAY 1

155: Floor: “We’re going to have to standardize SA… whether it’s two or 3 players”
156: Floor: “I advocate 3 players for 2 reasons: allows one extra error to be caught, and the WSOP has already adopted that and it brings us in line with them”.
156:51: Dave Lamb: “The WSOP probably isn’t going to change position that there’s a difference between action w/ chips vs. no chips… the question is whether we should go with 2 actions or 3 actions. So far we’re hearing that 3 players gives us more time to correct the problem… anyone want to argue 2”?
157:00: Floor “Does the dealer count as action… some house rules include the dealer”.
157:39: Matt Savage: “I think the dealer should be considered”
158: Floor: “What I don’t like about 3 acitons after the bet, is that often there aren’t that many players involved….”
158:32: “With 3 players you’re giving the players more time to take a shot then go back on their action. I think it should be 2. 2 Players protects against additional shot taking”.
159: 37: Jan Fisher: “Is dealer rapping the table an action”?
2:00:30: Tim Mix (Venetian): “A lot of houses are deeply divided as to 2 or 3 actions for SA”
201:04: Mike Bishop: “The WSOP Rule 81 is: SA is 3 folds, 3 checks, but 2 or more calls, a fold and call. Even the world series has a mix of both 2 and 3 actions depending on the type of action. Keep in mind we’ll also be voting on SA standard for OOT action, so whatever your vote here is for misdeal SA, you’ll want to think if it can also apply to SA for OOT.”
202:11: Matt: “Anyone can’t live with 3 actions”
202:16: Floor: “I have AK and I go all in and called… I can’t find the argument for a 3rd player. That’s substantial enough”.
204:29: Floor: “Maybe we should limit it to 2 actions so that would include heads-up situations”
204:50: Floor: “The common rule here is ‘2 actions involving chips or 3 actions total’. A floorperson is capable of going to the table and figuring out if there’s 2 actions involving chips or 3 total (it’s 3 checks, 3 folds, bet and call, bet and fold) that’s what we’re talking about”
205:28: Dave: “You’re arguing this isn’t rocket science”
205:30: Floor: “That’s exactly what I’m arguing… It’s 2 actions with chips or 3 total actions”
205:54: Dave: “Actually, that is the WSOP rule”
206:20 Floor: “Exactly what Thomas said, if the floorperson can’t decipher 2 actions with chips… then that person shouldn’t be a floorperson”.
206: 32: Dave: “How many of you would be in favor of adopting the WSOP Policy…. I would be in favor of that” ? Vote is taken, Dave responds: “That’s a pretty good group”
206:46: Dave: “But you’d like to see it re-worded so it’s clearer for everyone involved”? “Okay, we are now re-writing the WSOP Rule for SA”.
207:06: Matt “Who cannot live with this” ?
207:57: Linda Johnson: “Reads the WSOP Rule 81 on SA…. [See WSOP Rule 81 below]
209:00: Linda: “Reads the WSOP Rule again, including the preceding language on misdeal conditions”.
[See WSOP Rule 81 below]

The above in red from 206:32 on is where the decision was taken to pursue the then existing WSOP rule, which was this:

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

The above is the voting decision made as to what direction the Association would take on SA on Day 1. Yes mistakes were made in Version 1.0 of the rules, this is obvious because Version 2.0 would not have otherwise been needed.

After the rule was originally issued in language inconsistent with the WSOP there was a flurry of e-mails received by the TDA pointing out the error. There was also one or more threads on this forum where the issue was discussed, including this important one: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.0

I would add the worst aspect of the 2011 WSOP Rule was the last section: "....or a bet and or a raise or a call and or a fold..." ..., But very importantly the WSOP Rule 81 verbatim says "a fold and a call" is SA.

After all the e-mails, forum postings, review of the WSOP language, etc. Version 2.0 was released which brought the TDA in alignment with WSOP, which was the objective in the first place, and re-worded the rule in the process to make it clearer.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 08:11:44 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 #21 on: June 04, 2015, 08:31:58 PM »
Mike,
I just read the link you referred to and it is clear that everyone understood substantial action as two players both putting chips in the pot.

