Author Topic: Questions on the new 2017 rules  (Read 381 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Questions on the new 2017 rules
« on: August 25, 2017, 07:54:36 AM »
Hello,

After reading the red lines of the new 2017 TDA rules, I have some questions that may concern those rules or older ones if my misunderstanding is older (lol)!

#4 ---> What do you call "charts"? Can a player quickly read a technical form or some few lines of a technical poker book while in turn to play?

#15B ---> What about a winning player tabling only one card witch actually wins the pot then throwing the other one (not retrievable) in the muck?
---> What about the BB folding his hand (retrievable) before any action?
---> What about the BB folding his hand (retrievable) after any action?

#29 ---> So the 30" clock will become the main rule over the 60"?

#42C ---> I think I follow the TDA saying that in case of undercalls (or underaises) in sequence I will apply the normal rules (including #42) to all the wrong bettors one by one starting by the first wrong one. But I would add that ---> If next board card on table: I take them back as premature. And if next board card on table and any action ---> I will apply rule #1 but in general equalizing all the bets to the lowest amount as "accepted action".

#54 ---> This one is close to the 42C with the difference that in this last one several players made an error on the official rules and not only because of a misunderstanding of any previous bet right? So for me I will treat it like the previous one (sequence of errors) with the difference that because it's not a misunderstanding but a rule error: I will enforce the rule with no choices like the "forfeit and fold" one.

#55 ---> Well, it will change my rules because for me any invalid declaration was only to be redone. To be said: You need a "C" for the third case. OK I will then follow them three (in fact I already was following the case B because here many new players say "raise" when they open bet lol).

#57 ---> WOW! This one changes my actual way of ruling it the LOWEST logical amount of the unclear number (like "5") ... ! ... OK I will then apply the higher but ONLY on opening bet with a previous pot but will still apply the LOWEST reasonable amount on any other case like after previous bets or preflop opening bet etc.

59B ---> I agree we must strongly discourage the premature declaration (and I do it) but I won't oblige the OOT caller to pay an all-in here! We must discourage but under control on the consequences using rule #1. If too big raise, I will usually decide here the second player called a minraise OOT and apply here the normal OOT rule with a warning and one missed hand on him!

GG



« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 08:02:27 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2017, 01:54:38 PM »
Hi Guillaume, IMO see answers in green

Hello,

After reading the red lines of the new 2017 TDA rules, I have some questions that may concern those rules or older ones if my misunderstanding is older (lol)!

#4 ---> What do you call "charts"? Can a player quickly read a technical form or some few lines of a technical poker book while in turn to play?

Such guidebooks / tools / apps "should not be used by a player with a live hand"

#15B ---> What about a winning player tabling only one card witch actually wins the pot then throwing the other one (not retrievable) in the muck?
If the player has opponents at the showdown, he does not have a properly tabled hand per Rule 13 so his hand would be dead. If all other showdown opponents have mucked face down (without tabling), then the last surviving player has no obligation to show (Rule 17-B)... hence he'd still win the pot here if he just showed one card.

---> What about the BB folding his hand (retrievable) before any action?
Dead hand per Rule 58, despite being retrievable... also penalizable

---> What about the BB folding his hand (retrievable) after any action?
Dead hand per Rule 58, despite being retrievable... also penalizable

#29 ---> So the 30" clock will become the main rule over the 60"? Yes... also the TD assumes more authority to call the clock

#42C ---> I think I follow the TDA saying that in case of undercalls (or underaises) in sequence I will apply the normal rules (including #42) to all the wrong bettors one by one starting by the first wrong one.
At the 2017 Summit we couldn't find absolute agreement on how to handle the undercallers after the first one. Some wanted to hold them all to a full call, some wanted to release them, etc... so it was left you back up to the first one, treat him under 42-B, and deal with the others as you see fit.

But I would add that ---> If next board card on table: I take them back as premature.
That's pretty much universal.

 And if next board card on table and any action ---> I will apply rule #1 but in general equalizing all the bets to the lowest amount as "accepted action". Big mess there, have to use Rule 1 for alot of these, impossible to write rules for every mess.

#54 ---> This one is close to the 42C with the difference that in this last one several players made an error on the official rules and not only because of a misunderstanding of any previous bet right? So for me I will treat it like the previous one (sequence of errors) with the difference that because it's not a misunderstanding but a rule error: I will enforce the rule with no choices like the "forfeit and fold" one. Right, no option to forfeit for situations in Rule 54.

#55 ---> Well, it will change my rules because for me any invalid declaration was only to be redone. To be said: You need a "C" for the third case.
A and B apply if there's no bet. Guess we could put a C for the situation where there is a bet.

