Author Topic: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"  (Read 1087 times)

Steven

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« on: September 01, 2017, 04:04:30 PM »
57: Non-Standard & Unclear Betting
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean
other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it
will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than the pot size before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-
400 blinds, 4900 in the pot, player declares I bet five. With no other clarifying information, the bet is
500; if 5100 in the pot, the bet is 5000. See Rules 2, 3 & 45.


Hi Mike,

IMO

"Less than the pot size" is specified in Rule 57. In addition to 4900 and 5100, I think the example should also mention "5000 in the pot" in which case the bet is still 500 because 5000 would not be less than 5000

Or, should the rule specify "less than or equal to"?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2017, 06:58:37 PM »
Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2017, 11:58:40 AM »
57: Non-Standard & Unclear Betting
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean
other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it
will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than the pot size before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-
400 blinds, 4900 in the pot, player declares I bet five. With no other clarifying information, the bet is
500; if 5100 in the pot, the bet is 5000. See Rules 2, 3 & 45.


Hi Mike,

IMO

"Less than the pot size" is specified in Rule 57. In addition to 4900 and 5100, I think the example should also mention "5000 in the pot" in which case the bet is still 500 because 5000 would not be less than 5000

Or, should the rule specify "less than or equal to"?

Steve: Version 3.0 clarifies this that with 5000 in the pot, "five" is a bet of 5000. Any pot amount greater than or equal to 500 but less than 5000, the bet is 500. Thanks for pointing that out!

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2017, 01:50:35 PM »
Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?
Bill:
IMO yes, don't see how an exception can be made because it's a bet of all the player's chips. i.e. he has a stack of 5100, it's a bet of 5000, has a stack of 4900 it's a bet of 500. Best interest of the game to keep it consistent at 5000 IMO. However this point should be clarified in 2019.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2017, 05:45:27 PM »
Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?
Bill:
IMO yes, don't see how an exception can be made because it's a bet of all the player's chips. i.e. he has a stack of 5100, it's a bet of 5000, has a stack of 4900 it's a bet of 500. Best interest of the game to keep it consistent at 5000 IMO. However this point should be clarified in 2019.

Mike thanks for the response.  A player has two 500 chips and three 1000 chips and says 5.  Then, grabs 500 chip to toss in subsequently ... I have a real problem putting the player all-in when there is 5000 in the pot.  I think the benefits of consistently applying the previous version of the least amount is the better rule.  I'm quite surprised that a majority of attending TDA members voted to approve this change.  On the other hand, I will not be surprised if Daniel Negreanu or other notables show up in 2019 to plead for a reversal of this decision.

Regards,
B~

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2017, 12:54:45 PM »
Bill, I'm with you on this one. Having a tough time wondering how the pot size enters into consideration for any individual betting round. ???

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2017, 03:48:03 AM »
IMHO this rule should be reversed!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2017, 06:43:16 PM »
I'm sorry but I've been trying to figure out how this became such a problem? By this, I mean forcing any player to increase her ( ::)) bet far beyond the intended amount.  How can this possibly be in the best interest of the game? I agree with Steff and Bill...a warning followed by a penalty is enough. Forcing any tournament player to surrender more chips than intended, or giving any player a windfall of chips is mind boggling.

 I guess this will be the controversial change of the most recent summit. It seems as though we have one every two years.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2017, 10:34:12 PM »
Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?
Bill:
IMO yes, don't see how an exception can be made because it's a bet of all the player's chips. i.e. he has a stack of 5100, it's a bet of 5000, has a stack of 4900 it's a bet of 500. Best interest of the game to keep it consistent at 5000 IMO. However this point should be clarified in 2019.

A) A player has two 500 chips and three 1000 chips and says "five".
Then, grabs 500 chip to toss in subsequently ... I have a real problem putting the player all-in when there is 5000 in the pot. 


B) I think the benefits of consistently applying the previous version of the least amount is the better rule. 

C I'm quite surprised that a majority of attending TDA members voted to approve this change.

Hi Bill: In answer to your points in green above

A: Depends on the specific action in your scenario, for example:

1: Says "five"... pregnant pause... then throws out a 500. That's going to be a declared bet of 5000 total IMO. Since he doesn't quite have the 5000, he's all-in.

2: Says "five" while simultaneously tossing out a 500... clear bet of 500 regardless of his stack size because Rule 57 (Version 2.0) clearly says "without other clarifying information". Obviously tossing out the 500 chip clarifies the verbal bet of "five"" as 500

B: You're not alone in preferring "the lowest legal bet" however the key issue driving the change to "the highest bet covered by the pot" is that it answers the question of reasonableness. The rule reads "if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings". The problem for the super-majority favoring the change is that at some point the lowest legal bet just isn't objectively reasonable. For example, 250-500 THE, on the river there's 25,000+ in the pot, betting has been in increments of 1000 since the flop... is 500 ever a reasonable bet here? Legal yes, reasonable no. But do we want the TD to have to make the ruling about reasonableness in every single case? If we do, then we have to tolerate inconsistency (not a good thing) because some were ruling "always the lowest legal" while others were ruling 5000 based on different standards of reasonableness given the situation.

