PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: pastor on January 28, 2016, 09:17:58 AM
-
NLH Tournamet
A. SB – 600
B. BB – 1200
C. puts out LAST two 1000 chips without declaring raise or call (silent)
Dealer didn't say nothing.
D. Call 2000
E. Raise 5000 total
Acton go back to:
SB – Fold
BB – Fold
Dealer stop on C. and say All-in. In this moment player C. say I'm not All-in!
Q. How you will ruled this situation?
It's a really complicated situation in different scenarios.
I know that TDA ruels does not mention that all chips in the pot is all-in (or something similar).
-
Hello Pastor,
First of all, the dealer should have recognized the bet from Player C as a call of 1200. The oversize chip rule should apply. However, because the action was allowed to continue to two more players, (D call 2000 & E Raise to 5000)...Player C is all-in whether he likes it or not.
-
Nick -
Why was D allowed to call an undeclared/unrecognized bet?
-
I agree with you Nick, I have acted exactly like you said.
-
Substantial action has happened I agree that the player C is all in. Player needs to make is intentions clearer.
-
The dealer made a mistake by not declaring C's bet, then compounded it by allowing D's call of an undeclared amount.
Is C under any obligation to say anything before the action returns to him? I think not. In fact, by not saying anything sooner, it allows C to force D's prior action to be a call of 1,200 and therefore allows D to fold for only 1,200 rather than 2,000.
-
Dave,
It's obvious that Player D thought that Player C raised to 2000. Accepting Player D's 2000 was a mistake that was allowed by both Player C and the dealer...once Player E raised to 5000, it was too late to fix the errors.
-
Nick -
While I understand what you're saying, I'm looking at it from Player C's perspective, and therefore disagree.
-
But player C was unalerted to the action!
He didn´t noticed the error- so he unfortunally accepted the action.
All-In for player C!
-
Player C is all-in and I would never allow this obvious attempt at angle-shooting to be rewarded with a decision to a call. Everyone knows that pushing all of your chips into the pot is an all-in bet unless you CLEARLY declare otherwise. The fact that he waited to see how many callers he had is also a dead giveaway!
-
So it's angle-shooting to take advantage of a player's mistake?
-
Dave,
How in the world do you know it was a mistake? Let's try to implement a rule that will prevent, or discourage the same player from making the same mistake again, and again and again....
Say what you mean and the dealer will be able to get it right. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said that the dealers are not mind readers...well let me say it one more time...the dealers are not....
-
Right. And players are not mind readers either, yet player D seems to have read player C's mind, but did it incorrectly.
-
How in the world do you know it was a mistake?
There is no requirement for a player to announce their actions. According to the rules, Player C's bet is only a call. Is the dealer required to announce the bet? If so, there's the first mistake.
Player D said "Call 2000". Since the action to him was only 1200, saying '2000' was a mistake. His first word was 'call'. Since Player C's bet should have been a call, Player D's bet should have been a call of the original 1200, and the dealer should have stopped the action at that point to clarify that the call of 1200. That's another dealer mistake.
Player C could have been very sharp in recognizing these errors and choosing to remain silent. He also could have only heard the 'Call' part of player D's statement, and didn't realize there was an issue until the dealer told him he was unknowingly all-in.
-
Okay Dave, I guess we'll disagree on this one.
-
I agree that the "technical rules" say that player C's action was a call of 1200. However, it is a extremely rare for a player with less than 2 BBs left in his stack to push his last two chips into the pot silently, while UTG, expecting to receive change for less that than a single BB, while knowing that he will be forced to be truly all-in the very next hand, should he lose this hand. Sure, it could happen if the player was a novice - but would the novice know that his silent action should be interpreted as a call given the "technical rules?" It's getting harder to believe.
Now, player D calls 2000. The original post (OP) doesn't tell us "how" player D made the call. Was it verbal? Did it involve 4x500 in chips? In any case, if it was clearly meant as a call of 2000, then player C MUST speak up at that point to clarify his action as being only a call of 1200. Otherwise, I'm using Rule #1 to override the "technical rules" as noted above.
Regards,
B~
-
Bill,
What happened since your previous post? This is what you wrote: "Player C is all-in and I would never allow this obvious attempt at angle-shooting to be rewarded with a decision to a call. Everyone knows that pushing all of your chips into the pot is an all-in bet unless you CLEARLY declare otherwise. The fact that he waited to see how many callers he had is also a dead giveaway!"
It's not up to the "floor" to determine how he "should" have played his hand, based on your observation...You wrote:"I agree that the "technical rules" say that player C's action was a call of 1200. However, it is a extremely rare for a player with less than 2 BBs left in his stack to push his last two chips into the pot silently, while UTG, expecting to receive change for less that than a single BB, while knowing that he will be forced to be truly all-in the very next hand, should he lose this hand."
Players need to clear-up their bets.
-
... However, it is a extremely rare for a player with less than 2 BBs left in his stack to push his last two chips into the pot silently, while UTG, expecting to receive change for less that than a single BB, while knowing that he will be forced to be truly all-in the very next hand, should he lose this hand. Sure, it could happen if the player was a novice...
I disagree.
The short stack player calls, hoping there would be no raise. Perhaps it is a scary board any nobody bets. He could see the hand thru the river, lose, and still have chips for one more hand. I've seen it happen.
Oh, sure, only a complete novice would fold once there is a pre-flop raise. But a sharp player would do what he can to reduce the number of other players in the hand - and that includes giving Player D the option to fold for 1200 instead of 2000.
-
Nick, I know what I wrote and my opinion remains the same. I didn't said anything close to "the floor should determine how he should play his hand."
-
Thanks to a new comment in an old thread, I fond this comment, which seems contract some of Nick's comments in this thread.
...I don't like any rule that penalizes a player (Big Blind or not) for not putting more chips into the pot if they don't want to...
While I realize it would be pretty stupid for Player C to fold, stupider things have happened.
But more to the point, your earlier comments in this thread is essentially forcing Player C to be all in before he decides to do it himself. And that is in contradiction to the comment I quoted.
-
Suppose that this situation has happened in the bubble when player C hears All-in from the other table. I think that player C would requested call 1200 even with two AA in a hand.
-
Pastor,
Players must wait for clear bets from players before acting. Accepted Action, ::)...wait until the bettor completes his wager before reacting.
Dave,
If you are going to quote me, at least complete my statement and explain the context in which it was intended. That quote was in response to a question about a rule that insists the BB must call (can not fold) when all others have folded and the BB is facing a minimal raise equal to 2.5 big blinds or less! Personally, I don't care if an all-in raise is one tenth of one percent of my BB...if I don't want to call, I'll fold!
-
Nick -
Taking partial quotes as I do is not intended to change the meaning of the content, but to help focus upon what I am replying to.
I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.
That said, my comment stands, even within the full context of what you said.
-
Dave,
You didn't ruffle my feathers but you do have me scratching my head :D
I guess I'll just have to stay out of your card room :)