Errors in bet series: should an under-raise be corrected to the full amount?

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

NLH blinds 200-400 - 5 players at flop

A checks
B  Open 900
C raises 2100
D reraises 3600
E calls
A folds
B reraises 4900 (error: it should be at least 5100 but nobody noticed it)
C folds
D reraises 6200 (error on error it should be now at least 6600 by addition)
E stops everything and call for floor: He just realised the errors and would like to know if the amounts will be frozen or changed?

1) Is that "Accepted action" by C+D who added here some "substential action" with their fold+raise?
Or am I wrongly using thoses two terms in this situation?

2) What if E and B both call the 6200 then someone notice the error before the turn is dealt?

TY for any advice about the betting errors in series!

 

PS to be said: I hate this (quite new) definition of "subsential action" with 3 actions or 2 actions including ONLY one with chips! I used to prefer the old one with 3 actions or 2 actions BOTH including chips! If I was the "God of the Poker rules" I would even simplify with 3 ACTIONS whatever!

 


  

[Tristan]

Good situation Guillaume! 

It's interesting because if you let B's raise stay at 2000, how do you explain to D why he has to raise 600 and B only raised 500.  Personally I think I would just make B add 100 to so their raise was to 2,100 and hold D to a min-raise which is 2,700.

[Guillaume Gleize]

OOOPS sorry Tristan I changed the amounts (but the problem stays the same) because I don't remember the real ones and I wanted bigger differences as it was!

But your answer was so quick we crossed lol! I'll try to translate your answer in my mind whatever ...

[Guillaume Gleize]

The main question under this example is:

WHEN SOME BETTING ERRORS IN SERIE HAPPENS:

1) Is there a moment were some "kind of accepted action" froze the actions? If yes when? Does "Substantial action" as something to do here?

2) If not frozen: How far do we replay, adjust and oblige the players to rectify their actions? All the round? All the hand? Any amount with no limit?

TY

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

 Great question. In your example, once substantial action has taken place, I would not allow any retraction of the lesser amount. In other words the incorrect amounts would have to play.

If the mistake is noticed immediately, then I would correct it but once players have reacted, by folding, calling or raising, in my opinion...it's too late. The action stands.

What really complicates these situations is when players don't announce their wagers.

This is what you wrote:
A checks
B  Open 900
C raises 2100 1200 RAISE
D reraises 3600 1500 RAISE
E calls
A folds
B reraises 4900 (error: it should be at least 5100 but nobody noticed it) 1300 RAISE that is 200 short
C folds
D reraises 6200 (error on error it should be now at least 6600 by addition) Followed player B's mistake and only raised 1300 instead of 1500
E stops everything and call for floor: He just realised the errors and would like to know if the amounts will be frozen or changed? Because player E caught the mistake before he acted, I would adjust player D's raise to 1500 (Total 6400).

I believe the action should be "frozen" (as you say) as opposed to changing everyone's bets. In my opinion, Accepted Action is best when the amounts stated for a bet or raise are different from the amount pushed into the pot or the amount pushed does not match the opponents bet or raise. The problem you speak of occurs far more than we realize.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello, TY for helping me.

But I don't catch everything: Why to ONLY rectify one error? I would both or none?
I posted another case up because this familly of errors (I call them the "series") happen regulary and are a big familly still non well anticipated by the TDA IMAO!

GG

[MikeB]

G: I'd say traditionally that within reason betting and raising errors should be corrected within the betting round, rather than just before substantial action occurs. That's classic RRoP though it's not specifically spelled out in TDA.

When you correct the bets, a prior caller cannot change to a raise, only a call of the corrected amount.

You should always do this in limit games, IMO.

In no-limit you have to allow a bit for a wildly different raise amount (where you might consider doing a Rule 1 ruling), but that doesn't happen very often.

And in your case the amounts are relatively small, so I'd prefer going back and correcting them all since the betting round isn't over.

Interesting rule suggestion to consider at the next Summit, btw.

[Tristan]

For the record, even though the amounts in the example were changed, I still would do things the same way.  It would be a little more complicated if there were some callers of in the incorrect amount and if the differences were large.  200 in a bet of 4900 is a relatively small difference. 

