POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General

Questions on the new 2017 rules

(1/2) > >>

Guillaume Gleize:
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

MikeB:
Hi Guillaume, IMO see answers in green


--- Quote from: Guillaume Gleize 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?

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

--- End quote ---

Thanks for the great questions GG, keep them coming.

Guillaume Gleize:
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:

--- Quote from: Guillaume Gleize on August 25, 2017, 03:43:18 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?


--- End quote ---

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?

Guillaume Gleize:
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!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page