PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Andre1 on August 13, 2015, 05:44:24 AM
-
Bet amount not established
Situation: A open, B rais, C say call before rais is declared.
Ruling: Force C to call and put out the minimum rais then give option to either surrender the calling chips (of the minimum rais) OR
complete aditional rais. Can not rais.
Basicly let player B finish action then handle it like a OOT situation with substantional action and make C commit chips to the situation he put himself in but without risk of automaticly be all-in by the mercy of player B. Let player B finish hes action, explain to player C what is going to happend (call min rais, option to surrender or complete).
Thoughts?
-
Unless action changes before Player C acts (ie; another player between B and C re-raises), Player C should be held to a full call of whatever Player B's raise ends up being.
Unfortunately for Player C, he is at Player's B mercy at this point. Player B did nothing wrong, I'm not limiting his options in anyway. Player C stated Call out of turn, and I'm treating it as action out of turn no matter what Player B ends up doing, and this includes Player B going all-in.
-
Rules are clear but I dont like this at all, I want to protect the recreational player and dont rule all-in here. Good spot to use 'at TDs discretion' anyone?
-
Welcome Andre 1...I don't like it either.
-
I read the original post as C saying the "call" was made before B announced raise. I see this as an OOT call, which means B's announcement of raise would change the action leaving all options open for C.
-
Thank you nick.
K-Lo: Only bet is not declared, B says rais but no amount before C says call.
-
Andre:
Great question. This exact topic was brought up at the 2015 Summit, but no rule was adopted as a consensus could not be reached.
A poll was also taken of players prior to the Summit. 52% thought C should be held to a full call of whatever B bets, 29% felt C was "entitled to some protection" and should only be held to calling a min-raise, and 19% felt C was not obligated for anything because the exact bet amount was not established.
Bottom line, this is still a Rule 1 decision at TD's discretion at this point.
-
I see, thanks for your response. I guess there will be times we do want to hold C player to a full raise at B's mercy and other times we want to protect against clear miskicks. Personally, I like TD's discretion in this situation, we never have to make a decision before we have gather all info where we also let B finish his action before actually deciding. If B's raise is naturally related to pot there is no problem hold C to this raise. If B go all-in with far above what is 'natural' in the situation then hold C to stick in minraise, give option to surrender the calling chips or complete full raise.
Since the rule is not clear I will stick to as described above, please let me know if this seems unnatural or bad. Fortunately, such situations occur very rarely but when it does, I no longer going to be taken by surprise and lacking a good solution in the rules pr.date.
-
Andre 1,
This might help you in your decision making process, it's from a book written by Chuck Ferry entitled Rules Of Poker: At times a situation may arise which is not expressly covered by the Rules. In such situations the floorperson shall weigh the facts and render the most appropriate decision.
Also from the same book: An unintentional error shall be construed more liberally than what appears to be a deliberate violation of the Rules.
Here's more: When strict enforcement of a Rule will cause an obviously unfair result, the floorperson shall have the unrestricted right to waive any Rule and make the decision which will cause a fair result.
There's much more, but I think you get the idea. Let's look at your original question and cover a couple different scenarios. Situation: A Open, B raise Player C announces Call before amount is decided...What if Player C did not hear the raise of B? What if Player C were seated in a position where he was not even aware of Player B still being in the hand? This situation can easily occur when a player in the 10 seat is next to act and the 1 seat player bets out of turn because he could not see the other player because the seated dealer was obstructing his view. Now let's look at the same situation but Player C deliberately acts before Player B announces the intended amount of his raise. As you can see, there is a difference...would you agree?
I have often raised the question: When can action be backed-up (to the proper bettor) if an obvious mistake were made? I always felt that substantial action played a big part in my decision. The rules however, do not support my feelings. In my opinion TDA Rules are designed more for the experienced players, and are too strict for an inexperienced player.
Also from Mr Ferry's Book: The Rules are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.
-
For those of you willing to give Player C relief, I pose the following question:
What do you say to Player B if you're called over to the table after Player C says, "Call", but before Player B announce his raise.
Player B is going to ask you, "What are my options ? Is his call binding ?"
- "If you min raise, his call will stand"
- "If you go all in, I'm going to give him relief, but make him call a min raise."
What if I raise $100 ?
-
For those of you willing to give Player C relief, I pose the following question:
What do you say to Player B if you're called over to the table after Player C says, "Call", but before Player B announce his raise.
Player B is going to ask you, "What are my options ? Is his call binding ?"
- "If you min raise, his call will stand"
- "If you go all in, I'm going to give him relief, but make him call a min raise."
What if I raise $100 ?
