Author Topic: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"  (Read 1090 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2017, 12:26:00 PM »
Mike, I don't believe that it is the responsibility of management or the floor, to question ANY legal amount wagered.
Well that's the problem... "five" is not a legal amount.

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 continuesl

The problem with getting the "intended" amount is you now allow a player to take an incredible shot. There's 9,000 in the pot, I declare "five", get a read on my opponents, then you will come to the table and ask me if I intend 500 or 5,000. 

As for being easier and more consistent, you don't have to "count the pot", you just have to glance at it to determine if there's 5k or more in there. If so it's a bet of 5000, otherwise a bet of 500. Nobody has to be called to the table and neither the player or his opponents have a chance at a shot.

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.

The problem with the smaller bet is that there's a point at which it is not reasonable, at which it is much more likely not what the player intends. Also requiring the smaller bet in an obviously unreasonable situation starts feeling like over-control. If there's 35,000 in a pot and a player truly wants to bet only 500 this rule requires him to declare "five hundred" or put out 500 in chips.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2017, 07:05:58 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.

Mike, in both of your examples, assuming that the player knows the previous TDA Rules it is very reasonable that he bet 500.  If the player doesn't know the rules, it is very reasonable that other players at the table will know the rules and expect the bet to be ruled 500.  It is unreasonable to expect most players to know this new version of the rule.  I expect that there will be many objections and heated debates especially in the grey areas as I've described above as this rule takes effect.  I doubt that it will be implemented consistently.

You say the TD's want a consistent standard of reasonableness.  Players want a consistent and fair rule.  Making the unclear bet the lesser value is simple and consistent.  It is fair as it is the players responsibility to make their intentions clear.  I think it is a mistake for the TDA to define reasonable betting for cases of unclear betting.  It is best to make the bet the lesser value 99.5% of the time and use rule #1 if it's in the best interest of the game.  The new rule does not eliminate the TD's responsibility to make a separate decision in every questionable case.  Are we more interested in making the TD job easier or making a rule that players know, understand, and respect?  Regardless, this new rule will only make the TD job harder, IMO.

Mike, how would you handle this?

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?

Which is a better indicator of reasonableness:  bet sizes or pot sizes?

Regards,
B~

« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 07:24:32 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2017, 10:35:48 AM »
Obviously different standards of reasonableness have been expressed in this thread.

And hopefully all the historical background, pros, and cons of the rule have been explored.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 02:40:22 PM 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 #18 on: September 09, 2017, 02:26:30 PM »
Bill, Perfect example...this is when the "kiss" rule should apply: Keep It Simple Stupid!!! ;)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 06:45:54 AM »
Obviously different standards of reasonableness have been expressed in this thread.

And hopefully all the historical background, pros, and cons of the rule have been explored.

Mike, you continue to focus on defining more clearly reasonableness.  You seem to be discounting the fact that the rule also changed how a bet that can reasonably have multiple meanings is ultimately ruled.

An unclear bet can be either:
a) reasonably the smaller bet
b) reasonably the larger bet
c) reasonably have multiple meanings (both smaller and larger)

The rule doesn't speak to either a) or b).  This is truly unfortunate as I believe that most unclear bets, which technically have multiple meanings, most often is reasonably either a) or b) and not c).  It is rare that an unclear bet has reasonably multiple meanings - type c).  The wording of this rule does not distinguish bets of type a), b), and c).  It does not distinguish technical versus reasonable meaning.  By definition, the rule affects only unclear bets that are reasonably both smaller and larger.  The change is in no way a clarification of reasonableness.  The change is only how unclear bets of type c) are to be adjudicated - they are always ruled a larger bet when the pot is larger (even though it is reasonable that the player had intended the smaller bet) and always ruled a smaller bet when the pot size is not quite big enough to be considered a large bet (even though it is reasonable that the player had intended the larger bet).  As Nick has said, that is a punishment that is unwarranted.

Regards,
B~
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 04:30:09 PM by BillM16 »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2017, 07:48:33 PM »

An unclear bet can be either:
a) reasonably the smaller bet
b) reasonably the larger bet
c) reasonably have multiple meanings (both smaller and larger)


Here are some points on the above.  Please add your measures of reasonableness to these factors:

a) Reasonably the smaller bet:

  • The bet made is actually a raise and the smaller amount is a full raise
  • Recent bet sizes have been nearer the smaller amount
  • The bettor has fewer chips than the larger bet amount
  • The pot size is less than the larger bet amount
b) Reasonably the larger bet:

  • The bet is actually a raise and the smaller bet amount is not a full raise
  • Recent bet sizes have been of the larger bet amount or very nearly so
  • The pot size is more than the larger bet amount
  • The bettor has more chips than the larger bet amount

c) Reasonably both, could be either the smaller or the larger bet:
  • The bettor is a novice and has little knowledge about reasonable betting amounts
  • The bet is an initial bet for this round and little of the above is a factor
  • The blinds and antes have just increased and little of the above is a factor

« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 07:56:23 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2017, 09:24:41 PM »
Obviously different standards of reasonableness have been expressed in this thread.

