Author Topic: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"  (Read 1062 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • 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 #30 on: September 15, 2017, 02:55:47 PM »
Yes, Max...I use my house rules all the time, I just don't like it when they're always so different from the TDA! ::)

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2017, 08:22:31 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.

IMO: It is not fair and sensible to rule an unclear bet of 5 as 500 or 5000 based upon a pot size of 4900 and 5000 respectively.  The two pots are nearly the same size and yet the two rulings are very different.  When a rule is unreasonable it is unlikely to be applied consistently.  The problem gets even worse at 5000 and 500,000 or 5,000,000.

My previous post suggested an initial list of reasonable factors that could be used.     


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 16, 2017, 08:24:37 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2017, 10:49:00 AM »
So it's not lost in this conversation:

1. Initially, beginning in 2011, the Association trialed the standard of "it's always the lower amount".

2. By 2013 it was recognized that "always the lower amount" is not "always reasonable". If you are hoping to return to always the lower amount, that's probably not going to happen. However, in 2013 exactly what is reasonable was left up to TDs discretion.

3. By 2015, the Association began debating standards of reasonableness that could be used instead of leaving it up to TDs discretion in every case. There was a very substantial discussion of these options at the 2015 Summit. Two main themes emerged: pot size and prior bet increments. Because this was a new topic arising from the floor in 2015, neither were formally adopted but under the language an individual house could use them.

4. Prior to the 2017 Summit, the WSOP formally adopted pot size as it's consistent standard of reasonableness.

5. At the 2017 Summit the topic was debated at length over 2 days. Building on the discussions of 2015, a super-majority of attendees was very interested in adopting a formal standard of reasonableness that could be used consistently; i.e. that would not require TD discretion in every case. Further, no significant problems were reported by those houses using pot size.

6. This is key: There was much debate on this subject. Arguments pro and con of every sort were presented including every concern on this thread. The history and purpose of the rule was revisited. Discussion stretched over two days... When the smoke cleared, a very clear super-majority voted for the current language.

Now, it will be revisited in 2019 and all experiences will be shared. Based on everything I've seen in 2015 and 2017 it would seem very unlikely that the Association would return to "always the lower amount". Anything's possible but the TDA has been slowly moving away from that since 2013. So if you're anxious to re-write the rule, it's probably advisable to come up with something besides "always the lower amount" or "every case will be interpreted by TDs discretion".
« Last Edit: September 17, 2017, 11:20:07 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • 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 #33 on: September 17, 2017, 07:41:51 PM »
Okay, Mike, you say that the New Rule probably wont go back to the lower amount...how about reverting to TDA Rule #2 (in part) Players Responsibilities....make your intentions clear! That's it! Forcing any player to put ten times their intended amount into the pot serves no sensible resolution to "an unclear bet." Forcing any player to unwillingly concede their entire stack to an opponent, either the unclear bettor or the calling player, accomplishes nothing more than distributing a windfall of chips to the undeserving winner!

 I also realize that Jack Effel (WSOP) is influential in decision making at the recent Summits since his addition to the Board Of Directors. That's fine. However, he has never participated in any discussion on this Forum...never. Why do the TDA decision makers  insist on adopting rules of the WSOP or the WPT or any other Tournament? Coming up with reasonable solutions to some of our existing rules that "need attention" makes a whole lot more sense than creating a new "controversial" rule!

 One more point I'd like to make. I see very little evidence that feedback from The Discussion Forum has anything to do with rule changes at the Summit. The fact that 50% of the participants are within a 100-mile radius of Las Vegas unfairly overrides member participation throughout the years. I would like to attend every TDA Summit but unfortunately, I have been unable to attend again since my last trip in 2011.

 Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Failure to comply... First offense: A warning! Second offense: A slap in the back of the head...Third offense: the dreaded new TDA Rule!

