PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: demon31 on April 29, 2011, 01:16:19 AM
-
Hi,
I'm a french poker player and I manage a poker association.
During our last weekly tournament, we had a problem.
Player A verbally announces all-in preflop, and immediatly says his stack is 2900.
Player B calls the all-in, without asking player A to recount his stack, or doing it himself.
Player B doesn't request the dealer to count the stack of player A, so the dealer doesn't do it either.
The two players don't put their chips in the middle of the table, they keep it with them.
Player A wins the pot.
When player A counts his stack to be paid, he founds 3800 instead of the 2900 announced.
What do we do ?
- Player B pays 3800 because he calls without recounting, and so it's his responsability ?
- Player A will be just payed for 2900, the amount announced preflop ?
- Player B can ask for cancelling this hand because his call is on a bad announce of player A, and/or because the dealer hasn't recount ?
Thanks a lot for your answers.
-
Welcome demon31,
Player A will be just paid the 2900 because it was announced. That is the call I would make. If he said nothing and just pushed all-in, or said all-in whithout calling out an amount, then it would be different.
-
Player A said allin, and announced 2900 that is a wrong amount of his stack, instead of 3800.
-
We discussed this at length previously and came to a (kindof) consensus that where a count was incorrect the actual total would be honoured if it was "within a reasonable" amount of the count given, that is to say, if a gross error has been made during the count, by way of giving a count that is for example in your case is around 26% out, I would therefore consider that to be "gross"
We do however have a situation where player B has to make reasonable efforts in order to verify for his own settlement that the chip count he has been given is correct, after all, it is his responsibility to verify the count and when he announces call, he is "technically" calling the full stack (and not the announced amount)
If you are satisfied player b has made reaosnable efforts to satisfy the chip count then let the hand play out for 2900 total, instead of 3800, due to the gross difference in amounts, I you are not satisfied, let the hand play out for 3800 total.
Regards
Stuart
-
demon31,
Are you still confused about the correct answer. Your recent reply tells me that you think I did not understand your question. Please read my first reply again. If you do not agree, we can discuss it further.
There is a brand new rule on the books that you might want to consider (Rule #89 WSOP 2011). I don't like it but, it could give a good argument for committing the player that called to the actual amount of 3800, no matter what was said. I feel that this new rule does not comply with rules of fairness and I don't believe that it will stay on the books, as written.
-
I think it might matter a little what level the blinds are, and what position players A and B are in. For instance, if the blinds are 1000-2000 and player A is all in and B is in the Big blind then 900 more to call and 1800 more to call is a significant jump (100%), but if blinds are $25-50 then the difference between 2850 more and 3750 more isn't as big of a jump (24%).
There's also something I don't like about a player saying all-in, miscalling the amount, getting called, having 900 refunded because of the error, then getting to continue in the tournament even if he loses an "all-in". I would say if we are going to go with the gross misunderstanding before the cards are run out then player B should be allowed to reconsider action, not only call 2900. If the official count is not made until after the cards are run out, then I side with the WSOP rule saying that players have assumed all action and the call is still 3800.
-
@Nick c.
During my first reading of your answer, I understood you talked about Player B instead of Player A.
So, effectively, I thank you didn't understand my question ;)
But now, after reading again, I saw my mistake ;)
In my defense, I'm not a natural english speaker.
In fact, with a mix of your answers and the rule of the WSOP, I think the TD must have an appreciation case by case, with a lot of informations on the hand, like to know if the player has requested a chip count, if the % between good and false amount is big, if considering the pocket cards and/or the stack of the caller, he'll call anyway even knowing the good stack amount...
Thanks a lot for your quick and documented answers.
-
demon31,
Your English is a heck of a lot better than my French, so no need to apologize. I am not a big fan of using a percent (%) to determine a gross misunderstanding on a bet. I also am not in favor of players saying they are all-in, without pushing the amount into the betting area. When players act that quick all kinds of bad things (misunderstandings) can occur. There was an incident that happened in a local casino about two months ago that I never heard of before. At the showdown Player A said all-in and while Player B was pushing his chips forward to call, Player A turned over his cards and Player B (who was going to call) refused to put his $600 in the pot. The floor was called and Player B was told if he did not honor his bet, he would be barred from playing there again.......Are you ready for this? He picked up his chips and walked out before security could stop him. As far as I know, Player A has never received his $600. There were quite a few mistakes by all participants. Player A should have waited until B called for certain. Player B was not the kind of person that any room needs, and the floor probably should not have made his threat seem more like an option. In any event, if the chips are pushed forward and/or clearly defined by the bettor, most of these problems would be elliminated.