I wouldn't offer Player B any information on how I'm going to rule. He needs to first complete his bet. Then, I would make my ruling. If Player C wasn't angling, I would most likely hold him to calling a min-raise with the option of forfeiting that and folding should the raise be larger.
-
Bill,
You confirm what I said about the rules being too strict. You said: " If Player C wasn't angling, I would most likely hold him to calling a min-raise with the option of forfeiting that and folding should the raise be larger."
Tell me, what would you do if he was angling?
-
Tell me, what would you do if he was angling?
See TDA #58. IMO angling is one form of cheating (#58a). So, a penalty would be in order(#58b). Also, calling at least the min-raise and maybe more would be part of my ruling.
-
Bill,
Is there ever a time, or situation, that would occur when you would ever allow the action to back-up to the skipped player and release the out of turn from his obvious mistake?
Or, in our original question: if you felt certain that Player C was unaware of Player B's action, would you release Player C from his errant wager? If so, would it only be by the strict rule where action has not changed? Or would you just correct the obvious mistake, back-up the action and allow Player C all options?
I can't count how many times I've stopped an out of turn player from acting, corrected the action to the proper bettor and continued without incident. Example: Player A (Johnny) bets Player C (Sally) calls before Player B (Tony) acts. My response: "Sally, hold on...the action is on Tony" while pushing Sally her bet back. Sally would usually reply with,: "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the bet was on me." Problem corrected and action proceeds without incident. If this becomes a regular practice of Sally, then we're talking about something altogether different.
I would call the floor and let them know that Sally was warned about acting out of turn and she continues to not wait her turn. Let the floor handle it.
One other point: Bill, you are punishing Player C no matter what...by that I mean, he can never retract his out of turn unless the action changes to him, correct?
Another word that has disappeared from these discussions is the "gross" misunderstanding. We really need to put some figure or percentage, that would define exactly what a "gross" misunderstanding should be. A 100 wager would mean very little when players are betting 1000's...but in a betting round where players are betting 50's and 100's, the 100 wager could be significant.
-
Thanks for good input, in this scenario I will let player B finish hes action before make a ruling. If hes rais is none natural and player C is obviously a new player who did make a honoust mistake I wont let him completly off the hook. He did act out of turn, action is substantional but I will not rule him all-in for hes tournament life.
This example was when player B announce RAIS, player C snap calls before amount is established. Sure this situation can turn out differently but those two factor are in play.
Lets make a quick example where I am going to hold him to a full rais of player B's choosing:
A bets 2000, B announce rais, C calls before amount is declared. I let B finish action and he choose to rais to 5.400, I will make player C call 5,400.
Another example, A bets 2000. B announce rais, C calls before amount is declared. I let B finish action and he choose to go all-in now for 25.000,
here I will make player C call 4000 and have option to surrender the 4k or call the all-in.
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. Player C must learn to act in turn
I have ruled simulare spots where player A rais 800, player B go all-in, player C toss out 1-chip of 1000. Again if a new player misclick I wont make him call
the all-in but put 800 in the middle and make him choose between surrender 800 or call full all-on.
A freshman wont learn by hes mistakes if he is completly off the hook and hes action do impact the hand so he should always be forced to commit chip into the situation IMO.
Again, thank you for input. I am always trying to gather as much information about the the situation and I will also make B finish hes rais (amount) before ruling either way's. If it is natural to the SPR C will be held to player B's rais. But I wont force anyone all-in by a clear misclick.
Warning will be issued, but no penalty. He already are penalised with the commited chips on the call.
-
Andre 1,
Some day you will be playing in a tournament and this will happen: Five players remain, the player in front of you bets 1000, you are on a bluff and make the raise to 10,000. The next player says call and tosses out 1000. The floor is called and the last bettor says he didn't know you raised and he only wanted to call 1000 not 10,000. The floorman forces him to cal and he knocks you out of the tournament! I hope you follow this because the "guilty" player whether out of turn or just unaware, is not always the one that gets punished.
-
I hope you follow this because the "guilty" player whether out of turn or just unaware, is not always the one that gets punished.
Just to clearify, you like how I suggest to handle the given situation? I do not see how player C can angle effectively example if they do act OOT to slow down the action because I will hold them to put in a minimum rais, they will get a penalty (even most of the time a warning after the han is the penalty). Player B will be given option to adjust hes rais which actually gives him an advantage every time exept when gets angled (player C want to slow him down).
I do not see how player C can effectively angle in this situation, and TD's discretion means that you will have all the info, all options to either clear up in a obviouse mistake or reign down the hammer on a angle shoooter.