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2017, 09:55:14 PM »
Okay, Mike, you say that the New Rule probably wont go back to the lower amount...how about reverting to TDA Rule #2 (in part) Players Responsibilities....make your intentions clear! That's it! Forcing any player to put ten times their intended amount into the pot serves no sensible resolution to "an unclear bet." Forcing any player to unwillingly concede their entire stack to an opponent, either the unclear bettor or the calling player, accomplishes nothing more than distributing a windfall of chips to the undeserving winner!

Well Nick, as usual it looks like you spent little time contemplating prior replies. So let's review... 1) a player is only "forced" to pay the higher amount when the lower amount is not reasonable. Do you honestly consider a bet of "five" at a pot of 18,000 to logically and reasonably be a bet of 500 not 5000? This is what the hard-working TDs who actually contribute to the Summit found objectionable in practice under the original rule and have been debating since 2013.

Secondly, as I mentioned several posts back, the worst option is to do as you suggest and allow the player to decide what he wants to bet... 500 or 5000 based on reads he gets after announcing "five". Not to mention the time it takes to stop and have the guy clarify.

I also realize that Jack Effel (WSOP) is influential in decision making at the recent Summits since his addition to the Board Of Directors. That's fine. However, he has never participated in any discussion on this Forum...never. Why do the TDA decision makers  insist on adopting rules of the WSOP or the WPT or any other Tournament? Coming up with reasonable solutions to some of our existing rules that "need attention" makes a whole lot more sense than creating a new "controversial" rule!
Nobody in the TDA... nobody... insists on adopting rules of any major tour. In case you haven't followed the history of the Association, one of the main benefits is to help standardize conflicting rules from one house to the other and by definition that means that some houses prevailed on one rule and had to concede on others. And many rules were proposed by representatives from small and mid-size tours or emerged spontaneously from the floor. However it is an obvious fact that a large tour provides a "proving ground" of sorts to trial a new rule. What on Earth do you find objectionable about that?

One more point I'd like to make. I see very little evidence that feedback from The Discussion Forum has anything to do with rule changes at the Summit. The fact that 50% of the participants are within a 100-mile radius of Las Vegas unfairly overrides member participation throughout the years. I would like to attend every TDA Summit but unfortunately, I have been unable to attend again since my last trip in 2011.
As the saying goes "you see what you want to see" and before we accept your assertions as fact:
1: Looking at actual live attendees, delegates from 34 countries attended the 2017 Summit. TDs from 29 U.S. States attended. The actual percentage from the entire state of Nevada was 26% of total attendance. And it's a real insult to our great membership from Nevada to assert that they all think alike and "override" the rest of the world. Further, of the 7 active Directors, only two are from Nevada.

2: As for feedback from the forum impacting Summit agenda, look no further than the 177 formal suggestion threads over the 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 Summits. The suggestion threads from this Forum are a primary source of input for Summit topics. Not to mention direct e-mails, suggestions via the Summit suggestion boxes, the pre-Summit surveys, and of course player concerns expressed directly to the attending TDs. There's probably no industry Summit that has more widespread range of input than what the TDA collects.

3: In addition to live attendees, at any one time dozens of people participated in the Summit online and their voice was heard. That option was open for you if you can't attend live.

Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Make your intentions clear! Failure to comply... First offense: A warning! Second offense: A slap in the back of the head...Third offense: the dreaded new TDA Rule!
So what if you warn or punish them, you still have to determine what the bet is. Your solution seems to be to ask them to clarify their bet... and that opens up for an obvious angle... not a solution that's likely to get any traction.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 11:43:10 PM by MikeB »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2017, 08:52:08 AM »
I agree that merely asking a player to clarify is not a great option, but what is done if a player verbalizes something which is completely unclear?

But to the topic at hand, was the option to use the chips as a guide to determining the player's intention ever mentioned? If not, why not?

If so, I'd assume there is still the problem of a player announcing a vague bet, and not putting any chips in. In that case, ask him to put his chips in, and then use the chips as the clarifying factor. Sure, that may give the player the ability to read the reaction of the other players, but more likely, the player won't realize that he has, in effect, been given the chance to change his bet by a factor of 10. Up OR down as the case may be...