If a verbal bet is binding then which has presedence, the spoken amount or saying all-in? I also think when the boxed cards are recognized will have a huge impact on retracting a misunderstood bet. Easier to correct pre-flop, for example, as opposed to the showdown when it is too late.
-
In general I think the trend in these rulings is towards holding the caller to a full call. This functionally makes alot of sense because it adds another set of eyeballs to get the bet right: a) the bettor; b) the dealer; and c) the caller... between the 3 of them looking at the chips pushed out in the stack it's much less likely to get the bet amount wrong. If the caller has any question whatsoever he can (within reason) ask to have the chips displayed in a manner to remove any doubt. If we don't hold the caller to a full call then we can run into the untenable situation to where there's not a re-count of the chips at showdown and 3800 is pushed to him if he wins, but on the other hand there is a precise count if he loses and he only pays 2900 because the original bet wasn't counted right. This isn't a tenable situation, he should be at risk to lose what he stands to win and the only way to do that is to hold him to a full call. That's not to say that a ruling can't be made in the best interest of the game in the event of a gross misunderstanding or extenuating circumstances. But in this exact case, 900 on 2900 doesn't somehow seem gross to me as TD. Perhaps this should be explored at the June Summit to see if more precise language can be adopted.
-
Great points, Mike. But when you said:
If the caller has any question whatsoever he can (within reason) ask to have the chips displayed in a manner to remove any doubt.
The player could or should ask the dealer for a count of the chips since this is a bet and not a player"s stack. If there is still a question about the amount, he could ask for the bet to be spread so that he could count it.
-
Here we go again with another debatable rule. What happened to the good old days when a player made a bet, and the next player asked the dealer how much the bet was.....This game is getting too technical IMHO. What happened to the general rules of etiquette : Players should be certain that their bet is clear to all. If the first player acts with an incorrect amount, it should be corrected before others have acted. I will be real surprised if that new rule #89 (WSOP) is used after this year.
I agree with DCJ001 when he said; the Player could or should ask the dealer for a count of the chips since this is a bet and not a players stack.
Mike brought up some real interesting scenarios, too. At some point the amount should be counted and confirmed, so if the dealer counts it in front of everyone, it should be correct. Right?
-
For me player B should pay the 3800.
For Nick: with respect for you, I saw you saveral times using the general rules of etiquette "Players should be certain that their bet is clear to all" but IMHO you "over-use" it. I say this becuse I read so many calls thoses time who REPSONSABILISE THE FOLLOWING PLAYERS MUCH MORE THAN THE INITIAL BETTOR! The rules are not mathematicaly exact and that's why we are payd for: to judge! For judging and when no texts to help me, I use what is called in french laws the "jurisprudence": it means the habits of the MAJORITY of the other TDs & managers.
The big majority of the answers they gave me in general responsabilize the FOLLOWING players! I remember the case of player A moving very very slightly a finger ... dealer announcing "check" ... so player B announcing "check" too ... then player A stopping the action saying he never checked ... calling the floor ... the dealer saying to the floor that HE (the dealer) ACTUALLY WAS WRONG and made a wrong announce because player A's finger move was certainly a reflex etc ... Floor going back to player A action and let him bet free while player B screaming that he (himself) reveiled weakness because of the dealer error ... etc ... most of the gentlemen on this forum agreed with the floor RESPONSABILISING PLAYER B!
So ... I WOULD HAVE ALSO RESPONSABILISED HERE PLAYER B: he made no effort enought to check the amount (asking for the dealer to count, asking for the chips to be pushed and compared etc ...)!
In My So Arrogant Opinion (but knowing that one of the two players will allways think our call is arrogant ... aren't we paid for that?)!
;)
-
Guillaume,
When the dealer and three players get the bet wrong, to me that is an unclear bet. Your other example of the player lightly moving his finger and the dealer thinking he checked, should have been backed-up and corrected. That is the purpose of substantial action.