-
Andre 1,
I'm not describing player C as angling, I'm trying to separate the intentional action out of turn, from the accidental or unintentional. Player C did not hear Player B say raise, (for example). I've always had a problem forcing a player to put chips into the pot when he was unaware of a raise or mislead by a player or the dealer. What I'm hearing from everyone is: there is NO chance to retract an unintentional bet. Everyone (except me), is insistent that the out of turn player must at least be committed to the minimum bet or raise, unless the corrected action changes.
-
I agree with you on the force part, in this example player C did catch B say rais, problem was that amount was not declared before he say call.
Question was not if chips was going in the pot, but how mutch he should be binded to. I my world never all-in.
-
For those of you willing to give Player C relief, I pose the following question:
What do you say to Player B if you're called over to the table after Player C says, "Call", but before Player B announce his raise.
Player B is going to ask you, "What are my options ? Is his call binding ?"
- "If you min raise, his call will stand"
- "If you go all in, I'm going to give him relief, but make him call a min raise."
What if I raise $100 ?
I wouldn't offer Player B any information on how I'm going to rule. He needs to first complete his bet. Then, I would make my ruling. If Player C wasn't angling, I would most likely hold him to calling a min-raise with the option of forfeiting that and folding should the raise be larger.
Thanks to Bill and Den for discussing this aspect of the topic....
As there is no formal rule on this subject, what you say to B's question is at TDs discretion. Personally, as a player I feel I have a right to know how my action will affect C's options. Also, in the case of OOT action I do know (per the rules) how my bet amount will affect the OOT player. Why should I know the effects of my action in OOT but not here? That said, some of the most respected TDs in the game argued at the Summit (as Bill does here) that the TD should advise B to complete his betting action before the TD makes a ruling on C's obligation.
This exchange is just one aspect of how complicated this issue can be, and why no agreement was reached at the 2015 Summit. Let's say you don't tell B what the options are, B makes his raise of a "reasonable" amount (let's say 3-5x the opener, use 4x in this example), and you then tell C he can just put in a min raise (2x the opener) and fold OR he can call the 4x raise. It's as though C is being "rewarded" with a range of options that he wouldn't have if he hadn't acted before the bet amount was clear. And B goes ballistic saying "this guy said call, I made a reasonable raise and now he can weasel out of it". With the min-raise or fold option we set up a situation where a player can snap-declare call, then contemplate whether he calls or puts in a token amount, depending on the precise raise.
The only way to avoid this is to hold C to calling whatever B raises. Several problems here too: A) the raiser has a "fish on the hook", and can make a much larger raise than he might normally do because he has a known (possibly reluctant) caller. The fish on the hook problem is one reason that an OOT player is released if action changes > at several Summits now the attendees have voted that limiting an OOT player gives the skipped player too much control; the skipped player already knows what the OOT player wants to do, and he can lock him in by not changing the action. Giving further control such as limiting the OOT player to his declared action if action changes has been deemed giving the skipped player too much control. It's even more extreme if you force C to call anything B raises in this example. But is there an option other than swinging the pendulum in the other direction and giving C an attractive range of choices he hardly deserves?
Interesting that when the question was put to players in the 2015 Summit Players Survey, over half the players responded that C should be held to calling anything... however there's a thread on 2+2 if I can find it (perhaps someone else can link to it), where exactly that happened: B went all-in and C was forced to call. A fair number of the respondents on that thread felt it was a very unethical move on B's part to "take advantage" of C.
-
The core here is:
1. Protect C
2. Dont give B a disadvantage.
"Personally, as a player I feel I have a right to know how my action will affect C's options."
Dont see the problem if we are telling player B that player C has made a binding commitment of atleast minimum rais to the pot, but in fairness of the game there can be used TD's discretion if all-in or unaturaly big bet are placed and C is risking hes tournament life.
If player B goes all-in he risk only to get paid minimum those cases where C surrender.
In those cases B was bluffing he will now save chips since C broke the rules and C will loose value by hes mistake.
Most important is to learn B never to do this again, a clear warning will be the penalty. But next time ex. he will be hold to any amount B raises + 3 full orbits!
I dont see how you profitable going to be able to angle from either sides here if a TD keep calm, use logic and discretion. B need C to do a mistake and C will be penalised.
Tricky part is how to put this in a rule with text effectivly, because what is not considered natural?
More than pot, more than 4xtimes the rais/bet, more than half of C's stack?
