Author Topic: Undercalls: how to handle a series of undercalls when the 1st is mandatory call?  (Read 2298 times)

GreggPath

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
What is the rule for an undercall that has substantive action (based on the lower amount) after it?

Postflop (blinds 1000-2000):
A bets 6000
B undercalls 2000
C calls 2000
D calls 2000

Rule 39 only says that B's bet is an automatic call, but do C and D get to redecide?

Have I mentioned it sucks having drunk players deal hands?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:49:52 PM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
B's bet must be brought to a full 6000 because A's bet was the post-flop opener.

How to handle C and D are at TD's discretion. Keep in mind that through all of this Rule 2 "Players responsibility to follow the action" and 38-A "chips put in the pot in turn stay in the pot" apply.

This topic of C and D was the subject of extensive discussion in 2013, and no firm solution was arrived at besides TD discretion. Fortunately doesn't happen often, but probably should be re-visited in 2017.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
I've seen this happen all to often.  In some cases, it occurs when the original bet is made with two chips of similar color, stacked with the smaller chip on top, on felt that doesn't contrast well.  It is easy to mistake the bet amount.

Rule #2 also says that players have responsibilities to make their intentions clear and to speak up if they see a mistake.  One could hold that the original bettor, player A, failed to correct the situation when player B called with an incorrect amount.  Sure, there is a very clear rule - 39B - that says player B's bet must be made full.  But, there is also substantial action that has occurred based under the misunderstanding that - at least in part - is due to player A failure to meet their obligation.  The TD's discretion is not limited to handling C and D.  It also applies to handling A & B.  I realize that changing a bet is not something that a TD should do lightly.  But, in this situation, it deserves consideration as at least 3 players and presumably the dealer thought the bet made was for 2000 and only player A knew that the bet was actually 6000.

Regardless of the specifics of the above - there is the more general question and debate on what should the ruling be on a series of actions that occur after any action that was made in error?  If a preceding action-in-error is to be corrected - does it automatically force correction in all subsequent actions or does it automatically nullify those subsequent actions?  As Mike points out in this case, there is rule 38-A that would leave C & D chips in the pot should they decide not to call the corrected action - that represents a solution that is neither a full correction or a full nullification.  Should there be a TDA rule or guideline that addresses this more general question?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Mike,

 You know how I feel about TDA #49 Accepted Action...wouldn't that apply here?

 There are too many rules that seem to apply. Accepted action, Substantial Action, Action changing after it is corrected, etc. There are other rule sets that we often refer to, such as RRoP that might even allow a retraction of an incorrect amount.

 Bottom line, as you stated: "no firm solution was arrived at besides the TD's discretion...." There are numerous rules that give the TD's and or floor personnel a wide range of differing opinions.

 Gregg, the best advice I can pass along is to make a ruling that will work with your (sometimes intoxicated :D) dealers, and be consistent.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079

Regardless of the specifics of the above - there is the more general question and debate on what should the ruling be on a series of actions that occur after any action that was made in error?  If a preceding action-in-error is to be corrected - does it automatically force correction in all subsequent actions or does it automatically nullify those subsequent actions?  Should there be a TDA rule or guideline that addresses this more general question?

Bill: Glad you brought that up. At the 2015 Summit such a topic was briefly discussed. The exact situation it addressed were such as:

1: NLHE, 500-1000. 6 players see the flop and Player A opens for 800 (perhaps thinking the levels were still 400-800). 4 players call the 800, and 1 player folds. Then the 800 underbet is discovered just before the turn is dealt. Do you: a) let the 800 bet stand because there's been substantial action after it?; b) let it stand because all players have acted; c) not let it stand because the next card has not been dealt, and therefore require all players to bring their bet up to 1000?

2: Same game, 6 players see the flop, Player A opens for 1000 and Player B "raises" to 1800 total. 3 other players call the 1800 and 1 player folds. Same options as above.

From memory, the general consensus of those TDs polled was that you would not disturb the underbets / underraises once substantial action had occurred. But up to that point you would require the bets to be adjusted to full amounts.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Hey Mike,

The discussion at the 2015 Summit can be seen in the YouTube videos for Day #2.  It was a quite lengthy discussion that ran for the last 5 minutes on Part #3 on the Day #2 video and was continued for another 25 minutes on the beginning of Part #4 on Day #2.  It ended without a consensus with the intent to follow up later after further discussion by the board and this forum.

I would summarize it as follows:
  • When do incorrect actions stand?
    • After a raise
    • After accepted action
    • After substantial action
    • At the end of the betting round
  • Is an incorrect initial bet treated the same as an incorrect raise?
  • Would the rules differ for limit, pot, and no-limit?
  • If the original action was corrected, what options are then open to the previous callers of the incorrect action?
    • They must call the fully corrected amount
    • The can fold and forfeit the incorrect call amount

It would be nice to distill this topic into step-by-step examples and ruling options for 2017.  As can be seen from the 2015 videos - the discussion covers a broad range of issues.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 08:14:42 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Hi Bill:

Great summary! The reason this was not finalized in 2015 is that there are a number of moving parts and different situations as you describe, and delegates did not have sufficient time to think the options through. As busy as the 2015 agenda was it was deemed better to table it for the moment. 2017 will have a much clearer slate and it likely will be revisited then.

Thanks again!
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 12:33:54 PM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Very very IMPORTANT point! Lot's of work for clarification to be done by the TDA here IMO!

For me I survive those "errors in series" checking the substancial action BEHIND the first error (B):
The first bettor must be alert of the following bets BEFORE any substancial action!

A Bet 6000 + B call 2000 + C call 2000 = B must call 6000 and C can forfeit 2000 or call 6000
A Bet 6000 + B call 2000 + C call 2000 + D call 2000 = A takes back 4000 and it's a bet of 2000

A Bet 6000 + B call 8000 + C call 8000 = B + C take back 2000 each for to call 6000
A Bet 6000 + B call 8000 + C call 8000 + D call 8000 = A forfeit the 6000 or call 8000
If next board cards already in = cards are take back and reshuffled before A makes his decision
If next board cards already in plus sub. action = the hand of A is dead and he loses his 6000

Many other cases possible but those undercall or "overcall" in series are the most common!
I don't pretend our way to rule the "errors in series" is the best ... It's just the way we survive today!

Regards,
GG

« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 05:37:44 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
From memory, the general consensus of those TDs polled was that you would not disturb the underbets / underraises once substantial action had occurred. But up to that point you would require the bets to be adjusted to full amounts.

Very interesting posts again with so many cases in my 2000 amateurs players tournaments!

Another exemple that happened:
(I tried to remember and rebuilt the elements so that the main problem may be analyzed)

- FLOP
- A open bet pushing one 5000 chip and saying "3000"
- B calls de 3000 in silence
- C push 4000 saying "ok" (intention to call)
- D push 4000 saying "yes" (intention to call)
- E push 4000 saying "with you" (intention to call)
---> The dealer (very tired after an 8 hours day but anyway) gives back the 2000 change to player A and put all the pot in the middle
---> Nobody notice the error (very tired too but anyway) 
---> Turn is placed
- A open bet 7000
- B raises 15000
- C folds and throw his cards
---> another player out of the hand and who was counting in his head just says that the previous betting round was wrong
---> everybody agree with the error and the amounts but with different reasons:
---> players A + B + Dealer say it was clearly 3000 (no one realized that the other players did bet 4000)
---> players C + D + E say they eared and thought it was 4000 (no one checked the change back to A and the 3000 from B)
...
---> Floor now must deserve his salary ... :)
 
« Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 04:37:01 AM by Guillaume Gleize »