Yes, you are also correct when you say that I blame players for unclear bets. Perhaps if more TD's and floorpersons "over-used" this rule of etiquette they would have a lot less headaches in tournaments. What is so difficult about announcing what your bet is, or when a player goes all-in, get a proper count?
-
Here we go again with another debatable rule. What happened to the good old days when a player made a bet, and the next player asked the dealer how much the bet was.....This game is getting too technical IMHO. What happened to the general rules of etiquette : Players should be certain that their bet is clear to all. If the first player acts with an incorrect amount, it should be corrected before others have acted. I will be real surprised if that new rule #89 (WSOP) is used after this year.
Going to chime in here because I think the terms "Accepting the action" and "Gross misunderstanding" are not being utilized correctly and are getting somewhat distorted. You're the guinea pig here Nick ;)
Almost everyone who replied to this thread is under the impression that Player A's bet is unclear because he stated an amount of 2900. His bet is not unclear. His bet is "All-in".
After you announce "All-in", the amount is a mute point.
Then Player B announces "Calls the all-in". This is where the rule #89 comes from.
Player B is accepting Player A's action of "All-in" regardless of the amount. That's why we use the term "Accepting the Action".
Now, did Player A misrepresent his chips? Maybe.... maybe he miscounted. Still his bet was "All-in" and Player B did not ask for a count and his bet was "Call".
Therefore, there's no need for the TD to ask themselves if there was a gross misunderstanding of the bet. There clearly was not. The bets were "All-in" and "Call".
Now what constitutes a "Gross misunderstanding"? This happens when a player pushes forward a bet and it is miscounted, misstated, or otherwise unclear and subsequent action behind the unclear bet is not equal to the actual amount bet. Long sentence for a simple problem. Here's a simple example that happened recently where I made this ruling.
Example 1: Player A bet 1600 (3 $500 chips and 1 $100 chip). Player B asks the dealer how much the bet is and the dealer says "$400". Player B announces call and puts 400 into the pot (4 $100 chips). Player A corrects the dealer that the bet is 1600. Player B immediately grabs his chips back and wants to fold. Dealer calls for floor. I let Player B take his chips back and fold. The bet was both unclear and a gross misunderstanding 400 vs 1600.
Example 2: Player A bets a couple of dirty stacks of $100 chips that appear to be 25 high. Player B asks how much? Player A states $5,000. Player B says call. Player A wins. The dealer breaks down the stacks to verify. The dealer finds 2 $5,000 chips mixed within the stacks of $100 chips. The bet turns out to be $14,800. That is a gross misunderstanding, 5,000 vs 14,800.
As for Rule #89 of the WSOP rule book it is certainly going to be used for a very long time. It's been in use ever since I've been working for the WSOP and that's 6 yrs now. The only difference is the WSOP began publishing it's rulebook online for all to view and mostly became necessary as a back-up for major decisions that have happened in recent years. Most notably the cell phone ruling involving David Singer. This incident changed a lot things rules wise and was one that prompted them post the rules online as well as the Brandon Cantu incident.
That's my 2 cents on this one.
-
wsopmcgee:
When quoting someone's post, it's best to put your reply outside of the quoted (purple) area so that the quoted post and your reply are easily distinguishable.
Just a helpful hint.
-
Ya, then I wouldn't have to put a magnifying glass in front of my monitor to read the micro-type :)
-
wsopmcgee:
When quoting someone's post, it's best to put your reply outside of the quoted (purple) area so that the quoted post and your reply are easily distinguishable.
Just a helpful hint.
Haha... had no idea I even had done it.
-
Thomas,
How do you determine a "gross" misunderstanding? I agree with most of what you wrote, but it contradicts WSOP Rule #89. It was NOT in the 2010 Rules, but it's there now.
Why can a player ask the dealer; "is it my turn?" or "can you tell me what that turn card is ? I can't make-out the suit." Yet, the player has no right to ask how much the bet is, because whatever the dealer, or another player tells him, is meaningless? So what good is any verbal, other than all-in? The rule is ridiculous.
Thomas, you gave some examples of what you consider gross misunderstanding, but that is only what you percieve. In a low limit game, like a spread-limit $1 to $5, Player A bets $5 and player B puts $1 in the pot and says call. Is that a gross misunderstanding?
DCJ001, I'm sorry but I don't know how to high-light quotes either. Please don't explain it. I'll get it sorted out at the Summit.