OK I will then follow them three (in fact I already was following the case B because here many new players say "raise" when they open bet lol). Right, these mis-statements happen fairly frequently, glad it's clarified here. What was happening often was that the house would give the player the option to clarify. That's taken away with this rule.

#57 ---> WOW! This one changes my actual way of ruling it the LOWEST logical amount of the unclear number (like "5") ... ! ... OK I will then apply the higher but ONLY on opening bet with a previous pot but will still apply the LOWEST reasonable amount on any other case like after previous bets or preflop opening bet etc.
It's supposed to apply anywhere... and there was a great question as to whether it applies only to the "starting pot" of a round, or whether it would apply anywhere on the round and bets in front of players not yet pulled in are counted "in the pot". Answer is absolutely all bets made, whether pulled in or not are counted as part of the pot. That will be clarified in Version 3.0 out soon,

59B ---> I agree we must strongly discourage the premature declaration (and I do it) but I won't oblige the OOT caller to pay an all-in here! We must discourage but under control on the consequences using rule #1. If too big raise, I will usually decide here the second player called a minraise OOT and apply here the normal OOT rule with a warning and one missed hand on him!
Right, you have that latitude. There's really 2 schools of thought on this and they couldn't agree at the 2017 Summit. One school says "pay anything" while the other school says "pay any reasonable bet". Of course all-in should be a reasonable bet but the second school doesn't want to see the OOT declarant taken advantage of.... so it's left that the TD will make the call at the time

GG

Thanks for the great questions GG, keep them coming.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2017, 03:43:18 PM »
Thank you very much Mike for your fast clarifications.
You sure are a "masterpiece" of the whole TDA! (not sure about the word in english lol).

About the #57 and before we can read the version 3.0, can you clarify me on one example:

Player A open bet 200
Player B raises 450
Player C says "5"

What is it for you? 500 or 5000?

TY for your great job & passion
GG


MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2017, 02:03:22 PM »
About the #57 and before we can read the version 3.0, can you clarify me on one example:

Player A open bet 200
Player B raises 450
Player C says "5"

What is it for you? 500 or 5000?


GG: Great example so let's do a couple twists on this. First let's look at a straight declaration of 5 without B's raise:

SITUATION ONE:
Game is NL-THE 25-50.
Preflop 3 players smooth call the big blind: Pot size = 150
Post-flop Player A opens for 200: Pot size = 350
Player B smooth calls the 200: Pot size = 550
Player C declares "Five".

So, the new rule requires it be the highest legal increment of 5 that is covered by the pot size. In this example:
500 is covered by the pot size of 550.
5000 is not covered by the pot size of 800.

Thus the unclear bet is ruled as a raise to 500 total.

SITUATION TWO:
Game is NL-THE 25-50.
Preflop 3 players smooth call the big blind: Pot size = 150
Post-flop Player A opens for 200: Pot size = 350
Player B declares "raise to 450": Pot size = 800
Player C declares "Five". Note he does not say "Raise five".

This has to be a Rule 1 decision incorporating pieces of a few betting rules. There are a couple reasonable rulings here IMO:

1: Because the pot size is less than 5000, you could construe "five" to mean 500. So saying "five" is equivalent to saying "five hundred" here. Note per Rule 40-C and 46-A, declaring a number and pushing out that same amount of chips is treated the same. In this situation, pushing out 500 in chips: Under Rule 44-C could be seen as silently pushing out a 500 overchip. Under Rule 46-A, pushing out less than 50% of a raise is a call unless "raise" is first declared. Thus, for all these reasons you would rule this just a call of 450.

2: An alternative ruling that also has some merit is ruling it "a raise of 500 for a total of 950. Don't like this quite as much as it could be seen as a violation of 46-B where declaring raise and an amount is the total bet. Also this ruling doesn't serve to create any discipline in betting, a major goal of Rule 1 decisions.

3: Some might rule that the player is clearly intending to raise, and since 500 is not a legitimate raise amount then the raise is to 5000 total. But it's early in the game, there's been no prior bet in the 1000's, and that's a heavy over-bet of the pot, so under Rule 57 is it a "reasonable meaning" of "5" to mean 5000 here? Not sure it is, however 5000 is smallest legal raise total amount that begins with "five".

4: Lastly of course you can ask the player to clarify his or her bet, something I like to avoid because the player now has information from his competitor's reactions.

Overall I like Option 1 because it enforces betting discipline, and 500 is IMO the most reasonable bet here given the circumstances. Since 500 is not at least 50% of a raise, I'd rule it a call of 450. I don't hate Option 2 but Option 3 seems like overkill.