In 2015 there was the beginning of the debate that we need a standard of reasonableness if one can be agreed to... and that agreement was reached in 2017. We'll see in 2019 if there's strong desire to revert back to the TD making the decision in each case.

C: Once you consider the reasoning for the change... i.e. to adopt a consistent standard of reasonableness, are you still surprised?

BTW, we could say that 5000 is not a reasonable bet here, because the player doesn't have 5000 in his stack, thus it should be 500. But do we want to get into that?

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 10:16:36 AM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2017, 07:34:12 AM »
Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?
Bill:
IMO yes, don't see how an exception can be made because it's a bet of all the player's chips. i.e. he has a stack of 5100, it's a bet of 5000, has a stack of 4900 it's a bet of 500. Best interest of the game to keep it consistent at 5000 IMO. However this point should be clarified in 2019.

A) A player has two 500 chips and three 1000 chips and says "five".
Then, grabs 500 chip to toss in subsequently ... I have a real problem putting the player all-in when there is 5000 in the pot. 


B) I think the benefits of consistently applying the previous version of the least amount is the better rule. 

C I'm quite surprised that a majority of attending TDA members voted to approve this change.

Hi Bill: In answer to your points in green above

A: Depends on the specific action in your scenario, for example:

1: Says "five"... pregnant pause... then throws out a 500. That's going to be a declared bet of 5000 total IMO. Since he doesn't quite have the 5000, he's all-in.

2: Says "five" while simultaneously tossing out a 500... clear bet of 500 regardless of his stack size because Rule 57 (Version 2.0) clearly says "without other clarifying information". Obviously tossing out the 500 chip clarifies the verbal bet of "five"" as 500

Mike, regarding your responses A.1 and A.2.  The key difference in your response is a pause versus simultaneous toss of the chip.  That is clearly a subjective key measurement.  If the player is facing two opponents, one with the current best hand and one with the current best drawing hand it is likely that the first opponent will say that the pause was pregnant (wanting the bigger bet) and the second will say that it was almost simultaneous (wanting the smaller bet).  When the TD is called he will have to form an opinion based upon the input from the dealer and the players at the table.  IMO, the clarifying information is that the acting player doesn't have 5,000 and would most likely be betting 500 even if it took a moment for him to send in the chip.  It is unreasonable to assume that he meant all-in or 5000 only because there is more than that amount in the pot.

B: You're not alone in preferring "the lowest legal bet" however the key issue driving the change to "the highest bet covered by the pot" is that it answers the question of reasonableness. The rule reads "if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings". The problem for the super-majority favoring the change is that at some point the lowest legal bet just isn't objectively reasonable. For example, 250-500 THE, on the river there's 25,000+ in the pot, betting has been in increments of 1000 since the flop... is 500 ever a reasonable bet here? Legal yes, reasonable no. But do we want the TD to have to make the ruling about reasonableness in every single case? If we do, then we have to tolerate inconsistency (not a good thing) because some were ruling "always the lowest legal" while others were ruling 5000 based on different standards of reasonableness given the situation.

In 2015 there was the beginning of the debate that we need a standard of reasonableness if one can be agreed to... and that agreement was reached in 2017. We'll see in 2019 if there's strong desire to revert back to the TD making the decision in each case.

Mike, regarding your response to B:  As you know, the TDA Rule in 2011 read Also, whenever the size of a declared bet can have multiple meanings, it will be ruled as the lesser value. Only in 2013, did the TDA change the rule to read Also, whenever the size of a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it will be ruled as the lesser value.  In some degree, this was an attempt to allow the TD on the floor to rule the declared bet as a larger value but only if it is unreasonable for the declaration to have multiple meanings.  In other words, all bets with multiple meanings within reason are ruled as the lesser value in 2013.  Then, in 2015, the wording of the rule was left unchanged and the Illustration Addendum was added to describe what is most reasonable and in the best interest of the game

Now, in 2017, the TDA has gone too far by ruling that it is unreasonable for a player to bet less than the pot when the amount declared is unclear and has multiple meanings.  This is clearly an inaccurate and subjective measure as evidenced by the struggle to rationalize the reasonableness factor when there is 4900, 5000, or 5100 in the pot.  How can an unclear bet of 5 be reasonably interpreted as 500 or 5000 with a difference of 100 in the pot.  That is ridiculous and will cause many problems for the game.


C: Once you consider the reasoning for the change... i.e. to adopt a consistent standard of reasonableness, are you still surprised?

Mike, regarding C:  When I consider this rule, I much prefer a consistent standard for ruling over one for determining which player actions are reasonable in the eyes and words of his opponents and the TD.  As, I said above, an opponent with a winning hand will always want the larger bet while the drawing hand will always want the smaller bet.  It is unreasonable to disregard this fact.

