Also, same scenario as described but say the player who declared 5 only has 4000 chips left. Is he all-in?
Bill:
IMO yes, don't see how an exception can be made because it's a bet of all the player's chips. i.e. he has a stack of 5100, it's a bet of 5000, has a stack of 4900 it's a bet of 500. Best interest of the game to keep it consistent at 5000 IMO. However this point should be clarified in 2019.
A) A player has two 500 chips and three 1000 chips and says "five".
Then, grabs 500 chip to toss in subsequently ... I have a real problem putting the player all-in when there is 5000 in the pot.
B) I think the benefits of consistently applying the previous version of the least amount is the better rule.
C I'm quite surprised that a majority of attending TDA members voted to approve this change.
Hi Bill: In answer to your points in green above
A: Depends on the specific action in your scenario, for example:
1: Says "five"... pregnant pause... then throws out a 500. That's going to be a declared bet of 5000 total IMO. Since he doesn't quite have the 5000, he's all-in.
2: Says "five" while simultaneously tossing out a 500... clear bet of 500 regardless of his stack size because Rule 57 (Version 2.0) clearly says "without other clarifying information". Obviously tossing out the 500 chip clarifies the verbal bet of "five"" as 500
Mike, regarding your responses A.1 and A.2. The key difference in your response is a
pause versus
simultaneous toss of the chip. That is clearly a subjective key measurement. If the player is facing two opponents, one with the current best hand and one with the current best drawing hand it is likely that the first opponent will say that the pause was pregnant (wanting the bigger bet) and the second will say that it was almost simultaneous (wanting the smaller bet). When the TD is called he will have to form an opinion based upon the input from the dealer and the players at the table. IMO, the clarifying information is that the acting player doesn't have 5,000 and would most likely be betting 500 even if it took a moment for him to send in the chip. It is
unreasonable to assume that he meant all-in or 5000 only because there is more than that amount in the pot.
B: You're not alone in preferring "the lowest legal bet" however the key issue driving the change to "the highest bet covered by the pot" is that it answers the question of reasonableness. The rule reads "if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings". The problem for the super-majority favoring the change is that at some point the lowest legal bet just isn't objectively reasonable. For example, 250-500 THE, on the river there's 25,000+ in the pot, betting has been in increments of 1000 since the flop... is 500 ever a reasonable bet here? Legal yes, reasonable no. But do we want the TD to have to make the ruling about reasonableness in every single case? If we do, then we have to tolerate inconsistency (not a good thing) because some were ruling "always the lowest legal" while others were ruling 5000 based on different standards of reasonableness given the situation.
In 2015 there was the beginning of the debate that we need a standard of reasonableness if one can be agreed to... and that agreement was reached in 2017. We'll see in 2019 if there's strong desire to revert back to the TD making the decision in each case.
Mike, regarding your response to B: As you know, the TDA Rule in 2011 read
Also, whenever the size of a declared bet can have multiple meanings, it will be ruled as the lesser value. Only in 2013, did the TDA change the rule to read
Also, whenever the size of a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it will be ruled as the lesser value. In some degree, this was an attempt to allow the TD on the floor to rule the declared bet as a
larger value but only if it is
unreasonable for the declaration to have
multiple meanings. In other words, all bets with multiple meanings within reason are ruled as the lesser value in 2013. Then, in 2015, the wording of the rule was left unchanged and the
Illustration Addendum was added to describe what is
most reasonable and in the best interest of the game.
Now, in 2017, the TDA has gone too far by ruling that it is
unreasonable for a player to bet less than the pot when the amount declared is unclear and has multiple meanings. This is clearly an inaccurate and subjective measure as evidenced by the struggle to rationalize the
reasonableness factor when there is 4900, 5000, or 5100 in the pot. How can an unclear bet of 5 be reasonably interpreted as 500 or 5000 with a difference of 100 in the pot. That is ridiculous and will cause many problems for the game.
C: Once you consider the reasoning for the change... i.e. to adopt a consistent standard of reasonableness, are you still surprised?
Mike, regarding C: When I consider this rule, I much prefer a
consistent standard for ruling over one for determining which player actions are reasonable in the eyes and words of his opponents and the TD. As, I said above, an opponent with a winning hand will always want the larger bet while the drawing hand will always want the smaller bet. It is
unreasonable to disregard this fact.
BTW, we could say that 5000 is not a reasonable bet here, because the player doesn't have 5000 in his stack, thus it should be 500. But do we want to get into that?
Thoughts?
Mike regarding your last response: Yes, we certainly do want to get into that! It is only one of several situations that could make the players
unclear declaration smaller within reason.I realize from the history of the problem from 2011 thru 2017 that consistently ruling the unclear bet with multiple meanings as the lesser bet is objectionable to those that recognize that the player could have meant the larger bet. IMO: The TDA has hurt the best interest of the game by adding these changes to this rule.
Go back to the 2011 version of the rule. Simply state that the
TD may rule the unclear bet as the larger value in the best interest of the game. Rule #1.