-
Thomas,
How do you determine a "gross" misunderstanding? I agree with most of what you wrote, but it contradicts WSOP Rule #89. It was NOT in the 2010 Rules, but it's there now.
Why can a player ask the dealer; "is it my turn?" or "can you tell me what that turn card is ? I can't make-out the suit." Yet, the player has no right to ask how much the bet is, because whatever the dealer, or another player tells him, is meaningless? So what good is any verbal, other than all-in?
No where does the rule state that you have no right to ask how much a bet is. That would be ridiculous. The actions by Player A in this situation are only governed by the verbal statement of "All-in". What Player A says after that regarding chip count is mute. Players tend to lie, exaggerate and often miscount their chips. I"m only talking about this specific situation. If you want to discuss another situation then post an example.
Examples where a player announces a bet of $2900, but then places $3800 in the pot is a different situation. That's not what happened. Player A announced "All-in" and then declared a chip count which no one bothered to verify.
Thomas, you gave some examples of what you consider gross misunderstanding, but that is only what you percieve. In a low limit game, like a spread-limit $1 to $5, Player A bets $5 and player B puts $1 in the pot and says call. Is that a gross misunderstanding?
Yes it is IMO. I dealt $1-$5-$10 spread limit Stud for years. That's why in these types of cash games, players are often allowed to withdraw their bets. Which I dislike very much. But it keeps the customers happy. Which in the long run is a disservice to them because they get conditioned to think that they don't have to pay attention to the action and if they make a mistake they'll be let off the hook. But that's a whole different topic. ::)
-
Thomas,
I will quote your last reply:
"No where does the rule state that you have no right to ask how much a bet is. That would be ridiculous. The actions by Player A in this situation are only governed by the verbal statement of "All-in". What Player A says after that regarding chip count is mute. Players tend to lie, exaggerate and often miscount their chips. I"m only talking about this specific situation."
Here is WSOP Rule #89-Accepted Action: Poker is a game of observation. It's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amout into the pot. It is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount
.
IMO, based on the rule as written, VERBAL (of any amount) is NOT binding. Binding statements would include;" I'm All-in," or "I call" or" I raise." Asking the dealer how much? is meaningless, because if he gives you the wrong amout, it's still up to you to get it right. Am I missing something?
This ridiculous rule, shifts the responsibility of making a clear bet, (that is understood by all), from the bettor... to the other players.
-
I believe I understand the intention of rule #89, but you have to admit "If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amout into the pot. It is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount" has the strong potential for some rule #1's.
First off, it doesn't include a gross misunderstanding clause, so I'm sure you are going to see some floors make a guy who was told $8,000 put in $40,000 at some point because the dealer thought they were $1000 chips but they were actually $5000 chips. Some players don't see very well, so all they have to go off is what the dealer tells them. For that matter, what about if the player is completely blind? Is he going to be held to a grossly incorrect amount when the other player and the dealer both tell him the wrong amount and he has no way to verify against that? Players aren't allowed to touch another player's chips so it's not like they can reach over and count the stack themselves.
Discounting vision impairment, some players are just flat out not used to live poker, also not all chip colors are standardized so this can be pretty confusuing at times (I work at a casino in PA that uses pink for $100, Yellow for $500 and Brown for $1000 for instance). And I know that it's a game of skill, and being able to count is a necessary skill... but I see this rule hurting more people than it helps and my feeling (right now at least) is that this is going to the way of the "every player has an all-in button" or "Pro Poker Peek cards".
-
I think that if this rule just added a line that says "so long as the difference does not exceed 150% of the amount stated" I would be more acceptant of this rule. If I say 6000 and it turns out to be 9000 it's much more acceptable than if I say 6000 and it turns out to be 26,000. I just feel that there has to be a limit to the amount that can be mistated. Otherwise, what's to stop a player from lying in order to try and get paid off? If a player purposefully states "all-in for 6000" with two chip a 25k and a 1k, the next player asks "6000?" the dealer maybe even mistakenly confirms this statement, he calls, then it turns out to be $26k??? At what point was the calling player in the wrong?
I think putting a limit of 50% over the miscalled amount would help avoid what could be some really bad situations.
-
Sorry guys, didn't mean to abandon this thread... just got really busy between two WPT's and now the WSOP.