[K-Lo]

I also would correct all bets on that betting round as a default (relying generally on RROP as noted by Mike).

Rule 1 can apply if the bet amounts are huge.  I think correcting bets/raises in past rounds is not very expedient, so essentially, I would be applying Rule 1 there as well (in the best interests of the game).

I wouldn't mind an explicit rule clarification.

--

A bit off-topic, but somewhat related.  You start the hand at 100/200, but the blinds are actually 150/300.  Do you play out the hand at 100/200 if substantial action pre-flop has already occurred?  Do you try to correct it if the flop has not yet been dealt?  Do you correct the amount of the minimum bet on post-flop betting rounds?

[Nick C]

Ken,
 In response to what you wrote: A bit off-topic, but somewhat related.  You start the hand at 100/200, but the blinds are actually 150/300.  Do you play out the hand at 100/200 if substantial action pre-flop has already occurred? No, I would correct the amount on the next betting round. Do you try to correct it if the flop has not yet been dealt? Yes. Do you correct the amount of the minimum bet on post-flop betting rounds? Yes.

[K-Lo]

Nick: I definitely agree with your approach and think it has merit!  There are, however, some who will insist that the hand be played out at the "old" blind levels once the hand has begun with those levels. I am wondering whether we can get some consensus on this issue and have the rule clarified.

[Nick C]

Ken,

 My interpretation may have been a little different from what you described. I thought that the levels (150/300) were already in progress and for some reason the action reverted to 100/200. If you are referring to the first round of a new limit, and by mistake the play continued at the previous limit, then I would continue with the lesser blinds and begin the 150/300 the next hand. I hope this makes sense because I believe they are two different situations.

[K-Lo]

   OK.  Well there you go.  It would be good to have some explicit clarification as to whether a hand should be played at an incorrect blind level once substantial has occurred, with the correction to be made with the next hand.

[WSOPMcGee]

First I want to address Guillaume's topic:

Dear Good Sir,

In this instance (because every situation is different), I would correct both actions. Just as you pointed out already - you correct "Both or none." In this case you definitely correct both. It does not matter if the amounts are large or small. The fact is both players raised, which means when it gets back around to them, they will still have all their options open (Call, Raise, Fold).

Where substantial action falls into play here is only if the bets were not corrected prior to the flop or there were multiple under-calls prior to or after the flop. Using your example:
A checks
B bets 900
C raises 2100
D raises 3600
E Calls 3600
A Folds
B raises 4900
C Folds
D CALLS
E CALLS.

Many times I've watched a TD try to correct this by backing up the action. This is a mistake. In this example the action is complete. Do not correct the bets. Move on to the next betting round. If the action is incomplete, correct the bets.

Accepted Action is more of a term used for incorrectly stated amounts, specifically for All-in situations, but sometimes on regular betting rounds as well. Mainly this rule covers situations where player A bets and player B asks player A or the Dealer how much it is and the amount stated is incorrect compared to the amount counted down to pay off the bet at the end of the hand (All-in) or at the completion of the action for that betting round.

We do not need a TDA rule for this. I am firmly in the court of Dave Lamb, when he says the TDA is going down the wrong path by making all these "rules". Going off topic, when I compare the original guidelines created by the TDA and compare them to now I think two things: Two steps forward, one step back.

P.S. - I like Mike's reference to "correcting within the betting round" But only if the action is incomplete.

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY very much Thomas

"Correcting within the betting round" But only if the action is incomplete. Is clear.

Last point: What about the betting errors of previous streets in a hand? I can understand the concept of "accepted action" but what if everybody realise that someone (we know exactly who) did bet more than everybody during a previous round? Like a serie of players called and payed less than the initial bet on misunderstanding and nobody realised it (including first bettor and dealer) untill the next round!? Even if the bets are "frozen" because the betting round is complete, I suppose we will give him back his extra amounts? I sure would.

In fact you see my general question is still the same: "What are the time limits to rectify errors?" You answered about the "within the betting round" but I supposed that correcting a missing amount of money from a known player is "within the hand"

Those are examples but around me "errors in series" are not rare! (Good for me: I will work and feed my children for a long time lol)

TY GG