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.
chet:
Mike: Thanks and Thanks again to Nick for the links.
After listening to the discussion and Dave Lamb's summary I can support the concept of this rule. That said, I think the third sentence, which starts, "If a caller requests a count...is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.", can be clarified and shortened to read, "If a caller requests a count, receives incorrect information (from either a player or the dealer) and calls the incorrect bet or all-in, the caller is assumed to accept, and is responsible for, the correct bet or all-in amount."
The 1st, 2nd and 4th sentences are OK as is.
My cents worth on this subject.
Chet
Nick C:
Mike,
At 47 minutes 16 seconds of day 2, I spoke out about Accepted Action. When I completed what I had to say, Linda Johnson agreed with me. The rule was never changed from it's original unpopular form, as promised. I was the one person that voted against the proposal of adding Rule #1 in extreme circumstances, and if the vote were taken today I would still vote against it.
There were too many discussions going in too many directions and it was obvious that a select few decided on passing this most controversial rule.
The fact that Rule #1 was necessary to appease those that oppose Accepted Action is proof that the rule needs work. Rule #1 is automatically understood, and applied in any situation where fairness takes priority over technical rules.
The biggest issue, or problem was directed at the calling player that requests a count and is given the wrong information. These players need more protection than the current rule offers. If a calling player "insta calls" he deserves no protection and must be subjected to call whatever the actual bet amounts to. However, we are not speaking about these players. All arguments against the current rule were based on incorrect, unclear information given to the caller, either by the bettor or the dealer. Is this really in the best interest of the game? Of course it isn't.
MikeB:
--- Quote from: Nick C on July 14, 2012, 08:41:08 PM ---
There were too many discussions going in too many directions and it was obvious that a select few decided on passing this most controversial rule.
--- End quote ---
Who are these "select few"? There was only one dissenter to the final vote, the discussion on this topic ran longer than any other topic at the Summit.. eventually a vote had to be taken... this isn't a shy group of people, if there remained a reservoir of TDs who felt "railroaded" into this language, do you think for a second they wouldn't have spoke up and/or refused to vote for the compromise language? How many proposed rules died b/c a super-majority couldn't be obtained? Quite a few...
--- Quote from: Nick C on July 14, 2012, 08:41:08 PM ---
The fact that Rule #1 was necessary to appease those that oppose Accepted Action is proof that the rule needs work. Rule #1 is automatically understood, and applied in any situation where fairness takes priority over technical rules.
--- End quote ---
Actually there are specific reasons why Rule 1 was re-stated in this rule. At least two are mentioned on the tapes: a) to meet the needs of venues which want to have their own clarifying language, the rule 1 inclusion is the tie-in to that language; b) to clarify to the player who protests a reduction in the bet amount that indeed Rule 1 applies unmistakably... and of course probably the biggest reason c) to satisfy an overwhelming super-majority of all camps on the issue.
--- Quote from: Nick C on July 14, 2012, 08:41:08 PM ---
The biggest issue, or problem was directed at the calling player that requests a count and is given the wrong information. These players need more protection than the current rule offers.
--- End quote ---
It would be helpful for you to provide a specific example of a real or hypothetical case where you don't feel the rule as written has sufficient player protection.
At the moment there are at least two answers to this concern: a) Rule 1 provides the TD full latitude to implement any decision in the interest of "fairness and best interest of the game", and b) nothing in this rule precludes a specific house from having their own detailed clarifying language as at least one associate casino presented at the Summit... of course the use of their clarifying language will be based on Rule 1, so we're back to Rule 1 which is expressly confirmed in the rule.
Again I would cite Dave's summation of the rule just before the vote, something to the effect that... "... so, accepted action will be the general rule with language allowing for exceptions in extraordinary situations". IMO that pretty much sums up the functional use of the rule.
Nick, question... you say the rule should apply (and there's 100% agreement on this) in the case of "insta-calls"... what about those two examples I provided in my last post, would you allow the caller to win the entire amount of chips bet (and also be at risk of losing the entire amount), or parse both of those to a lesser amount despite the smallish discrepancies? Or would you have one amount if he wins and a different amount if he loses? Remember most situations with this rule involve relatively small disputed amounts...
