POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit

Review of Accepted Action language.

(1/6) > >>

Are any changes needed to the current Accepted Action language? See discussion of some of the issues at the following thread:

Before I an make an informed decision about whether changes are needed or not, I would like to know more about the history of why this rule was adopted.  I know that the WSOP had this or a similar rule in place for a year or two prior to being adopted by the TDA.  My question has to do with why?  What are some of the reasons presented at the last Summit.  It would be nice if someone could provide a brief statement of the Pros and Cons as presented last year. 

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend in 2011.  If someone can point me to the approximate time this discussion occurred, I can replay the recording and that might prove helpful as well.


Nick C:

 Try picking up the discussion at 4 hours and 25 minutes...*4 hours and 29 minutes takes you right there. Day 1

           Day 1       

             Day 2     (about 45 minutes in)  

Nick:  Thanks very much!!  It was very interesting.  I see there was a lot of discussion both pro and con, with a lot of time spent on whether the "loss" amount could be different than the "win" amount.  (For those members who have not seen or heard this discussion, it talks about player A who goes "all-in" and says he has 80K in chips (the dealer agrees).  The player B (who has A covered) says I call 80K.  Player A wins the hand and when they do a full count actually has 160K.  So is Player B liable for 80K or 160K?  What happens if Player B wins the hand, does A have to pay 80K or does he lose the full amount of the all-in and is busted.

However, all the discussion still does not explain to me why this rule was adopted in the first place by the WSOP.  There must have been a set of conditions that needed resolution but I have not seen or heard any discussion on that subject.  Until someone can explain to me why this rule exists, I am having a hard time deciding whether to support or oppose.

One other item, at one point someone brought up the WPT version of this rule.  I have been looking all over for it but I cannot find any reference,  do you have something?

Thanks Again,



--- Quote from: chet on July 14, 2012, 04:12:59 PM --- However, all the discussion still does not explain to me why this rule was adopted in the first place by the WSOP.  There must have been a set of conditions that needed resolution....
--- End quote ---

Chet, consider two conditions:
1: First condition is that everytime a bet is made by silent chip-push, or by "all-in" declaration, all of the chips bet are at risk. Whoever calls will win all of them if they have the best hand, and will pay them all off if they don't have the best hand.

2: Second condition is that everytime such a bet is made we try and determine to what extent the caller made an effort to determine the exact amount. The ideal situation is that the count was exact, but if it was off, then we have to decide how good the caller's effort was, etc. etc. and everytime we will adjust the amount of the bet based on our assessment of the caller's efforts.

Which of these two situations seems more manageable? The majority of miscounts are for "relatively modest" amounts... less than 10% and often by a percent or two. How is this best handled? By procedure 1 or procedure 2? Procedure 1 (the current AA language) says that the chips "bet themselves" so to speak. The bet is the amount of chips pushed (or all-in), the precise count we will try to get right, but the caller, if successful, will win all of them. Similarly, if the caller loses, he will pay them all off.

So, couple of examples:
A: Caller pushes all-in, count is requested "about 92K". Actual count is 98k, caller wins and caller wins the entire 98... caller loses, caller pays off 98k.
B: Caller pushes all-in, count is requested "about 92K". Caller asks the dealer to check... dealer counts "93.5K". Actual count is 98k, caller wins and caller wins the entire 98k... loses and pays off 98k.
This is the way the majority of these miscounts go. Do we want to parse everyone of these, seeing to what extent the caller tried to get the count exactly, reviewing what the bettor said, what the caller asked, what the dealer stated, how definitive was the language ("about" vs. "exactly"), etc... or do we want a blanket rule that covers them all: the caller can win all the chips, he will also have to cover all the chips if he loses. Accepted action language takes care of it all.

Now, this leaves the possible exception where there is a significant discrepancy to the point the TD determines "fairness and best interest of the game" may be impacted. That's what the Rule 1 language at the end of the rule is there for. Great summary of all of this, listen to Dave Lamb and related conversation starting around 1:17 of the Day 2 link Nick provided.... this is ultimately what the association agreed to by super majority... note at 1:20 when Linda Johnson asks for a vote, only one of the over 100 attendees dissented.  For me, Dave's summation is key, it is the best summary of the intent / purpose / application / and rare exceptions to the rule.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version