Nick, I understand your frustration with the wording of the rule. In our Sup. meeting this rule caused a bit of heated debate. The intent of the rule is as Brian posted, intended to help players understand that they a responsible for the accuracy of a bet, whether winning or losing the amount wagered. That's the "Spirit" of the rule. However, it needs a desperate rewrite.
Because of this rule, the debates began over a scenario like this:
Blinds 100 - 200
Player A calls for 200
Player B raises to 900
Player C puts 200 into the pot to call unaware of the raise.
Let's stop it here
It is current common practice, with good reason IMO, that Player C now has two options: 1) Call 700 more and correcting the bet to 900 or 2) Fold and forfeit the 200.
Several senior staff argued that because of rule #91 (changed from #89) making the player responsible for everything, that Player C MUST call 700 more and correct the bet to 900. They also argued that if Player B had moved all-in for any amount, be it 900, 9,000, or 90,000, that if Player C places 200 into the pot, then again they are responsible for the All-in amount with no redress. And it wasn't so much the fact that these staff members were trying to enforce the rules in the will of good sportsmanship, they wanted to hold every player accountable for all bets wagered, and believe that current practice lets players "off the hook" for only 200 with no penalty for not paying attention to the table by allowing them to fold. Many also disagreed with this thought process. What these staff members failed to realize is that those players are being penalized. They are forfeiting 200 while conceding a chance to contest for the pot! Not only that, but you leave Player C in a vulnerable spot to Player A who has had the betting opened up to them.
Ultimately I'm currently under the impression that there was no procedural changes in this regard. IMO it would be a monumental disaster.
Brian states there should be some adaptation of an allotment of some percentage that is acceptable in case of misinformation / misrepresentation of a bet and suggests 150%. This is exactly why in the ROPE I use the phrase "Gross Misunderstanding" of the bet. What needs to be addressed further is, what is a "Gross Misunderstanding". But the problem is, if you define what a gross misunderstanding is with a specific percentage, I'm sure it'll present other problems/challenges in the future of a nature that I'm too tired to contemplate.
And if all this is unclear... I'm sorry but I'm in desperate need of sleep!!
-
Thomas: I understand why you need a rest, especially after this discussion. A suggestion that you may want to consider;
You can always use language similar to the following if you choose: "For the purposes of only this rule, Gross Misunderstanding is defined as XXX% of the correct bet the player is facing". So for example using your numbers and Brian's percentage, it would work like this: If the announced bet is 900, any actual bet amount equal to or more than 1,350 would be a Gross Misunderstanding.
I am not a great favorite of having different definitions in different places, but sometimes that is the only practical solution.
Chet
-
I don't care what the reasons are, if a player makes an honest mistake that does not mislead any other player, he should be allowed to even retract his incorrect wager. What happened to substantial action? Are you saying that it does not apply in this situation? I said it before and I'll say it again, that rule won't be around next year, at least not the way it is currently written.
-
2 things.
First, If I understand the rules correctly the player is responsible for making sure of the size of the bet/raise he/she is facing. This regardless of if the amount has been wrongly given by the dealer and another player/other players. So the way I see it is that the only way the player can take full responsibility for his own action is to count the chips him/her self. But you are not allowed to touch another players chips. So what are his/her options to make a 100 % sure he/she gets the amount correct? Can the player ask the dealer to spread the betters/raisers chips in front of him/her so he/she can count them"
Second, I would like to add a what-if here. I encountered a similar situation. The numbers were different but I'll use the ones from this example. In this case the caller said "ok, I will call your 2900". Should the fact that the caller verbally announced the amount he called make any difference as to his responsibilty?
-
Pabdex,
First of all, the rules we are currently talking about are not from the TDA. Rule #30 is as close as the TDA gets to clarifying bet amounts. I will "quote" the last line of the rule: IT IS THE PLAYER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE HIS INTENTIONS CLEAR......WSOP Rule #89 puts the responsibility on the player calling the bet......that's why I have a problem with their rule #89.
Your second question: you said, in your example that the caller said "ok, I will call your 2900." My answer would be yes if in fact that was the correct amount of the bet to him. If the bettor said I bet 3900 and the caller said I call 2900, that's different.
-
I can see I should clearify. The situation is identical to the one posted by demon at the beginning of this thread. Meaning. one player moves all-in and states an incorrect (lower than the actual) amount. The difference from demons example is that the caller verbally announces the amount he calls.....