I agree that this isn't the ideal solution either, but something to think about.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • 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 #36 on: September 19, 2017, 12:07:23 PM »
Mike,

 First I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond with such a thorough answer. I have every intention to reply to your post when I have a little more time. For now, I'd like to address the biggest problem that I have with the new rule: The minimum bet has always been determined to be the size of the BB...So why is it so unusual to declare that an announced bet of "five" cannot be a 500 bet into a 50,000 pot? I don't think the pot size should have anything to do with the minimum legal bet size. I also remember a discussion on this forum from years ago when some members were trying to define a "check" as a bet of zero!

 If your wish is to change the "min" bet from the size of the BB to ten percent of the pot size, go for it! Beyond that, I say leave it the way it always was and force the dumbass players to learn the basics of poker 101. Say what you mean and make your wager amount clear. Forcing unwanted bet and raise amounts is wrong and I can never agree with it, as written.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2017, 10:24:26 PM »
I agree that merely asking a player to clarify is not a great option, but what is done if a player verbalizes something which is completely unclear?
For completely unclear, Rule 40-A applies: determine the bet based on circumstances and Rule 1 which could include asking player for clarification.
But to the topic at hand, was the option to use the chips as a guide to determining the player's intention ever mentioned? If not, why not?
Absolutely, chips would be considered "clarifying information" for purposes of Rule 57. Of course as long as the chips are before or reasonably simultaneous with the verbal declaration.
If so, I'd assume there is still the problem of a player announcing a vague bet, and not putting any chips in. In that case, ask him to put his chips in, and then use the chips as the clarifying factor. Sure, that may give the player the ability to read the reaction of the other players, but more likely, the player won't realize that he has, in effect, been given the chance to change his bet by a factor of 10.
That's always an option under Rule 1, but players can be very creative and use such an opening to advantage. Moreover without a consistent standard then you have the problem of all the other players at the table protesting: A) that the guy was given the "option" as to how much he's betting and B) disagreeing with the amount, whichever is finally determined. The desired goal, if possible is a standard that's legal, reasonable, and consistent.

One other issue not mentioned in the thread is that by holding players always to the lower amount you end up intervening on the low side the vast majority of the time and hence "robbing" a player of what was most likely his bet. For example, at an 18K pot, 5000 is a far more likely bet than 500 when a player declares "five". By playing gotcha and insisting the player only put in 500, a ridiculous 36-to-1 odds bet far more than not the initial rule was depriving players of their true intended bet which they declared too casually, and it enabled opponents to stay in the hand who would normally have gotten out for the more reasonable higher amount.

Thanks for the discussion.

Max D

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2017, 12:42:26 PM »
If we stay we that rule, maybe in a couple years rather than "the highest reasonable amount" we can tweak it to be a combination of reasonable amount and % or ratio of the pot/bet?.  I think the example in the rules to force a player to bet 5,000 in a 5,100 pot does not feel like a "reasonable amount".
Max D

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2017, 01:32:20 PM »
...  I think the example in the rules to force a player to bet 5,000 in a 5,100 pot does not feel like a "reasonable amount".
While I agree, at what arbitrary point does 'reasonableness' switch sides?

And a I hinted, that point really is arbitrary.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • 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 #40 on: September 21, 2017, 01:44:17 PM »
Seems like a big waste of time to me. I don't understand why players can't be taught to say what they mean, or there is no bet... make their unclear action a check. There is far too much time spent on another controversial new TDA rule! Since when is it the duty of the TD or the floor, or the dealer to reprimand a player for betting what they perceive to be too small of a bet? ::)

 Every day, in cardrooms all across the country, there are huge pots that are created from relatively small blinds. Common cash games begin with $1 & $2 blinds. Even the higher limit games (tournaments, too) develop very large pots in proportion to the blinds. My point is: Forcing a player to a 5,000 bet when he said "five" just because there is 18K in the pot is ridiculous! We, as rule makers, are dabbling into uncharted territory. Questioning why a player would make a min bet, or even check, in certain situations is a tactic that belongs to each and every individual poker player...not the floor! I see no benefit to anyone under this new rule. ???

