POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for New TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre 2017 Summit

Clarifying bet rules where a player puts out all remaining chips silently

(1/1)

MikeB:
Do betting rules need clarification for situations where all of a player's remaining chips are put out silently? See interesting discussion here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1272.0

Dave Miller:
 My knee jerk response is that it should not be needed. On the other hand, it can't hurt.

Nick C:
Mike,

 I agree with dave, that's why I'm having a problem with some of the responses. I'm trying to figure where the confusion is coming from. Perhaps we can tweak some of the wording. I'll give it a little more thought. :)

chet:
What the hell!! 

Any player who pushes ALL of his/her remaining chips forward, so as to be considered a "bet", is making a physical statement of "all-in".  Does it make any difference whether the amount of the chips are less than, equal to or more than the amount the player is facing, I think not?  If the player doesn't know the proper procedure to vocalize his/her action, since it is obviously unclear, then that player needs to learn a lesson. 

IMHO, there are already too damn many rules just for particular situations that arise rather infrequently. 

I feel sorry for players who have to learn lessons the hard way, but if we have to promulgate a rule for every possible situation, pretty soon the rule book will be totally unworkable, if it isn't already.

Chet

Dave Miller:
Chet makes a valid point: Sometimes players need to learn hard, expensive lessons.

And that's for reading hands, reading players, reading bets, as well as reading the rules!

Is there any estimate/survey of how many players have even read the rules? I'd bet that it's a rather low percentage for Robert's and an even lower percentage for TDA.


But Chet also very clearly points out that even those who are tasked with enforcing the rules can't always make the right call. Therefore I change my earlier comment and suggest that it's a VERY good idea for this rule to be included in the next version.

Navigation

[0] Message Index