Author Topic: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?  (Read 2359 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
AA is typically seen as applying to a caller. Might it also in some cases apply to a bettor who assumes his stack has an all-in caller well-covered, but in fact doesn't?

And/or might it apply in a situation that appears to be "mutual acceptance of the action"...

Discussion of such a possible case can be found here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=940.msg8388#msg8388

IF SO, then is the current language sufficient to apply to these reverse and mutual situations, or is a language amendment / addition needed to clearly cover them?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 09:36:49 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: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2013, 04:18:20 PM »

Mike, I thought this might be a good way to start this thread. This is an old post from K-Lo:
   
Re: WSOP Ruling & a slight twist on "Accepted Action"
Reply #13 on: August 24, 2012, 06:47:26 PM
Reply with quote
I'm going to briefly revive this thread because I came across an interesting situation much like the one that I alluded to at the end of my original post, where all players flip their hands over because they believe there is no more action to come with a player all-in.

E.g.  NLH - A bets, B raises all-in, C calls B's all-in.  A then pushes the rest of his chips forward...but it looks like less than B's all-in (in reality A actually has more) ...  Everybody flips over their cards including C, because the dealer tells the table that B had A covered.  After A wins though, the dealer re-counts and finds that C actually owes "X" more. 

1.  Do you deem C to have called the all-in (i.e. everyone accepted that it was all-in situation) and direct him to pay A the difference?  Or does A only get the amount that C explicitly called?

2.  What happens if C says, "I didn't accept the all-in, I just exposed my cards to see what everyone would do.  The Rules say give me the option to call and redeal the board, penalize me for exposing my cards with action pending at the end of the hand if you want"... what would be your response?

To those who like the WSOP ruling (and I do, although I think we currently have to rely on Rule 1 to get there), maybe we do need an explicit rule that says something to the effect of: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be all-in situation, all players will be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting action had not yet, in fact, been completed.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2013, 09:24:18 PM »
Yes, the above is an example of the kind of situation.

For me I don't buy that C has the option to say he didn't call, he was just "exposing his cards"...

So then it comes down to whether this sort of situation does constitute mutual accepted action. As for who gets paid off what, for me I always ask "what would I award this guy?". IF, under mutual accepted action, I would pay him off X chips, then by the 1 to 1 rule which I feel is the essence of a poker bet, I'm going to rule that he also has to pay X chips if he loses.

Further, in general I don't like the idea that one loser pays X and the other loser pays Y, assuming they both have the winning bet covered.

If the amounts are egregious, then I have Rule 1 and the last sentence of 2013 TDA Rule 46 to guide a fair settlement.

Back to the question if some language is needed to expand AA slightly to cover these mutual AA and reverse AA situations, it looks worth considering. As to K-Los exact language, not sure if he means all players will be limited to what they have put out (i.e. their bets to that point will be considered all-in), or whether each will be considered all-in up to the full amount of their entire chipstacks still in front of them?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 09:27:00 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2013, 10:09:42 PM »
IF, under mutual accepted action, I would pay him off X chips, then by the 1 to 1 rule which I feel is the essence of a poker bet, I'm going to rule that he also has to pay X chips if he loses.

Further, in general I don't like the idea that one loser pays X and the other loser pays Y, assuming they both have the winning bet covered.

I do understand your point and position on the 1-1 aspect of a wager Mike, but I think you clearly lost that argument at the Summit.  I think you were outnumbered something like 100-1... ;) If anything, I think it is clearly now possible to have one person pay X and the other pay Y... Along similar lines as the new rule 54.

As to K-Los exact language, not sure if he means all players will be limited to what they have put out (i.e. their bets to that point will be considered all-in), or whether each will be considered all-in up to the full amount of their entire chipstacks still in front of them?

If everybody is continuing in the hand as if they were all all-in, then they are all all-in.  It should be as simple as that.  If they have to dig into chips not pushed forward to pay off an opponent with a better hand, so be it.  It is so much easier to treat the situation simply as if each individual player had declared all-in... And if they are continuing in the hand assuming that is the case, then I do not see any reason why it would be unfair to count out the stacks and award the payouts accordingly.

Thanks for finding that post, Nick.  I firmly believe that is the way to go.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2013, 11:19:25 PM »
If anything, I think it is clearly now possible to have one person pay X and the other pay Y... Along similar lines as the new rule 54.

Can you give an example of that?

It's quite a different issue than whether a hidden chip can be awarded to a caller but the caller not be obligated to pay it off...
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 11:20:51 PM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2013, 06:49:04 AM »
I was just teasing you Mike.  :)

Actually, I don't know off the top of my head where it makes sense other than the hidden chips situation.  To be clear, I do NOT think it applies to this mutually accepted all-in situation. I'll have to think about that one.  A few years ago, I had suggested that the different payout possibility could be applied to situations where the dealer gave an exact but incorrect count upon which a player relied, and that out of fairness, the player should only be held to lose the amount of that incorrect count of the dealer.  But I think I lost that battle, so I guess we are even. :)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 06:50:43 AM by K-Lo »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2013, 07:29:55 AM »
Ken,

 I have to say that, I agreed with you back then, when you wrote: " A few years ago, I had suggested that the different payout possibility could be applied to situations where the dealer gave an exact but incorrect count upon which a player relied, and that out of fairness, the player should only be held to lose the amount of that incorrect count of the dealer.  But I think I lost that battle, so I guess we are even. :)" ...And I still do.

 I was looking back at some of our posts, and I realize that many of those situations from long ago, are still causing problems. I always thought that it was strange how Accepted Action was never considered in the Bauman Koroknai debacle! Talk about accepted action...he didn't even know that Bauman made a 60,000 raise in front of him!!!!
What happened to...Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation? Unbelievable! That one will always be at the top of my list; for the greatest financial gain to any player that, should have been eliminated. Instead, he makes the final table, and walks away with at least $750,000  ::)

 Until the correct amounts are sorted out before board cards are turned, we will always have these discussions about bets and calls that don't match. At some point, the amounts must be confirmed. Why not double check them before any further action from the dealer?

 Reverse Accepted Action? I don't know for sure, but somehow, I don't think I'm gonna like that one either. :-\  
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 08:44:19 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Is amendment needed to Accepted Action rule to broaden application?
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2013, 08:49:56 AM »
I was just teasing you Mike.  :)

Actually, I don't know off the top of my head where it makes sense other than the hidden chips situation.  To be clear, I do NOT think it applies to this mutually accepted all-in situation. I'll have to think about that one.  A few years ago, I had suggested that the different payout possibility could be applied to situations where the dealer gave an exact but incorrect count upon which a player relied, and that out of fairness, the player should only be held to lose the amount of that incorrect count of the dealer.  But I think I lost that battle, so I guess we are even. :)



Ahh, okay and just for the record the vote was at least 98-2 if not narrower :) . So here I was thinking... let's see,

1) we can have one amount awarded if you win, but a different amount paid off if you lose... I've had enough trouble finding peace with that one (but actually have in my own "Rule 1" way).. but then to complicate it further
 
2) we can have one player winning/paying one amount and another player winning/paying a different amount??? Help me with that one....  Tease accepted!.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 08:57:48 AM by MikeB »