Poll

Watch video then vote either fair bet of 3 stacks or string bet

Fair bet
3 (37.5%)
String bet
5 (62.5%)

Total Members Voted: 8

Voting closed: November 09, 2013, 09:53:22 AM

Author Topic: Poll: EPT London Case> Changes needed to bet rules and use of video for rulings  (Read 6188 times)

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Oh, don't get me wrong...I too find this one iffy.  I was about 70% sure he was going for that 3rd stack and not just fumbling into it...not 100%.  Also the camera never shows his face so I can't really see if he is looking for information while doing it.  It clearly falls into the realm of string bet of iffy intent.

My comments were made to open conversation regarding video footage, the additional information we can gain from it, and how it can possibly change the current standard of rulings.

My thoughts on video to make calls:  Are all tables going to have the same footage?  If not, are we giving an advantage/disadvantage to players who play at the televised tables?  Is that fair to the whole field?  Also, can we afford to stop the clock for situations?

The cost is too high imo, but I think if you are going to do it, it should have the same type of coverage for all of the tables in play.

The chips coming button is an interesting idea.  What about the thought of rfid chips?  Probably cheaper than cameras in the long run and can clear up a lot of betting issues.

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Tristan,

 Forgive me but,  What about the thought of rfid chips?  I don't understand.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Tristan:

Please clarify how RFID chips are going to help clarify if a betting action is a string bet or not.  I know what they are, but unless the table "RFID reader" is activated only if the chips cross a certain point in front of the player (Is this implementing a defacto betting line?), how does this help identify a string bet?

Chet

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Nick - RFID chips have a microchip in them, so when you place a stack of chips in the appropriate location (over an rfid reader), it tells you how much is there.

Chet - They may not.  Maybe not the right spot to bring it up, but since we were talking about questionable betting and involving new tech more...it just made me think about it.  Not sure if it would solve problems or create more...just was thinking out loud. 
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Tristan:

 :)

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Tristan...thanks, didn't know that.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
Final week for voting in this poll... please get your vote in. You do not need to post on this thread in order to vote. Thanks!

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
I appear to be in the minority, but after looking at the video and listening to the description/discussion between the floor persons, I agree with the decision of the floor.  He definitely starting his betting action by moving 3 stacks.  Granted the 3rd stack did not move very far, but it did move forward before it "dropped" off his thumb.  I agree with the decision that his is not a string bet.

In my opinion the whole thing depends upon whether he started the original action by moving 2 or 3 stacks.  It is clear to me that the 3rd stack moved forward, albeit only a little.  Had that 3rd stack not moved, I would then rule it a string bet, but move it did.

Chet

Added the following:

Personally, I would like to see a rule requiring all raises to be verbally declared including the total amount of the bet.  However, I am not real sure this is a practical rule.  What do you do if the players do not speak the language of the event?  I know that if I were to attend an event in most all of Europe/Asia/etc., I would be at a disadvantage because I am one of those "English Only" folks.  So I think we can propose all kinds of rules to resolve a multitude of problems, but they may not be practical in the "real world".
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 08:27:02 AM by chet »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Chet,

 I see nothing wrong with your suggestion: "Personally, I would like to see a rule requiring all raises to be verbally declared including the total amount of the bet." It has always been a rule for player's to make their intentions clear, whatever language they speak. It should be simple enough for a bettor to either push the complete amount forward, or translate the amount to the dealer. We already have rules that suggest; the calling player should wait until the bet, or raise amounts are established. What's wrong with waiting for a dealer confirmation before the next player acts?  Failure to wait for clarification of the wagered amount, when facing a bet, is where all the problems begin.                        
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 06:18:46 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
So the vote is 5 to 3 in favor of declaring the action in the video a string bet.... also there's some very worthwhile ideas here on the subject of use of video-replay where available. Many thanks to Neil Johnson for sharing this case, and to everyone who participated in the discussion and poll.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 12:03:30 AM by MikeB »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
As a member of the "string bet" camp, there are two issues here that I find most compelling:

1) To the idea that this is a legitimate bet of 3 stacks because Player C initially nudged 3 stacks, therefore establishing intent to bet all 3, here's the problem: based on the initial nudge of stack 3, would you force player C to go back and push stack 3 out if he had brought his hand to rest after pushing out the first 2 stacks? If the answer is no, which I think it should be, then IMO you can't use "intent" to justify this as a legit bet of 3 stacks. If you're going on intent, then if he brought his hand to rest after putting out the first 2, you would have to rule that he must go back and fetch the 3rd stack because he nudged it initially. Since stack 3 remained virtually in contact with his unbet chipstacks I think a ruling forcing him to go back for it would have been met with alot of criticism.

2) How do you rule when the next player bets like this? And the next? Obviously this is an intolerable betting gesture and any TD would quickly put a stop to it.  Betting and raising is the essence of poker, in fact it is the largest single category of TDA Rules. The best time to stop a non-standard betting method is the first time it occurs.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 01:46:09 PM by MikeB »