You wrote:

After all the e-mails, forum postings, review of the WSOP language, etc. Version 2.0 was released which brought the TDA in alignment with WSOP, which was the objective in the first place, and re-worded the rule in the process to make it clearer.


 It did make it clearer...and it also changed it completely. I didn't need to see the WSOP rules.  All I wanted was a copy of TDA Version 1.0 and then the change when Version 2.0 was released. They were not the same, that's all I was looking for. As far as a flood of emails requesting a change. I suggest they direct their suggestions to the members on this Forum instead of personal emails.

 Just tell me that I am correct when I say it was changed, that's all I'm looking for.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 06:18:53 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2015, 10:33:11 PM »
Mike,
I just read the link you refereed to and it is clear that everyone understood substantial action as two players both putting chips in the pot.

I didn't need to see the WSOP rules.  

Just tell me that I am correct when I say it was changed, that's all I'm looking for.

Nick: The purpose of this forum is not to "tell you you're correct". The purpose is to present the TDA Rules as accurately as possible. It's incorrect to say "it's clear everyone understood SA is 2 players both putting chips in the pot". What is clear is you're not looking at the entire transcript:

200:30: Tim Mix (Venetian): "Alot of houses are deeply divided as to 2 or 3 actions for SA"

201:04: Mike Bishop quotes the WSOP Rule 81 verbatim... "a fold and a call". That is not both players putting chips in the pot

204:50 Floor: "... it's 3 checks, 3 folds, bet and call, bet and fold" Again, not both players putting chips in the pot

205:54 Dave Lamb: "Actually that's the WSOP Rule"   [of course he's referring to the 204:50 Floor statement, and is referencing WSOP Rule 81, which includes SA as a call and a fold]

206:32 Dave Lamb: "How many would be in favor of adopting the WSOP Policy" [again, referring to WSOP Rule 81]  THIS WAS THE VOTE

207:57 Linda Johnson: Re-reads WSOP Rule 81

209:00 Linda: Re-reads WSOP Rule 81 again.

It just could not be more clear that the intent was to model the TDA Rule on WSOP Rule 81 which includes SA as a fold and call (i.e. 2 actions at least one of which puts chips in the pot).

You say you don't need to see the WSOP Rule but the WSOP Rule is the basis for the TDA Rule. You can't understand one without the other.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 10:52:41 PM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2015, 03:31:05 AM »
My poor english is getting too light to follow everything now.

Nick: Do you understand that I don't like the "3 or 2 at least one including chips" and that my actual rule is "3 or 2 BOTH including chips"? 

So: I can't wait for a CLEAR vote this year and will follow it. But I will follow it very SADLY if they vote for "3 or 2 at least one including chips" ...  :'(

Come on: Make it easier & slighly longer as: "3 or 2 BOTH including chips"

By the way: Mike what is your personnal choice?

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 #24 on: June 05, 2015, 07:01:37 AM »
Guillaume,
 Sorry you are correct, I went back and changed my mistake so we don't further confuse others. I agree with you: Any 3 actions; or 2 both involving chips.

Mike, Here are the TDA Rules from 2011: Version 1.0 July 30, 2011 #33 Substantial Action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two players each putting chips in the pot (bet, raise,or call):or B) any combination of three actions (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).

TDA Rules from 2011 Version 2.0 Sep t 22, 2011 #32 Substantial Action is defined as either A) any two actions in turn, at least one of which must involve putting 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, call, or fold).

 On August 4, 2011 (dates between the change) I went on the Ante Up Magazine National Pokercast and proceeded to inform all listeners what the definition of Substantial Action was. The problem was, it was changed six weeks after the radio broadcast.

