PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on September 15, 2016, 04:10:42 AM
-
Hello,
here are two cases of undercall please:
CASE A)
Blinds 10000-20000
1 SB 10.000
2 BB 20.000
4 Fold
5 Fold
6 Says "12.000" (no push - no other word)
---> Player 6 must pay the full BB amount right? First because no one is suppose to ignore the amount of the current BB plus the "Folds" are not changing the BB opening bet into a multiway pot situation right?
CASE B)
Blinds 3000-6000
1 SB 3.000
2 BB 6.000
4 Fold
5 Fold
6 All-In 55.000
7 Fold
8 Says "12.000" (no push - no other word)
---> Following TDA rule 39B: Player 8 is facing a multiway pot (because of the BB plus the all-in, not because of the Folds) so player 8 can forfeit the underbet and fold at TD discretion right?
TY in advance
GG
-
Correct on both counts.
-
Hello Guillaume,
Case A...you are correct, unless of course Player 6 happens to be all-in.
Case B...could be a bit more complex because obviously Player 8 is unaware of the all-in wager of 55,000 from Player 6. What reason could you possibly give to support any other reason? This is when the floor needs to consider the intent of Player 8...or why he was unaware of the intervening raise. I know what the rules are, and I would have no problem insisting that Player 8 must either surrender his 12,000 or call. This would depend on the "reputation" of the player or other factors.
-
G: Thanks for the great case.
I think you were at the 2013 Summit when this rule was debated and adopted? Case A is clearly a call of 20k as you point out.
Case B is the only case where the TD has latitude to let the player leave the in and fold. But as the rule is currently written, that's not a requirement. There was some discussion in 2013 that if the underbet was "gross" (i.e. less than 50% or less than 20% etc. of the amount to call) that might be an automatic trigger of a right to leave it in and fold... but no agreement was reached for any further modification and it was left as is. So you have discretion in Case B.
One key is that the idea of this rule really is to give a player some protection (at TDs discretion) against a gross misunderstanding. Perhaps the more important message is that you have no such protection when facing the opening bet or in heads-up play.
-
TY all for the clarifications!
I realise that:
- THE BB IS AN OPENING BET
- THE FOLDS ARE NOT PART OF MULTIWAY POT
CASE C) is clear now:
At the turn:
1 check
2 bets 55.000
3 fold
4 fold
5 fold
6 says "12.000" (no push - no word)
---> Facing an opening bet, player 6 must complete to full call at 55.000
Right?
-
Guillaume,
I would treat this the same as Your Case B from your original post. Because the action is NOT head to head, and it appears to be a gross misunderstanding. I might even consider allowing Player 6 all options. I could also support a decision that would force Player 6 to forfeit his undercall by folding, or completing the bet to 55,000.
I believe Mike said, this would offer some protection for a player in the event of a gross misunderstanding.
In short, I believe that forcing Player 6 to complete his bet to 55,000 is too harsh.
-
So now I'm completely lost! Because it's facing an opening bet !?!
I mean I agree that in 5% of all the different poker cases the TD will make is own ruling "at discretion" and "in the best interest of the game" etc ... But we managers AND the players need to have CLEAR PERMANENT RULES for let say 95% of the poker situations!
So i thought here we were inside the TDA clear Opening bet situation? Or do you mean that all the "Folds" make the pot becoming multiway? WOW!
Or is it because of the amounts? OK so let's try this:
At the turn:
1 check
2 bets 20.000
3 fold
4 fold
5 fold
6 says "12.000" (no push - no word)
---> Facing an opening bet, player 6 must complete to full call at 20.000
Right? Or does the folds make it becoming a multiway pot? (That the reason I did place them: To be sure we all understand what is really an OPENING BET?)
-
Guillaume,
Your last post might make a difference because 12,000 is more than 50% of the 20,000 wagered. Therefore it may not be deemed a "gross" misunderstanding.
Maybe Mike Bishop can clear this up for you. I can only tell you how I would handle each situation as you described it.
For those that often turn to Robert's Rules...Section: BETTING AND RAISING #13 (in part)
....if you are unaware that the pot has been raised, you may withdraw that money and reconsider your action, provided that no one else has acted after you....
-
Life would be so much easier if players just paid attention to the action ::)
-
Your last post might make a difference because 12,000 is more than 50% of the 20,000 wagered. Therefore it may not be deemed a "gross" misunderstanding.
Nick,
While I don't believe this particular scenario to be covered by gross misunderstanding, I'm not sure why 12k being more than 50% of the 20k would be relevant even when determining gross misunderstanding.
Guillaume,
For me it's an easy decision, the player has to call the full 20k.
-
Life would be so much easier if players just paid attention to the action ::)
True, but can you really expect or even wish this? After all, sometimes a dealer isn't fully focused and mistakes happen because of that.