-
WSOP Rule #89 puts the responsibility on the player calling the bet......that's why I have a problem with their rule #89.
It's Rule #91.
-
I don't care what the reasons are, if a player makes on honest mistake that does not mislead any other player, he should be allowed to even retract his incorrect wager. What happened to substantial action? Are you saying that it does not apply in this situation? I said it before and I'll say it again, that rule won't be around next year, at least not the way it is currently written.
Just curious Nick why you feel like you need be the gov't in cases like this? We can not, and should not, protect every player from themselves because they make an "honest mistake" or some other error.
I can't think of a more fitting ironic phrase than "honest mistake" in a poker game. A game built on deception and misinformation in order to mislead your opponent into making the wrong decision. Honest mistake indeed.
You may not believe the rule will be around next year, but I assure you that it will. Only it will be defined more clearly.
As far as substantial action, I do not believe it applies here. The action is already completed. A bet was made and accepted. Even though accepted for an incorrect amount. But not for an amount that would classify as "Gross misunderstanding" ;)
-
Thomas: I understand why you need a rest, especially after this discussion. A suggestion that you may want to consider;
You can always use language similar to the following if you choose: "For the purposes of only this rule, Gross Misunderstanding is defined as XXX% of the correct bet the player is facing". So for example using your numbers and Brian's percentage, it would work like this: If the announced bet is 900, any actual bet amount equal to or more than 1,350 would be a Gross Misunderstanding.
I am not a great favorite of having different definitions in different places, but sometimes that is the only practical solution.
Chet
Chet,
I like the phrasing as a starting point. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with defining it at 150% or some other percentage. But you do have to start somewhere with the figures if you're going to define something like this. You have to think through all the angles just like a poker player would. Close as many loopholes as possible and hope that doing so doesn't open up new loopholes.
The reason for defining it is obvious. Clarity. The reason for not defining it is not so clear. Just using the 150% example:
- Player A bets $550. Dealer states $150. Player B calls $150. When the chips are small it's easy to think that the amount is NOT grossly misunderstood, but clearly the math says that it should qualify.
- Player A bets $200,000 wiith 10 stacks of yellow chips. Player B asks the dealer for a count. Dealers are trained to break down 1 stack and verify 1 stack and match to count quickly. The dealer verifies $200,000. Player B calls. Player A is informed that they are called and wins. Player A then counts their own chips where there are 3 $25,000 chips buried in dirty stacks and declares his chip count is $275,000. Now the opposite is true from the first scenario. When the chips are big it's more easy to think that the amount IS grossly misunderstood, but the math clearly says that it should not qualify.
Maybe some language stating "players will be held to all called bets including incorrect, miscounted, misinformed wagers and will be subject to calling the correct amount wagered up to XXX% more than the stated amount."
-
Thomas,
You corrected me on which rule I was refering to and it is 2011 WSOP Rule #89 not 91. I am trying to use the TDA rules that give no mention of "blame" or "fault" or identify the offending player as the one that did not understand the wager, or got the wrong information from the dealer. I look at TDA rule #30 that says it is the players responsibility to make his intentions clear.
Look, my feelings, or belief is that no player should be forced to bet any amount if he is mislead by the dealer or another player. Why in the hell would a player be obligated to put in thousands more than he intended when the bettor stated the wrong amount, or he was told the wrong amount when he asked what the bet was. You can keep the rule on the books as long as you want, but I'll never use it if I have anything to say about it. I think some of the rulemakers are getting a little too technical, it's like loosing a golf tournament after shooting 10 under par (first place), only to discover that you filled out your score card incorrectly.
-
Thomas,
You corrected me on which rule I was refering to and it is 2011 WSOP Rule #89 not 91.
It's rule #91... the rule set you have is not up to date. But it's not important what # the rule is. What's important is that people understand the intended purpose of the rule and how to use it. Whether a WSOP rule gets adopted or incorporated into some other rule set is their prerogative. No one is forcing you to use it. Just like the TDA doesn't force anyone to use their rule set.
I think you said it well when you said "TDA rules supplement" other rule sets. Even WSOP rules.