-
We can dissect this any way you want. The fact is: Player B did nothing wrong. Player C violated basic rules of poker by acting prematurely and not waiting for a confirmed bet amount from the proper bettor. TDA #37B
The rule I'd like to see: If Player C was misled by the dealer or another player, or in the case of an obvious misunderstanding, he should be allowed all options when action is completed by Player B. Although, this was not the case in the original question. In fairness I'm also in favor of backing-up the action to the proper bettor, or allowing Player B to complete his bet. Player's with a "history" for angling in these situations should be dealt with accordingly.
If Player C acted intentionally (i.e "snap call" or "prematurely") which appears to be what happened, he is obligated to surrender the equivalent of a min raise or call the amount that Player B decides to wager. Player C will NOT be allowed a raise option, and could be penalized at the discretion of the floor!
To Player C: Wait until the action is complete before you respond! Failure to do so could result in a very unfavorable result.
To Player B: As long as your in turn action was clear and no stalling tactics were used, you have a right to know what options Player C will have after you complete your bet.
-
Just to put it out there...
How many of you would consider asking C first to clarify what he meant by his OOT call? If C says "I'm calling the [original bet not the raise], didn't see the raise blah blah", perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt this time and treat it as an OOT call (and possible warning)? If C says "I'm calling anything he bets", then allow B to wager whatever (which is what C says he wants anyways), and then give C a penalty if there's a likelihood that the bet did slow B down?
-
I like it.
-
Me to.
-
Just to put it out there...
How many of you would consider asking C first to clarify what he meant by his OOT call? If C says "I'm calling the [original bet not the raise], didn't see the raise blah blah", perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt this time and treat it as an OOT call (and possible warning)? If C says "I'm calling anything he bets", then allow B to wager whatever (which is what C says he wants anyways), and then give C a penalty if there's a likelihood that the bet did slow B down?
You can always ask for clarification of action, however...
The visual I've gotten on this situation as discussed at the 2015 Summit is where C says call after unmistakably hearing "raise" from B. In that case I wouldn't be asking for clarification, but would prefer instead to have a consistent policy as to how to handle it. Personally I don't think any solution is ideal, and ultimately it does come down to TD discretion. My opinion:
1: Holding C to either A) a min-raise and fold or B) a full call. I really don't like the idea that C can get away with calling a min-raise when he's well aware that B announced raise. Also don't particularly like the idea of giving C a choice as to how much he will or will not call.
2: Declaring C to be out-of-turn and giving him typical OOT options. This doesn't seem to apply, because B has already changed the action by announcing raise, so you have to hold your nose and say the action at the time of the announcement is a min-raise > if B only min-raises, then C is locked-in, otherwise C is released and can do anything. Well, releasing C from any obligation seems even more lenient than option 1, and it limits B to a min-raise if he wants to lock C in, when more often than not he probably wanted to raise more.
3: Holding C to a call of anything B bets. This is only really problematic when B comes back with a very large or all-in raise. This option allows no "protection" for C, but on the other hand C put himself in this situation. It's telling that over half of the players surveyed felt this is the best solution. While it has problems it's my favorite as well.
-
Mike,
When you say you can always ask for clarification of action, are you speaking of the dealer? Or strictly the players? Or does the dealer need to call the floor? When I deal, and something like this occurs, I automatically "freeze the action and get an explanation from the player making the confusing action. Let's use K-Lo's example: If C says "I'm calling the [original bet not the raise], didn't see the raise blah blah," Dealer response: "Floor!" If C says "I'm calling anything he bets" Dealer: "Floor!"
All I know is, if I'm dealing and I can't figure what a player is intending to do, I stop him immediately. We really need the dealers to help the TD'S by controlling the action. Let the dealers direct the action to the proper player, let the dealers do more than put a player on the clock, and issue the all-in buttons...if we do, you'll be amazed how much smoother the game will go.
-
I guess I'll ask Ken...In your suggestion, "How many of you would consider asking C first to clarify what he meant by his OOT call? Who is doing the asking?
-
I can't see why the dealer shouldn't ask once the OOT call action happens, as you suggest, and then call the floor and relay the response so the floorperson can make the decision either way. If the floor is called and the dealer hasn't asked yet, then the floorperson should ask.
As far as Mike's point though, I think he is saying that he thought the situation discussed at the Summit was specifically the case where C KNOWS that B said raise but hadn't finished announcing the amount, yet C says call anyways. In that case, I'm in the camp that says C should generally be held to call any amount and I don't mind that B has that extra "power" -- as you pointed out, Nick, B has not done anything wrong.
My point was about the original post though which was worded more generally: I am mindful of the fact that, in other situations, C might not have known that B said raise. In that case, I agree with you that automatically holding him to call any bet would be unfair. This is particularly the case when recreational players are involved. I think that we do have an obligation to seek clarification from C before jumping to any conclusions. Some would argue we can't rely on what C might say because he could then be incentivized to angle, but I think it's fine to give C the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any player history that suggests the OOT action was likely deliberate.