-
Hey Gregg...I finally agree with you 100%... :)
Ralph...I agree with you, too. The examples are clear. I can more easily justify forcing a player to complete his short bet (12,000) because it was 60% of the actual raise (20,000).
The other example was different. The raise was 55,000...so the short call 12,000 (or errant raise attempt) was less than 25%. Gross misunderstanding?,,,you make the call.
-
So now I'm completely lost! Because it's facing an opening bet !?!
So i thought here we were inside the TDA clear Opening bet situation? Or do you mean that all the "Folds" make the pot becoming multiway? WOW!
Or is it because of the amounts? OK so let's try this:
At the turn:
1 check
2 bets 20.000
3 fold
4 fold
5 fold
6 says "12.000" (no push - no word)
---> Facing an opening bet, player 6 must complete to full call at 20.000
Right? Or does the folds make it becoming a multiway pot? (That the reason I did place them: To be sure we all understand what is really an OPENING BET?)
G: When facing the opening bet it doesn't matter whether the hand is multi-way at that point or not. Nor does it matter by what % the opening bet is under-called. The 20k is clearly the opener here, and 6 underbets it with 12k, so it's a mandatory full call by player 6.
The more interesting point is that some might construe 1's check as the opener? Unlikely, but wouldn't hurt to clarify it. Thanks as always for the great examples.
-
Guillaume,
There you are...you heard it from Mike. The undercall MUST be brought up to the full raise, even though that was not the intent of Player 6. :o
My suggestion to all players is to forget about announcing anything...just push your bet forward, this way you will not be liable (at least I don't think you would) for the full amount. Example Player 1 check...Player 2 Bet 20,000 Player 3 Fold Player 4 Fold, Player 5 Fold, Player 6 "pushes 12,000" forward. He might be forced to surrender his 12,000 but I believe he will not be liable to add another 8,000...Mike, am I right?
-
Mike,
I don't understand why you replied on a different post, then directed us back here? Anyway, my earlier reply was, in part, based on what you said earlier, and I'll quote: "There was some discussion in 2013 that if the underbet was "gross" (i.e. less than 50% or less than 20% etc. of the amount to call) that might be an automatic trigger of a right to leave it in and fold... but no agreement was reached for any further modification and it was left as is. So you have discretion in Case B."
Am I missing something?
-
My suggestion to all players is to forget about announcing anything...just push your bet forward, this way you will not be liable (at least I don't think you would) for the full amount. Example Player 1 check...Player 2 Bet 20,000 Player 3 Fold Player 4 Fold, Player 5 Fold, Player 6 "pushes 12,000" forward. He might be forced to surrender his 12,000 but I believe he will not be liable to add another 8,000...Mike, am I right?
No. You will find the answer in the TDA Rules...
Rule 39-B: "A player undercalls by declaring or pushing out less than the call amount without first declaring “call”."
Rule 37-C: "For all betting rules, declaring a specific amount only is the same as silently pushing out an equal amount."
Merely pushing out chips silently is still construed as an undercall in this situation and treated the same as if the player had verbalized "twelve thousand". Since he's facing the opening bet its a mandatory full call... there's no option to leave your chips in and fold.
-
My suggestion to all players is to forget about announcing anything...just push your bet forward, this way you will not be liable (at least I don't think you would) for the full amount. Example Player 1 check...Player 2 Bet 20,000 Player 3 Fold Player 4 Fold, Player 5 Fold, Player 6 "pushes 12,000" forward. He might be forced to surrender his 12,000 but I believe he will not be liable to add another 8,000...Mike, am I right?
Nick,
#Facepalm You just contradicted what Mike said, as well as what you said in your first line:
There you are...you heard it from Mike. The undercall MUST be brought up to the full raise, even though that was not the intent of Player 6.
For me, the intent of Player 6 is irrelevant.
-
Ralph...It was not a contradiction, but a sarcastic response to a rule that is as clear as mud! A raise should not be this complicated...and it certainly should never favor an unintentional raise from a player that missed a silent raise from an intervening player.
I don't know if you play much, but I sure hope you're never in the position of player 2 (see Guillaume's Case #3) betting 55,000 only to have the floor come over and force player 6 to push out another 43,000 because he didn't see your 55,000 bet! Player 6 is pissed...but not as much as you because you were prevented from making, what should have been a successful bluff!...Yeah, that's right...you got caught bluffing, not by player 6, by the stupid rule that sent you packing! :o ??? ::)
One other thing. I guess Robert's Rules are not good enough for this situation...only when it's convenient for the floor!
-
Mike,
Are you saying that there is no longer any protection for a player that pushes out a short wager? This appears to me as a clear contradiction to your earlier statement when you said: "we had discretion...."