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2017, 09:54:19 PM »
Seems like a big waste of time to me. I don't understand why players can't be taught to say what they mean, or there is no bet... make their unclear action a check.

Thanks Nick. So here are your suggestions so far:

1: Always make the bet the lowest legal amount (the 2011 language)
2: Allow the player to choose his bet amount after he's made the declaration;
3: Rule the action a check

Any others?

Note that the 2013 and 2015 language clearly indicates that the lowest legal amount is not always reasonable. And the only thing you absolutely resist doing is adopting a consistent standard where the bet is always ruled the same amount under the 2013 and 2015 language that requires reasonableness. Your suggestion #1 is not reasonable per 2013 and 2015, Suggestion #2 will obviously not be consistent and opens up a major angle; and Suggestion #3 isn't not likely to fly because the player has acted aggressively and you're not going to get a majority to consider that a check.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 10:04:32 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • 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 #42 on: September 22, 2017, 12:00:07 AM »
Mike, I'll steal one of your recent replies to my thoughts: "Well, Nick, as usual, it looks like you spent little time contemplating prior replies." Well, Mike, it looks like you omitted my most important suggestion; The players MUST make their intentions clear, and yes, any, of the other three that you listed are better than the one you settled on.
 I don't like the new rule. In fact, there are quite a few I don't care for. I believe discussing the rules is what this Forum is for. What I don't appreciate is being verbally ridiculed just because I don't agree with you. To say that I spend little time contemplating prior replies is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Especially when you consider I have more hours and more posts on this Forum than the whole board of directors combined! You might not like to hear from me but I've played this game and loved it for about sixty years. I've seen great improvements in the technical changes but I don't care for rule changes that take away from the pure fun of the game.
Nick Ciavarella

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Rule 57 "Less than" or "less than or equal to"
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2017, 12:32:16 AM »
Mike, I'll steal one of your recent replies to my thoughts: "Well, Nick, as usual, it looks like you spent little time contemplating prior replies." Well, Mike, it looks like you omitted my most important suggestion; The players MUST make their intentions clear, and yes, any, of the other three that you listed are better than the one you settled on.

1: Your suggestion that "players make their intentions clear" is irrelevant... the problem is the player has NOT made their intention clear, so I answered this for you several posts back... when they don't make their intentions clear we need a consistent rule. So don't repeat "players have to make their intentions clear"... it's irrelevant to the subject.

2: And "I" didn't settle on the current rule.. the ENTIRE TDA DID. And this Forum is for discussing the TDA Rules as they are, and how they are to be applied...  not endless disagreements with them.

I don't like the new rule. In fact, there are quite a few I don't care for. I believe discussing the rules is what this Forum is for.
So that begs the question, why are you spending time on the forum of an organization you don't agree with? The TDA is a democracy... when the majority vote something in, that's what we live with. I personally presented some counter-discussion at the Summit to the adopted language... but at the end of the day I understand the logic behind the adopted rule, and I'm fine with it. The Association can and will review it in 2019. But I don't characterize the rule as "terrible" and say "I have to suffer with this rule", and all the other histrionics in this thread...those aren't constructive.

What I don't appreciate is being verbally ridiculed just because I don't agree with you.
It's not a question of agreeing with me, Nick. It's the rule adopted by the Association, after very lengthy debate in 2015 and 2017. Debate that includes all of the concerns on this thread and then some.
To say that I spend little time contemplating prior replies is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  Especially when you consider I have more hours and more posts on this Forum than the whole board of directors combined!
You might not like to hear from me but I've played this game and loved it for about sixty years. I've seen great improvements in the technical changes but I don't care for rule changes that take away from the pure fun of the game.
Well maybe you find a player declaring "five" at an 18k pot to be fun. The super majority of TDs in attendance at the last two Summits disagree with you and worked hard to find a functional rule they can apply consistently in practice.


« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 12:42:19 AM by MikeB »