BTW, we could say that 5000 is not a reasonable bet here, because the player doesn't have 5000 in his stack, thus it should be 500. But do we want to get into that?

Thoughts?

Mike regarding your last response:  Yes, we certainly do want to get into that!  It is only one of several situations that could make the players unclear declaration smaller within reason.

I realize from the history of the problem from 2011 thru 2017 that consistently ruling the unclear bet with multiple meanings as the lesser bet is objectionable to those that recognize that the player could have meant the larger bet.  IMO: The TDA has hurt the best interest of the game by adding these changes to this rule. 

Go back to the 2011 version of the rule. Simply state that the TD may rule the unclear bet as the larger value in the best interest of the game.  Rule #1.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 05:54:51 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2017, 02:32:01 AM »
Couple things to keep in mind...

A: Whether a chip is pushed out before, during, or after a verbal declaration is not a difficult action to identify. In fact it's the subject of Rule 40. If it's pushed out before or during the declaration then it clearly clarifies the bet. Doesn't matter what two angling opponents may wish the action was.

B: Adding "reasonable" in 2013 was for situations where prior betting action on the hand had progressed to the point where a very small yet legal bet would not be considered reasonable in the judgement of the TD. Example NLHE, 100-200 is a bet of "five" more reasonable to be 500 or 5,000 on the river with 18,000 in the pot? In 2015, while the rule was left unchanged there was very significant discussion as to what benchmarks might be used to more consistently establish reasonableness. Two main ideas emerged: pot size and prior betting increments. The WSOP has been using the pot size as a gauge for awhile without major issue and thus provided a proving ground for the pot size standard adopted in 2017.

Also, the 2017 language does not say or imply "it's unreasonable to bet less than the pot". Just the opposite: the pot must be equal to or larger than the bet. In this case the pot could be 5k, 10k, 25k and beyond and the bet is still 5000. It's only situations where you are at or slightly above the next increment where it becomes a pot size or nearly pot-size bet. And the benefit is you don't have the truly ridiculous situation where "five" is ruled 500 with 25k in the pot.

C: Again with the new rule it doesn't matter what angling opponents might want a bet to be... now there is a consistent standard.

The "simple" approach of having the TD make a Rule 1 decision in every case is neither simple nor consistent.


BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2017, 05:07:24 PM »
NLHE 200-400

All nine players limp pre-flop.  It’s a family pot of 3600.  Post flop action is as follows:

Alice:  “I bet 5." And she tosses in 500.
Bob:   “I’ll raise, 5 more." And he tosses in 1000.
Charlie: “I’ll re-raise, 5 more."  He count out his chips.  He only has 14 black chips.  So, he starts over and finds a blue 500 chip and adds 10 black 100 chips for a total of 1500.  But, as he is ready to put his chips in the pot ....
David: "Call the floor please. The re-raise has to be 5000 more as there is already 5100 in the pot and Charlie said 're-raise 5 more'.  The declaration of 5 is an unclear bet.”

Given the new rule Charlie would have to re-raise 5000 to 6500 instead of 500 to 1500. 

Is this correct under the 2017 rule?  Does recent betting increments trump pot size?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 05:38:45 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2017, 06:41:30 PM »
I said it before and I'll say it again...since when did the pot size ever have any relevance to a betting round in no limit? This is the problem. I agree with Bill on this one and I'm putting my money on a change in 2019. Too bad we have to live with these questionable rule changes for two years!

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2017, 12:19:10 AM »
I said it before and I'll say it again...since when did the pot size ever have any relevance to a betting round in no limit?

So, here's an example for you...

There's 35,000 in the pot. A bettor declares a bet of "five". Is it more reasonable that he's betting 5000 into a 35,000 pot, or betting 500 at it?

There's 2,500 in the pot. Bettor declares a bet of "five". Is it more reasonable that he's betting 5000 or 500 at a 2,500 pot?

That's the relevance of pot size as a gauge of which bet is more reasonable.

And here's the bottom line... TDs want a consistent standard of reasonableness if possible. If you don't like pot size then what do you like? Going back to requiring TDs make a separate decision in every questionable case won't be popular IF a consistent standard is readily available.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 12:23:58 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2017, 09:02:17 AM »
Mike, I don't believe that it is the responsibility of management or the floor, to question ANY legal amount wagered. As long as the player bets in turn, why complicate the situation? Make your intentions clear is far easier to correct, on the spot, rather than counting the pot! Whenever a player makes a questionable verbal bet or raise, it should be immediately challenged by the dealer. Stop the action and get the intended amount corrected before action continues

 I believe the TDA is complicating a situation that can be corrected by using a much simpler solution...like forcing the smaller bet instead of the largest based on pot size. I will also predict that this new rule will not be used after the 2019 Summit!