-
Thomas:
Do you have or can you point us to something that will provide the basis for/history behind this rule? I think it would be help our understanding if we had something that explains the why and wherefore this rule was adopted. As it stands, the only thing I can think of as a basis would be the HUGE number of dealers needed for the WSOP and the fact that getting anywhere near that number of experienced dealers has to be really, really difficult. Assuming you are stuck with 'the best you can get', I would expect this rule MAY have been adopted to put the responsibility on the player.
Nick said something in a prior post about the PGA and players being responsible for an accurate scorecard. I know for a fact that at least once a year a PGA player is disqualified because they turned in an incorrect SIGNED scorecard. The PGA makes the player 100% responsible, no ifs, no ands and no buts. If the card is wrong and you signed it and turned it in, you are disqualified PERIOD. Harsh, yes, but the PGA expects a level of professionalism and holds to that.
I think it is harsh to expect that high level of professionalism/experience for the HUGE number of players now involved with the WSOP. However, if you are going to participate, then it is your responsibility to know the "rules of the game". As is often said, Ignorance is no excuse. So, while I think the rule harsh, I think I can understand it. Would I adopt it for events I run, probably not. But I don't run events that get thousands of players.
-
I'd like to weigh in on this discussion and see what you folks think. I have considered the verbal action that Player A makes and it would be my determination that the verbal action constitutes a string bet. Under the same rule that would prevent a player from making a raise after stating, "I call, and I Raise," the verbal action of "All-In" is the initial bet. The player can't follow that up with another bet of a different amount, neither less nor more. Once Player A announced "All-In" the bet was made and whatever follows doesn't count.
I feel it would be the dealer's responsibility to immediately count the chips down to verify the amount, regardless of what Player A was claiming. By not doing so, the responsibility for ensuring the amount falls to Player B to make the request of the dealer before acting. Since neither the Dealer nor Player B made the request to count down the chips, Player B is accepting responsibility to pay the bet off in full, including any difference between the claimed amount and the actual bet of "All-In."
Remember, it is the player's responsibility to keep up with the action on the table. My thought is, giving up the right to have the chips accurately counted before acting doesn't relinquish Player B from paying off the full bet.
-
OK Pepper W, I don't necessarily disagree. For example, player A says "All-in for 10K", player B says "I call". The dealer counts the stack incorrectly, for example, he counts 10,000 and misses the fact that there are 2-5K chips in addition to 8-1K chips, (because the stupid house uses black for 1K and dark blue or purple for 5K and it is very hard to see the difference in some spots) so the correct total is 18K, not 10K.
If player B wins the pot, does he get 10K or 18K? If player A wins the pot, does player B have to pay 10K or 18K?
Whether you agree or not, the purpose of the rule is to put the responsibility on player B. My belief is that this rule was adopted by both the WSOP and the TDA to somewhat alleviate the fact that often dealers in very large events do not speak English well and may very well not count good either. By making the calling player responsible, any error falls on the player and not on the dealer or house. If this was not the reason this rule was adopted, I would like to hear from anyone that knows the "real" reason.
Chet
-
Very good point Chet. We agree on putting the responsibility on Player B. I also agree with the use of all available resources in the larger tournaments. I've played in tournaments where that was a factor, but players have to be aware of that and compensate by being even more aware of the action.
I was focusing on what would be in the fairness to the game. If Player B loses, he should pay the full amount of the bet, which was "All-In." If Player A loses the hand it wouldn't be fair to the game or the players that player A get a 900 rebate after the hand and continue playing after calling "All-In", as was brought up in an earlier post,
I'm really fighting the fact that this went down pre-flop and putting him on 2 picture cards trying to draw out on a small/mid pocket pair and would likely have called the larger amount anyway.
I think after reading all the posts, if I'm faced with this in the future I'm going to rule it like I would a string bet. Does that sound reasonable?
-
Pepper W:
As I expect you have gathered, if you read the whole thread, there are two schools of thought:
A) those who support a strict interpretation of the rule making the calling player totally responsible regardless of the accuracy of any so called "count", and
B) those who support a more liberal interpretation. Therefore, the reference to TDA Rule #1 within TDA Rule #42.
My point being that either position is/can be supported the way the TDA Rule is written. Furthermore, what is more important is that whichever interpretation you take, that YOU BE CONSISTENT in the application. Unless and until the rule is amended or whatever, consistency is more important.
Chet
-
I agree completely, consistency is the key.