-
I hold that Player B has made a commitment to make a raise while recognizing that his action is incomplete without an amount. I also hold that Player C has made a commitment to make a call while again realizing that his action is incomplete without an amount. Here are the key principles that guide my ruling:
- action is stopped and returned to the skiipped Player B
- Player B completes the action of raising by declaring an amount
- Player B doesn't change action but only completes the original commitment
- Player C completes the action of calling by putting chips into the pot
- Player C has acted OOT and is subject to additional penalty - especially for repeat offenses
I don't like giving either Player B or Player C additional information while the action is stopped. I don't like changing the order of the action by having Player C complete his call amount before Player B completes his raise. I don't like telling Player B that Player C has to call any amount that he raises.
My ruling on the amount Player C must call is an attempt to be fair under the circumstances and the exact context (which I don't have here). Player C may have meant to call Player A opening bet. He may have pulled the trigger early having heard Player B say raise. He may have a monster and meant to call any amount including all-in. My ruling would MOST LIKELY be a call of the minimum with an option to fold and forfeit or call the entire amount.
I agree that asking Player C if he heard Player B declare raise before he said call is a fair question and would help clarify the situation. But, that is as far as I would go. In asking the question, I would think Player C would most likely tell you whether or not he meant to call any bet Player B made. However, Player C might say he heard raise and there is still a possiblity that he misunderstood an amount that might get him off the hook for a full raise. For example, Player B might have pushed the amount equal to Player A opening bet before putting in his raise.
I have a hard time envisioning an angleshooting Player C that would hear Player B say raise and think this is an opportunity to make a minraise call to some advantage.
-
Ken (K-Lo), and Bill:
I have to say that both of your replies were well written and I couldn't agree more. Your suggestions protect the recreational players and are the fairest solutions to Player C's premature declaration.
Thanks for your input!
Nick C
-
I agree with Ken on the clarification aspect with the following caveat:
If, when coming over to the table to assess the situation, Player C doesn't convinced me that he meant to "Call" the previous bet (before the raise), I'm holding him responsible for a call of any action taken by Player B, to include an all-in as covered by action out of turn rule.
To use "action isn't complete" as an excuse because Player C didn't allow Player B to finish his raise, and to let Player C off the hook for an all-in, is in my opinion, wrong.
-
It seems to me that this thread discussion and the one held at the 2015 TDA Summit has about the same level of agreement and disagreement on options. Mike has already added this topic to the list of suggestions to be discussed in the 2017 Summit. Here is that link: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1193.0 (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1193.0). The 2015 TDA Summit discussion starts at about 23:05 minutes into Day #2 in part #4 of the summit video. Here is that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc_TpYIpiD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc_TpYIpiD0)
These points seem to be in agreement:
- Player C has violated TDA rules and may be penalized and must make a call of some amount.
- Player B has done nothing wrong and should not be disadvantaged buy the ruling.
These points seem to be unresolved:
- If Player C appears to be recreational player who has made an honest mistake:
Do you make him call a min-raise, a raise up to 5X, or an all-in?
Do you put him on penalty for one or more orbits?
- If Player C appears to be an experienced player who may be working an angle:
Do you tell Player B that Player C must call any raise amount that he makes, including an all-in?
Do you put him on penalty for one or more orbits?
The 2015 TDA Summit decision was to leave the rules as they stand and leave it to TD discretion.
-
Bill:
That's a great synopsis...
And there's another possibility... that C is just saying "I'll call your raise", inappropriately of course, but nonetheless that's what he's saying... no angle intended.
And that's exactly what any experienced player has to be saying... he's following the action, he's heard raise announced, and he knows it's a no-limit game. Player C has absolutely no reasonable expectation: 1) of what B's raise will be... it can be anything up to all-in, and 2) that the house will come "rescue" him if the raise is "unusually high".
Also, the TDA steadfastly to it's credit has always looked to adopt rules that don't require interpretation of intent. Rule 1 then allows any adjustment of a ruling based on "fairness" which you can take into account if you think there's no bad intent, or an "honest" or "newbie" mistake...
So I keep returning to this conclusion: If C is an experienced player, knows full well that there was a raise, and knows that raise can be up to all-in, and with all that knowledge and experience declares "call", I can't see any other reasonable ruling other than to bind him to whatever B bets. That only leaves 1) whether you extend a penalty beyond that, and 2) whether you extend some "protection" for a newbie.
Thanks again for the synopsis, it summarizes alot of what has been discussed.