In Case "C" if player 1 bet 12,000 and player 2 raised to 55,000...and player 6 pushed 12,000 then he might have the protection you spoke of earlier...but because player 1 checked, and player 6 was facing an opening bet, he MUST call...there is no other option.
Wow...this gets better every time I turn on my computer!
-
Mike, Are you saying that there is no longer any protection for a player that pushes out a short wager? This appears to me as a clear contradiction to your earlier statement when you said: "we had discretion...."
Nick I'm saying the Poker TDA Rules are what they are. They could not be clearer in these cases.
Apparently you're not familiar with the rules pertaining to undercalls, so the first thing I'd suggest is you read them.
In Case "C" if player 1 bet 12,000 and player 2 raised to 55,000...and player 6 pushed 12,000 then he might have the protection you spoke of earlier...but because player 1 checked, and player 6 was facing an opening bet, he MUST call...there is no other option.
Wow...this gets better every time I turn on my computer!
Again, have you read the rule? Yes... if you're facing the opener and you undercall you must make it a full call. There is absolutely no basis for claiming you didn't understand what the bet is. Players are responsible for FOLLOWING THE ACTION, See Rule 2.... Again I would suggest you take a time out... and read the TDA Rules top to bottom... Familiarize yourself with them and decide if these are rules you want to use... It's not the TD's job to "protect" players who don't follow the action. You seem to be so determined to allow players to make mistakes then give them options of whether they call or not... that's a recipe for angle-shooting and chaos.
-
One other thing. I guess Robert's Rules are not good enough for this situation...only when it's convenient for the floor!
Nick,
One of the problems is that players such as yourself, feel that there needs to be concrete, indisputable rule definitions for each and every possible scenario.
I'm sorry to tell you that this is not possible.
For myself, all of the examples that were given are clearly covered by the current TDA rules. While the player may not know or agree with the rule, I don't see any need to complicate it further.
With regards to how the player feels after my call: Knowing that I considered all of the pertinent information, followed the rules and made the call in the best interest of the game, my conscious is clear.
-
Hey Ralph,
When you get a chance read that set of rules I sent you a couple years ago. "The Las Vegas Hilton Rulebook." There were very few problems following those rules. I will NEVER be in favor of any rule that offers little, or no protection to a player that is forced to alter his intended bet. Rulemakers must always consider the best interest of the game. A quote from Rules Of Poker by Chuck Ferry: "The rules are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage."
Mike,
If we all understood the TDA rules there would be no need for this forum. If the rules were clear I wouldn't be asking all these questions. Questions that were not answered. Telling me "the TDA rules are what they are" does not address my simple questions and examples that I clearly explained. What really amazes me is how every rule change is worse than the one it replaced!
Bottom line: If you call a bet or raise, and it is short, there is zero tolerance. You can not fold and you must complete the bet whether you like it or not! Now that's what I call a rule!
-
If we all understood the TDA rules there would be no need for this forum. If the rules were clear I wouldn't be asking all these questions. Questions that were not answered.
Every reasonable question you have asked regarding undercalls has been answered ad nauseum. Here is a summary of the TDA undercall rule:
1: If you undercall when facing the opening bet, whether the hand is multi-way or heads-up, you must make a full call. Now... stop there and let that sink in... try to resist saying "I'm confused".... imagine the scenario... Player A makes an opening bet, and you are facing it. You undercall, you must make a full call.
2: If the play is heads up, (you and an opponent), your opponent bets and you undercall, you must make a full call. Again, let that sink in....
NOW, the above two rules are based on THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GAME>.. which is that PLAYERS FOLLOW THE ACTION (Rule 2). There's your justification and explanation for why the rule is what it is. Further, in tournament situations we need a very universal rule that will be applied the same way in every situation, so that there's no favoritism or accomodation towards one player but not another.
3: The only other option... play is multi-way and there's been an opener and a raise... if you undercall that raise then at TDs discretion you may be allowed to leave your bet in and fold. That's the only such circumstance. Let it sink in...
Every one of GG's examples is easily answered by one of the 3 situations above. You say the rule isn't clear when in fact it couldn't be clearer, you just apparently don't like the rule.
Instead you seem to want the TD to make a discretionary judgement call for every underbet. Perhaps that works in cash games, but in tournament situations it is not desirable to have every undercall subject to TD discretion... that would create a much wider range of outcomes and would by it's nature be applied unevenly.
That is the TDA Rule on undercalls, it's crystal clear but for some reason you choose to insist it's confusing. And you ask questions that are so clearly spelled out in the rule itself, such as your proposal to players that they push chips out silently to avoid being locked into a call. In answer to your proposal I posted TWO RULES that verbatim say that pushing chips out silently is treated exactly the same as a verbal declaration of the same amount... yet you insist I haven't addressed your questions. Frankly it's mind-numbing after a point, and not constructive. And worse is you respond with sarcasm and ridicule such as "It gets better every time" and "now that's what I call a rule".