Guillaume and others, I'm sure, were confused. We need to return it to any 2 actions (both with chips), and we need to consider the dealer, and I want to know why "in turn" was added? If multiple players bet out of turn, does this mean we can't consider Substantial Action? That's how it reads.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 07:56:16 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2015, 11:03:12 AM »

By the way: Mike what is your personal choice?

Regards, GG

G: Several thoughts,

1: The most important for me is that the TDA and WSOP (and other venues of course) remain aligned on this rule. Substantial Action is an important threshold that really needs to be consistent. If you go back to 2011 and listen to ALL the debate, you'll see it was very extensive. All the pros and cons of 2 vs. 3 were laid out. The 2011 WSOP language was the obvious compromise IMO.

2: That said, just personally, for me the least "substantial" action is a check. I consider a fold to be quite substantial by contrast: for example, I would consider 3 folds to be dramatically more "substantial" than 3 checks. So if I was to propose a tweak to the rule, it would exclude a fast "check-bet" as substantial action.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 04:37:27 PM by MikeB »

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Substantial action: How should it be defined?
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2015, 05:12:48 PM »

But by far the most important consideration is #1 above, keeping unity in the Association.


I just want to address this point really quickly even though it has little to do with this particular thread and Subject Headline.

Maybe this is the goal, however, you currently have all new board members who do not use TDA rules within their own tournaments. Not only is that not unifying, it's divisive. And I'm not saying that having different viewpoints among the board is a bad thing. It encourages discussion. But I am saying that if your goal as an association is to keep unity then maybe the folks atop the association ought to use the rules that they represent, because right now they don't.

Back to the issue.....

Being one of the persons described as "Floor", I know what I said by stating "2 actions involving chips" (vs what I meant) and was then quickly followed by a floor person who said "it's 2 people putting money in the pot or 3 actions". Listening to this part of the video extensively now, I can see where the confusion is coming from and it occurs because what I'm talking about is described as the WSOP rule and then a motion is put forth to adopt the WSOP rule.

Of course, no one is going to object to that.

I wasn't talking about the WSOP rule even though I described it nearly word for word. But at the time I was talking about a floor person being incapable of deciphering whether it's a Bet and a Call vs a Bet and a Fold. That's what I was talking about or at least trying to convey and I thought I did convey it when both Matt and the other floor restated in some form that it would be 2 actions both with people putting chips in the pot.

This exact situation came up early at this years WSOP. Player UTG called, next player folded, the action was stopped by another player who had one card and then another player realized he had grabbed a 3rd card by mistake and both players were in the blind. Under the current WSOP and TDA rule, I had to rule their hands dead due to improper number of cards and substantial action. However, I could have used rule No.1, best interest of the game. There also used to be a rule called the Proper Card rule. However I've only seen it used sparingly by older veteran floor persons and it's not usually passed on any longer to younger floor people and is considered rare and obsolete.

The Proper Card Rule:

Both blinds must have their proper cards. If not, then misdeal.

Simple rule.

Maybe this rule needs to comeback given the above situation.

Maybe establish a hierarchy of rules.

Or simply define substantial action as "Two actions, in turn, both WITH chips or Three total actions."

#2 - A separate but similar situation also occurred a few days later. UTG called, next player fold, next player has only 1 card and action is stopped. Again under WSOP and TDA rules, the player with one card now has a dead hand, both due to improper number of cards and substantial action. Again, the solution is above.

However, for some reason if this player with only one card was somehow on the button, most, if not all floor persons would deal the button the top card and continue. Whereas, above the players hand is dead.

Why?

There's is no clear evidence that button was not skipped on the first deal and simply was not dealt his last card, nor is there evidence that the card was there from the last hand already and was skipped due to already having a card and failure of the dealer to deliver his second card. The button hand should be dead too. But I'd say 99% of all floor people would give him the top card off the deck.

Why not give the skipped player the top card as well if you are fairly certain that he was simply skipped as the Button?

It's a random card, make the player whole. <----- Anyways..... another tangent and small rant.

I hope I get a chance on to meet, greet and debate this on the floor at the Summit this year.



@wsopmcgee on Twitter