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

Player A, B, C, etc.

(1/3) > >>

BillM16:
I recommend that we adopt Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Erin, Frank, George, Harry, Ingrid, and Jane as the (up to) ten players at the table in the illustrations.  These are commonly used placeholder names used in game theory, physics, cryptography, etc., and are easier to read and follow when used consistently.  The names should be used in alphabetical order corresponding to the order of action.

For example, currently:  2015 Illustration on Rule 43 reads:

Example 1: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. Post-flop, A opens with a bet of 600. B raises 1000 for total of 1600. C re-raises 2000 for total of 3600. If D wants to raise, he must at least raise the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is C’s raise of 2000. So D must re-raise at least 2000 more for a total of 5600. Note that D’s minimum raise is not 3600 (C’s total bet), but only 2000, the additional raise action that C added.

The recommendation would alter this in 2017 too:

Example 1: NLHE, Blinds 100-200. Post-flop, Alice opens with a bet of 600. Bob raises 1000 for total of 1600. Charlie re-raises 2000 for total of 3600. If Dave wants to raise, he must at least raise the “largest bet or raise of the current round”, which is Charlie’s raise of 2000. So Dave must re-raise at least 2000 more for a total of 5600. Note that Dave’s minimum raise is not 3600 (Charlie’s total bet), but only 2000, the additional raise action that Charlie added.

Regards,
B~  (a.k.a. Bill  :))

Dave Miller:
I like that idea.

Of course, I'm not the guy who will be doing the editing. And I have a feeling that's gonna be a major PITA...

Nick C:
BillM16,

 Funny, I suggested that years ago, but it was not alphabetically, which is a great idea. I will say that I messed up my illustration the first time I used names instead of Players A, B & C etc....needless to say, it did not work at that time. I do like the idea, though. Let's try it.

Boris:
Hello folks,

This idea is interesting however putting names in situations description could involve some (small) emotional issues.
I know it can be weird but a ruling system should cover all eventualities.

Edit : Additionally, this could add some confusion with precedent situations.
May I ask what the value added using the name system ? This is a real question.

Dave Miller:
I think the primary value is that it's slightly easier to keep track of who is who.

But, as someone with a name that is very likely to be the example player name, I can certainly see your point about the potential emotional implications - and agree that it probably should be avoided.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page