Thoughts?

« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 02:07:33 PM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2017, 05:46:15 PM »
OKTY - I agree that solution #1 is the most accurate / I hate solutions #2 and #4 for the same reasons than you and I respect the #3 ruling.

In fact strangely and until today I was actually applying the solution #1 to those two situations but for a completely different reason: I was always translating the "5" into the LOWEST possible AMOUNT payable (to punish the unclear player) so here:

SITUATION ONE: Raise to 500 (because 50 is not possible)

SITUATION TWO: Call of 500 (for the same reason)

And frankly for the same result here, I respect the more "mathematical" TDA new rule but I used to love my old one because faster to apply (no calculation to do) and more obvious spirit of "punishment" for the unclear player.

Wait a moment: I just realize under the new rule that if there is a preflop pot of 5000 with 3 players ---> Then postflop player A open bet at 100 (for whatever reason) witch is raised at 200 by player B ---> If player C says "5" ---> He should push 5000? 

OUCH!

« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 03:55:18 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 09:26:45 PM »

Wait a moment: I just realize under the new rule that if there is a preflop pot of 5000 with 3 players ---> Then postflop player A open bet at 100 (for whatever reason) witch is raised at 200 by player B ---> If player C says "5" ---> He should push 5000? 

Correct, because at that point there is 5000 or more in the pot.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2017, 05:11:18 AM »
OK I will apply it but if at the convention I would have voted against because in this last case my 500 ruling seems more logical as a raise than 5000! ... Plus I think in general the best "punishment" against the unclear players is to choose their lower amount so the other players have more easy decisions to make!

Regards,
GG

PS: Was it a big majority to vote this one? (I know: I shouldn't ask this question lol).
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 05:12:40 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2017, 12:35:24 PM »
OK I will apply it but if at the convention I would have voted against because in this last case my 500 ruling seems more logical as a raise than 5000! ... Plus I think in general the best "punishment" against the unclear players is to choose their lower amount so the other players have more easy decisions to make!

Regards,
GG

PS: Was it a big majority to vote this one? (I know: I shouldn't ask this question lol).

Hi G, great points as always.

This topic was introduced early on Day 1. Jack Effel led the discussion as this rule had been in effect at the WSOP (and thus subject to a large test) prior to the 2017 Summit. A bit of history would help: the concept for this rule was first introduced by Dave Lamb in 2011, that if you made an unclear bet it would be the smallest possible increment of that bet amount. However, Dave also introduced the idea of the smallest possible reasonable increment in 2013. However, reasonable was not defined and left up to the TD to determine at the time of the bet... and of course that led to variation in rulings. Then in 2015 there was a significant debate on what might be used as benchmarks of reasonableness. Three main ideas emerged in 2015: 1) always rule the lowest legal bet; 2) rule based on the most recent / common increments, so if betting started in the 100's but was now "established" in the 1000's, then it would be in the 1000's; 3) reasonable relative to the pot size, i.e. is 500 a reasonable bet when someone says "five" and there's 25,000 in the pot? So the idea was broached in 2015 but no agreement could be reached. Some suggested the TDA make a "suggestion" that pot size and/or betting increments might be used, however as Neil Johnson argued in 2015, if you suggest it, it will become the rule, so either make it a rule or leave it out.

So, forward to 2017.... there was debate on both sides, and the main argument in favor of the new rule is that it clearly provides a baseline for the word "reasonable" in the rule: "...if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings..."  At least we would have consistency and the pot-size standard in itself is not unreasonable. Voting actually took place on Day 2 after additional discussion. One of the concerns I raised prior to the final voting is exactly your point: that "the smallest possible" was there as "protection" of sorts for the other players. Everyone acknowledged this history of the rule but a clear super-majority preferred going to the pot size as a standard.

Personally, while I had reservations at the time, I'm fine with this new language for a couple reasons: 1) Usually the pot is significantly larger that "one chip" over the bet... i.e. more often than not in a 100-200 blind game, when someone declares "five" and it's ruled 5000 there's not just going to be 5000 in the pot, but 8 - 10 - 15k or more; 2) it is 100% consistent; and 3) players are forewarned and thus can adjust their game.

Thanks for raising the great questions!


Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Questions on the new 2017 rules
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2017, 04:06:28 PM »
TY very much Mike for this clear explanation and history of the spirit of this rule.

As I say: I will apply it whatever because I'm a "UNIONIST"! I support the majority even if I don't like some rules for us all to be STRONGER.

Regards,
GG