And hopefully all the historical background, pros, and cons of the rule have been explored.

Mike, you continue to focus on defining more clearly reasonableness.  You seem to be discounting the fact that the rule also changed how a bet that can reasonably have multiple meanings is ultimately ruled.


Don't think I've avoided that fact, just trying to explain the history of the rule and how it evolved to the present wording.

There are actually 3 important issues: legality of a bet, reasonableness of a bet, and consistency of ruling. And seen that way it's pretty simple:

1: Legality. NLHE 250-500. 18,000 in the pot. Player declares "five". Both 500 and 5,000 are legal bets.

2: Reasonableness: The 2013 and 2015 instructed TDs to rule the lesser of, 500 in this case, unless it wasn't a reasonable bet under the circumstances. TDs were clearly not all on the same page as to how to interpret reasonableness. Some thought 500 unreasonably low here, some thought it "low but legal" while others just always ruled "the lesser of". Reason: "reasonableness" was left in the 2013 and 2015 language to be at TDs discretion.

3: Consistency: As discussed in #2 above, the 2013 and 2015 language resulted in inconsistent rulings.

SO, options:
1: Always the lesser. This is consistent, it's legal, but it reaches a point for a super-majority of Summit attendees where it just isn't reasonable.

2: Leave it up to the TD: This is legal, it's reasonable, but it isn't consistent.

3: Adopt a reasonableness benchmark such as "the highest amount that's covered by the pot". In the example, an 18,000 pot covers a 5,000 bet, It's at better than 3 to 1 odds, and is the bet size most likely to be made the vast majority of the time. It's legal, it's consistent, and it's reasonable.  Keep in mind it was proposed in 2015 and has been trialed at the WSOP for some time without major problems. Of course it will be re-visited in 2019.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 09:26:13 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2017, 07:27:19 AM »
Hey Mike,

Part of the problem is the wording of the rule.  It does not say if a declared bet can legally have multiple meanings.  As I've indicated above, there are three situations and the most rare is the bet that can reasonably have multiple meanings.  It is common for an unclear bet to have multiple legal meanings.  It is also common that an unclear bet with multiple legal meanings to be either the smaller amount reasonably or to be the larger amount reasonably.  It is uncommon for a bet with multiple legal meanings to be fair and sensible as both the smaller and the larger bet equally (i.e., a declared bet with reasonably multiple meanings).

Furthermore, if the TDA is to provide guidance for consistently ruling with fair and sensible reasoning, it should do so for both the smaller and the larger legal meaning.

Regards,
B~
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 08:47:28 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2017, 09:05:27 AM »

Furthermore, if the TDA is to provide guidance for consistently ruling with fair and sensible reasoning, it should do so for both the smaller and the larger legal meaning.

The standard in the current language "the highest reasonable amount less than the pot size" is the guidance. It automatically shifts from the smaller to larger value when the pot size covers the next higher increment.

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 #24 on: September 13, 2017, 01:29:03 PM »
Isn't it easier to just freeze the action and get the intended wager amount from the bettor? If not...I'd rather revert to the smaller amount, and forget the pot size.

Steff0111

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2017, 11:51:22 PM »
We have this whole discussion about the rule, because the players declare it unclear!
Why just "five..!" ??? Because it is cool or what?

Train the players to make it clear. So take always the smaller amount and players will learn!
You do not need the TD all the time!
It is easy to understand!
Players will learn!

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 #26 on: September 14, 2017, 06:51:35 AM »
Hi Steff, not sure there is any special reason that "five" (hundred, thousand, or million!) is used, just an original example that was used. It's nice to hear your opinion, especially when you agree with the responding majority! ;)

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2017, 09:30:15 AM »
I am not sure the new rule makes sense to me, but the ratio bet to pot at some point does make sense.  In the example of $500 in a $5,000 $10,000 pot (20% of the pot)is not as a compelling to me as $500 in $25,000 pot where then the rule makes more sense...
I see the "old way" of forcing a call of $500 as a warning, a lesson for the player to be clear next time.  I think it will be interesting to see what happens at the next rule meeting in two years if the a topic back on the docket to be reversed.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 12:36:27 PM by Max D »
Max D

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 #28 on: September 14, 2017, 09:49:49 AM »
Hi Max,

 It probably will be changed but why do we have to suffer from this rule for two years?

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2017, 12:23:39 PM »
Hey Nick,

There is always "house rules"

Max
Max D