Author Topic: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule  (Read 2956 times)

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« on: December 28, 2013, 09:23:52 AM »
I'm putting this up for debate:

If a player announces "RAISE" followed by an amount X, X should be deemed the TOTAL amount of the wager unless the player explicitly verbalizes "X more" or an equivalent declaration when the raise was first announced.

There is currently no default when there is ambiguity as to whether an amount is to represent the total wager or the raise increment.  I'd like to see something concrete in the rules to this effect.

For instance, blinds are 300/600.  Player announces "RAISE 1200".  This should be interpreted as "raise to a total of 1200".  If the player wanted to raise to 3x the BB, he must announce "RAISE 1200 more" (or "Raise [to] 1800").

One issue that would need to be worked out is what happens when the verbal declaration is accompanied by the pushing in of chips that does not agree with the default amount:  e.g. the player announces "Raise 1200" and now the player pushes in 1800.  Currently, I would probably let this go as a raise to 1800 as the wagered amount is no longer ambiguous - but problems arise when there is a material delay between the announcement and the player pushing in the chips.  Therefore, in general I think it would be better to have a default rule, and to stick with it.

Thoughts?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2013, 12:20:01 PM »
Good topic. It was on the preliminary list for Summit VI, can't recall offhand whether it made it to the Summit floor or not?

Definitely worthwhile for Summit VII

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2013, 02:11:04 PM »
I don't disagree with K-Lo, but I would prefer that we require the verbal amount to be the total amount of the RAISE. 

A couple of reasons why I feel this is preferable:

1.  If player says "Raise 1,200" that is a definitive statement and the stated amount is a clarification of the word "Raise".  In the example, that K-Lo provided, I would then hold the player to a total of 1,800.

2.  Since we allow a player who says "Raise", to put the chips for the call in the first motion and then go back to his stack with a single second motion to put the chips for the raise, I think it makes it much easier for the dealer and everyone else to be able to identify the amount of chips pushed forward.  Again using K-Lo's example, the first motion would have to be 600 (the call amount) and the second motion would have to be 1,200 (the raise amount).

That said, I can support K-Lo's position as being better than what we have now.

Chet

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2013, 03:09:46 PM »
Thanks, Chet.  The interesting thing is that "Raise 1,200" should mean a "raise of 1,200 more/on top" because... that's what it is by definition.

What's problematic is that many players actually say "Raise" ... <pause to think without moving chips>.... "1,200", and the pause makes it sound like 1,200 total.  In fact, I think this is the more common usage.

It's hard to make a rule that accounts for the pause (I think), which makes me feel we should define the default as one or the other.  I'm leaning towards the total being the default because it's the lesser action, frankly.  But I could also go with Chet's suggestion as well.


chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2013, 04:57:09 PM »
Ken:

I don't play as much anymore and I am 100% sure you are more "up to date" with the current "more common usage", than I.  I can only go back to what I think was "common usage" when Christopher Columbus and I were talking poker on the Mayflower after leaving GB  ;D

A discussion of both possibilities at the next Summit would be extremely interesting.  Maybe it would bring the discussion to the forefront with as much fervor as has the "First Card Off" rule. 

However, I suspect it would be as much a serious victim of of selective enforcement as I have seen with First Card Off.  At my local card room, I had one floor person tell me that he had no intention of killing a regular's hand because he was "on his way, but not "at his seat".
I don't play there much anymore since I am not, never have been and never will be a "regular".

Those are the people, in my not so humble opinion, that we don't need.  However, the chances of getting rid of this person are somewhere between zero and less.

Hee hee hee hee

Chet

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2013, 10:19:15 AM »
Good points!  I like the thought of this being standardized one way or the other as well.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2013, 10:23:45 AM »
To All:

 I think this is covered in the new TDA Rule #38 B: Player's should wait for clear bet amounts before acting....

When a player says raise, it should "freeze" the action until there is clarification.

Years ago, when "limit" was the main game, it was much easier because the bets were fixed amounts. Today, with no-limit and pot limit, saying raise just isn't enough. Player's will need to learn that acting before bets and raises (in front of them) are complete, could cause them to lose a lot more than they wanted to invest..or, in some cases elimination from the tournament.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 10:28:14 AM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2013, 09:42:33 PM »
I'm going to post a related scenario in the questions section.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2013, 10:09:10 PM »
Follow up... going by vague recollections here....

1. In the weeks leading up to the Summit, there was not a clear consensus one way or the other as to whether "Raise .... One Thousand" meant a raise of 1000 more, or a raise to 1000 total

AND

2. A fair number of TDs wanted to leave it up to a consideration of all the factors in a given case... almost as though they didn't want a fixed rule. BTW, this position could be accommodated with language such as: "In the absence of evidence to the contrary... the total amount of the raise will be...."
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 12:31:20 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2013, 07:02:19 AM »
Hi Mike,

 "In absence of evidence to the contrary?" Really? What road scholars are you hanging out with? ;D I can see our floorpersons going over to a table and reciting that one...

 When a player says raise, any opposing fool that assumes they know the amount, will suffer the consequences. The consequences could mean the use of the dreaded Accepted Action Rule ::)

 Mike, I really prefer language that me and my simple minded friends can understand. i.e. When a player announces that he is raising...freeze the action until the amount is confirmed, or you will be held accountable.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2013, 09:01:43 AM »
The other option, I suppose, is that when a player says "raise" and then announces an amount (e.g. 1000), the action is not complete until the amount is "confirmed" by putting chips into the pot totalling the intended amount of the raise.

That would seem like giving the player a chance to decide on how much to wager based on a read obtained on his or her opponent.

E.g. Blinds are 2000-4000.  "Raise".... "15000".... Player then puts 15000 total chips in. 
E.g. Blinds are 2000-4000.  "Raise".... "15000".... Same player then puts 19000 total chips in.

To me, it does not make sense that the same two verbal statements should mean the same thing.  The player also should not have the opportunity to adjust the size of the wager, after a verbal declaration of an amount, by putting in more or less chips.  Unless we are prepared to ask for clarification along the lines of "Do you mean raise 15000 more or raise to 15000 total?"  every time a player makes a similar verbal declaration, I think it makes sense to have a default interpretation.  The least harmful default interpretation would be the lesser of the two possibilities (i.e. to X total).

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Suggestion for clarification to raising rule
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2013, 10:10:38 AM »
I think it makes sense to have a default interpretation.  The least harmful default interpretation would be the lesser of the two possibilities (i.e. to X total).

Plus it meshes well with Oversized Chip rule.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter