Author Topic: Possible undercall situation?  (Read 1843 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Possible undercall situation?
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 04:58:52 PM »
You guys are brutal :) You should hang a sign at your entrance: "ENTER AND PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK" Or "YOU SCREW UP YOUR ASS IS MINE" Or "ONE FALSE MOVE OUT OF YOU AND...." I hope you're all laughing...and guess what? I don't agree with either of you. ;D

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Possible undercall situation?
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2016, 11:55:25 PM »
 ;D ;D ;D
But therfore we have rules.
It is not possible that everyone can act as he wants to and explain or change it afterwards.
Think ( & ask) first, than act! Not the other way round...

pastor

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: Possible undercall situation?
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2017, 04:02:42 AM »
Hi all,

Undercall: Verbal declaration is binding (general, non standard...)!?

NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)

Are 1st and 2nd ex. acceptable verbal declaration or we have to accept only “general” RAISE / CALL?

Could we tolerate 3th ex. After clerification (player could leave 12k in pot and make fold)?

Ex. 4. is this: Example 1: NLHE, blinds 1000-2000. Post-flop, A opens for 2000, B raises to 8000, C pushes out 2000 silently. C has undercalled B’s bet. Per Rule 39-B, because B is not the opener (A is) and the round is still multi-way, at TD’s discretion C may be required to make a full call or allowed to forfeit the 2000 undercall and fold.

Ex. 5. Is there any difference between 3th and 4th?

Boris Mauboussin

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: Possible undercall situation?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2017, 08:05:19 AM »

NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)


1. Could be tricky because player said "Raise"
Now TD has to decide if verbal "Raise" is binding or take under consideration the amount of chips the player wanted to put in the pot "12.000" which is covered by 39B.

2. Same as 1

3 & 4 Since MP Player is not facing an opening bet, he can forfeit his hand and chips or complete to make a full call

5. is a bit different. Players often call with a low value chip but only a single overchip is considered as a call.
I would rule the following : Player can forfeit hand & chips or can call, in both cases I would declare a 1 hand penalty.


MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Possible undercall situation?
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2017, 11:35:44 PM »
Hi all,

Undercall: Verbal declaration is binding (general, non standard...)!?
The role of a verbal declaration in an undercall is addressed in TDA Rule 39, both in paragraphs A and B and in the Illustration Addendum for Rule 39, Example 3. 

Also, Rule 37 affirms the importance of: 1) whichever happens first: general action ("call", "raise") OR specific amount; AND 2) the primacy of a clear verbal declaration if it occurs simultaneously with pushing out a specific bet amount.

In the OP on examples 1 and 2, a clear general verbal action occurs before a specific amount is stated.

NLH
SB - 2.000
BB - 4.000
UTG - 36.000 All-in (clear)
MP-
1. raise 12.000 (annunce in one sentence)
2. call 4.000 (annunce in one sentence)
3. put out 12.000 (silent)
4. put out 4.000 (silent)
5. put out one chip 1.000 (silent)

Are 1st and 2nd ex. acceptable verbal declaration or we have to accept only “general” RAISE / CALL?
In the OP it reads as though the player first verbalizes the general action ("raise" in Ex 1, "call" in Ex 2) then follows with the amount. Per Rule 39 the general verbal action ("call" or "raise") is binding if it occurs prior to announcing or pushing a specific bet amount.

Where this rule understandably causes concern is that there is a difference between a "seamless" verbal statement as in "raise, twelve thousand" vs. verbalizing with a pregnant pause as in "raise..... [pause]... twelve thousand". However, if we were to distinguish this difference in the rule how would that work? How would we establish a true pause vs a seamless statement.... perhaps a factor of time (i.e. a pause more than 3 seconds), or a factor of whether the player appears to be contemplating the amount before declaring it...or perhaps just leave it to TDs discretion? If the TD thinks the statement was seamless then the amount governs? For me, none of these seem workable to the point they would be consistently applied. OTOH, simply going with the language as it reads now, if a general statement ("raise", "call", etc) precedes the specific action the general statement is binding can be applied consistently even though there will be examples where the player clearly had a specific bet amount in mind that was less than that required by the general statement.


Could we tolerate 3th ex. After clerification (player could leave 12k in pot and make fold)?
3rd example is "specific amount first". Rule 39-B applies here as the action is neither heads up nor is the player facing the opening bet. At TD's discretion he would either be required to make the call or could be given the option to leave the 12k undercall in and fold. Keep in mind one of the central purposes of Rule 39 is to clarify when an undercall must be brought up to a full call and when the player might be allowed to leave the undercall in and fold.


Ex. 4. is this: Example 1: NLHE, blinds 1000-2000. Post-flop, A opens for 2000, B raises to 8000, C pushes out 2000 silently. C has undercalled B’s bet. Per Rule 39-B, because B is not the opener (A is) and the round is still multi-way, at TD’s discretion C may be required to make a full call or allowed to forfeit the 2000 undercall and fold.
That's a correct interpretation of 39-B as I read the example.

Ex. 5. Is there any difference between 3th and 4th?
Because both actions are "amount first", without first declaring "call" or "raise", the examples are similar. However there is a difference in amount. Let's say that instead of 36,000, the UTG pushed all-in for 12,500. Remember that 39-B does not guarantee the right to leave an undercall in and fold, it just gives the option in the defined situation in TD's discretion. Far fewer judges would likely give the option to leave the undercall in and fold if the player put out 12,000 against a 12,500 bet.

Thanks for the great case!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 12:57:56 PM by MikeB »