-
Mike,
You're right about me not liking the rules. All you had to do was say yes or no to my examples. I do understand the rules, and don't like the changes that have been made, or the reasons for those changes. I guess, for the most part, this started with Accepted Action...which I still don't like.
By the way, I never once mentioned confusion on this subject. The more appropriate feelings are disbelief and disappointment.
Ralph: "The intent of player 6 is irrelevant" REALLY!!!! ??? ::)
-
"The intent of player 6 is irrelevant" REALLY!!!! ??? ::)
The fact of the matter is that other than the player in question, no one truly knows what their intention was. They may tell you what their intention was, but without a doubt it's going to be in their best interest.
Players are afforded every opportunity to clearly state their intentions. When a player fails to make their intentions clear, and I get called over for a floor call, they now have entrusted me to do what's best for the game and should understand that my decision might not always align with their intentions.
Let me give you an example:
Blinds 1,000 / 2,000
Player 1 bets 5,000
Player 2 tosses out (5) 5,000 chips. Dealer says raise. Player 1 says All-in. Player 2 says he intended to call, thought he was tossing out (5) 1,000 chips.
Do you care what Player 2's intentions were ? Of course not.
-
The fact of the matter is that other than the player in question, no one truly knows what their intention was. They may tell you what their intention was, but without a doubt it's going to be in their best interest.Players are afforded every opportunity to clearly state their intentions.
Most important point right here.
-
Ralph and Gregg,
All you're showing me is another one of the many different scenarios that can create the problems we face every day. First of all, I want to draw attention to the actions of a good dealer that would prevent these mistakes before they get out of hand.
In your example: because Player 1 reacted before Player 2 could correct his mistake...It's too late. He's stuck with his mistake. Now how can you compare your scenario with the original post?
When player 1 checked and Player 2 bet 55,000 and Player 6 called 12,000...how in the hell is that in his best interest? What's his angle? There is none! You'll have to come up with something better than this example if you want my attention.
I absolutely agree with your recent example, but it has nothing to do with the other.
-
Nick,
Are you trying to say that the following two examples should be handled differently ?
Example 1:
Player 1 Checks
Player 2 Bets 55,000
Player 3 Folds
Player 4 Folds
Player 5 tosses out 12,000
vs.
Example 2:
Player 1 Bets 55,000
Player 2 Folds
Player 3 Folds
Player 4 Folds
Player 5 tosses out 12,000
-
Yes, They are different.
Example 1: leaves another player yet to act...Player 1 (checked)... if Player 5 who tossed out 12,000, were warned (preferably by the dealer) that it was a 55,000 wager that he had to call, I would consider allowing him an option to complete his bet, or surrender his 12,000. This of course would depend on no reaction from Player 1 (who checked, initially). If the action of the short wager of 12,000 were raised by Player 1, or Player 1 called 55,000...I would consider it too late for Player 5 because substantial action has occurred. As you know, some situations are similar, yet slightly different from another.
Honestly I might consider a different resolution for identical situations based on the history of the player, the silent 55,000 wager from the initial bettor, an unclear announcement from the dealer, or any other factor that might have led to Player 5's mistake. I call it a mistake because, I can hardly think of a reason for any player to deliberately put in a short bet. Why would anyone intentionally do that? He might be forced to complete his errant wager to some astronomical amount...or surrender his short call, just give it away!
Example 2: Action gets down to only two players. Player 5 should be allowed to surrender his 12,000 and not call the 55,000. Especially if Player 1 agrees to not force Player 5 to call. It's head to head and I've always been in favor of separate rules for head to head action.
One other thought on this TDA rule; Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the lesser (RULED THE LESSER... YET FOR OR SITUATION...THROW THE BOOK AT "EM) value. Ex: NLHE 200-400 blinds, player declares “I bet five.” If it is unclear whether “five” means 500 or 5,000, the bet is 500. See Rules 2, 3 & 42. See Illustration Addendum.
The scenario above can raise other questions, too. Let's say that Player 1 does respond but only calls the short 12,000? Let's talk about this for a while...(Later)! These are my thoughts and I know they are not what the TDA wants.
So you understand that I know, in both of your examples Player 5 MUST call the 55,000 period! The reasons are: In Example 1 even though Player 1 checked, Player 5 is obligated to call the opening bet from Player 2. Likewise Example 1: Player 1 has made an opening bet, plus Player 5 MUST call because action was head-to-head.
I much prefer allowing a retraction of a short wager if a player was misled by another player, or misled by a dealer, as long as substantial action has not occurred.