POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit
Review of Accepted Action language.
Nick C:
Great discussion! I like The European Poker Tour's Accepted Action.
What I consider to be relevant:
Who makes a wager and doesn't want others to know how much they are betting? Mike, do you? Ken, do you?...I don't either.
Players that "insta-call" or call without requesting a count should be subjected to whatever the exact amount is. The debate only pertains to calling players that request the correct count, and get the wrong information.
Finally; at some point, the exact amount must be determined, correct? Why not get it right before the problems begin?
I really like the European Poker Tour Rules...I think they have it right.
K-Lo:
For completeness, another point was raised to me supporting a change to AA, although frankly I am not sure that it is really persuasive. Just to put it out though, it was pointed out that the Dealer is effectively an employee of the house, and that inexperienced players in particular would get upset when they feel they have been "duped" by the dealer. "if I went to a spin the wheel game in a casino and ask them how much I would lose if I bet $5 and lost, and then they told me after I lost that I owed them $20, I'd tell them to go f@¥£ o££...". Not sure if this is really the same situation, but i'll just put it out there for the record.
MikeB:
--- Quote from: K-Lo on July 28, 2012, 05:47:18 PM ---
FWIW: The European Poker Tour Rules has a somewhat similar provision (although I would not treat dealer counts the same as player counts)... I'm not sure offhand where they got these provisions from if they borrowed them from somewhere, but it's something to consider:
--- Quote --- 41. Accepted Action - If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the Dealer or another player at the table...
The amount of chips is smaller than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 80,000 and the all in is 50,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 50,000 in physical chip value.
The amount of chips is larger than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 100,000 and the all in is 150,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 100,000 as the agreed upon wager.
[...]
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity. Also of course this language doesn't get around the multi-way problem.
K-Lo:
--- Quote --- Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity.
--- End quote ---
I have been thinking about the point for a while, and I have to admit that I'm not so sure why the amount that the bettor is bound to lose must necessarily be the same amount that the caller is bound to lose. Is it just because the amounts are different? I am not sure that fact in itself should make it unacceptable. I'll have to review the summit arguments again, but the situation faced by each player is different... The all-in player has decided to risk all of his chips by going all-in, if he loses to a bigger stack he expects to be eliminated. On the other hand the potential caller may be relying on a count of the dealer and expects to lost that amount. The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different.
MikeB:
--- Quote from: K-Lo on July 28, 2012, 07:46:36 PM ---
--- Quote --- Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity.
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure why the amount that the bettor is bound to lose must necessarily be the same amount that the caller is bound to lose. Is it just because the amounts are different? (1)
The all-in player has decided to risk all of his chips by going all-in, if he loses to a bigger stack he expects to be eliminated. (2)
On the other hand the potential caller may be relying on a count of the dealer and expects to lost that amount. The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different. (3)
--- End quote ---
I'll take the view that poker iis an even-money gamble:
1: It's b/c poker is a game of even-money bets, unlike craps / roulette, etc. where you can win more or less than you bet, depending on the odds of the specific bet you make (i.e. the payoff on a craps bet on 6 is much different than the payoff on a bet on 4). In poker if I bet you 25, and you call we both expect to win or lose 25 (x the total number of calling players). This also keeps the evolution of the pot odds during the hand consistent with even money on all bets. If under this one situation I can win 25 but only lose 20, then the pot odds of the bet are fundamentally changed.
2: But he expects to lose all of his chips if he loses, but win an equal amount if he wins. Again, if he can lose 100% but only win 80% he's not making an even-money bet.
3: If poker is a game of even-money bets, which I think it is, then the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose... and the amount should be the same for both players. Otherwise it's not an even-money bet between the players involved.
The 2011 Summit was very interesting on this, there were proposals which would have resulted in the possibility of uneven bets... no conclusion was reached on this b/c accepted action was adopted instead, and accepted action by it's nature is even-money everytime. The discussion will continue...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version