It's great that everyone is sounding off on this, all of these opinions will find their way into the backgrounder for future review of the rule. BTW: Has anyone had an actual problem with this rule that they've not been able to arrive at an equitable ruling for a given situation?
Nick C:
Mike,
Let me first say that I feel the rule is not needed. You ask if there have been any problems with the existing rule but, no one can tell us why it was introduced.
I'll reply to your first example: 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. My answer: The requested count should be accurate. However, your example features an inaccurate amount, in the event the bettor who declared all-in wins the caller should only be liable for the stated amount. If the caller wins, the bettor must either; a.) lose the stated amount to the caller, with the extra chips removed from play, or b.) If the calling player has the correct amount covered, it goes to the caller because an all-in player that loses can not play another hand with those chips.
Mike, I guess if dealers were more dependable, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My feelings are based on the fact that if a bet is made, and there is a calling player, at some point the amount must be counted, correct? So why not get a handle on the accurate amount before the problem is created?
I'm not sure what I'm about to say will directly answer your questions but I will tell you this; If I am ever in a position to make a rule on an obvious misunderstanding as explained above, if the calling player asked for a count and was given the wrong information, he will only be liable for the least damaging amount. I see nothing wrong with asking the dealer, or the betting player what he bet. If the bettor refuses, then more time might be required to break down the stacks and get as close an estimate as possible.
The only time I would ever enforce the current rule (without Rule #1), is if the caller automatically calls without requesting the amount bet.
I don't know what else to say except. If a player goes all-in, by either pushing all of his chips forward, or saying all-in before any amount is spoken, he is all-in! The only way the all-in can play another hand with any of those chips (from his all-in bet) is if the calling player calls all-in with less, or the all-in bettor wins the pot.
There is much more from the summit on this subject than we mentioned on these posts.
If the bettor says the amount before his all-in declaration, e.g.,"100 all-in" and it is discovered that he has 200, his bet is 100.
Here's another link.........http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=610.15 This link suggests changes from most of the current active "posters" on this Forum.
K-Lo:
Here are my cents:
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
Can we have a third condition? When a bet is made, we simply determine if the caller asked the dealer for an exact count. If an exact count was given and neither the caller nor the bettor objected to the count, the count given would then be considered the amount of the wager. I think that this is also easily manageable.
Whenever the amount is slightly off, the dealer's count is deemed the new bet/call amount. If the dealer has not given an exact count, fine, revert back to the first option (the current AA rule).
I can understand the principle of the "chips speak" approach, so to speak, but I think it is too extreme. There is something about not being able to rely on the honest count of a dealer -- to which both parties have a chance to correct but did not -- which reeks of unfairness. For me, it fails the smell test.
--- Quote ---Actually there are specific reasons why Rule 1 was re-stated in this rule. At least two are mentioned on the tapes: a) to meet the needs of venues which want to have their own clarifying language, the rule 1 inclusion is the tie-in to that language; b) to clarify to the player who protests a reduction in the bet amount that indeed Rule 1 applies unmistakably... and of course probably the biggest reason c) to satisfy an overwhelming super-majority of all camps on the issue.
--- End quote ---
I can appreciate how the Rule 1 confirmatory language was included to accommodate the various venues. However, if there really was a wide range of opinions on how this AA rule would ultimately be enforced, then simply referring to Rule 1 to try to achieve consensus is, in my view, counterproductive. It ignores the primary principle and goal (that was also raised at the very beginning of the meeting): to try to increase consistency in rulings everywhere that the game is played. Unfortunately, the principles of 'maintaining flexibility' and 'increasing consistency' do not go hand-in-hand.
I think it is important to consider that readers of any new rule (especially new TDs and players who do not have the benefit of this background) are more inclined to interpret the rule strictly literally, saving "Rule 1" decisions for obscure and blatantly "out-of-the-box" situations. Therefore, I would much prefer aiming to get a rule, as written, as "enforceable" as possible without having to resort to additional house rules; it is important that the "default" rule be as correct and as fair as possible. A venue is always free to set house rules that override TDA rules; at least if they tell players explicitly that they are not following TDA in terms of a particular rule, that is more transparent than trying to justify certain decisions that are bound to be inconsistent with rulings made by other TDs elsewhere under the guise of Rule 1.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version