PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types => Topic started by: K-Lo on March 06, 2013, 06:45:34 AM
-
Just putting something out there. With Pot Limit games (e.g. PLO, PLO8) gaining somewhat in popularity over the years, I was thinking about the rules for these games.
You may recall the Player's Championships situation at the WSOP - we talked about it at the beginning of this thread: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=678.0
In that case, it was actually an all-in situation, where it turned out the all-in amount was more than pot. The bet was called (a lot of other things also happened to confuse things), and only after the hand was played out did the bet sizes become an issue. The floor ultimately ruled that both players had accepted the all-in action (which I agree with).
I came across the pot-limit rules in RROP (primarily cash games) the other day, and noticed that although RROP does not use the phrase "accepting the action", there does seem to be some basis for a similar ruling.
POT-LIMIT RULES
A bet may not exceed the pot size. The maximum amount a player can raise is the amount in the pot after the call is made. Therefore, if a pot is $100, and someone makes a $50 bet, the next player can call $50 and raise the pot $200, for a total wager of $250.
1. If a wager is made that exceeds the pot size, the surplus will be given back to the bettor as soon as possible, and the amount will be reduced to the maximum allowable.
2. The dealer or any player in the game can and should call attention to a wager that appears to exceed the pot size (this also applies to heads-up pots). The oversize wager may be corrected at any point until all players have acted on it.
3. If an oversize wager has stood for a length of time with someone considering what action to take, that person has had to act on a wager that was thought to be a certain size. If the player then decides to call or raise, and attention is called at this late point to whether this is an allowable amount, the floorperson may rule that the oversize amount must stand (especially if the person now trying to reduce the amount is the person that made the wager).
(From RROP)
What I'm thinking about is that if we're moving towards a trend of putting the responsibility on players to get everything right, why can't we make it easier for players to simply overbet the pot, or even go all-in for more than a pot-sized raise, if all players accept the action? For example, what about an addendum to Rule 42 (Pot Size & Pot-Limit Bets):
In Pot Limit games, a bet or raise should not exceed the pot size. However, any player yet to act who wishes to dispute the legality of the size of a wager must do so before substantial action has occurred. If a player makes an oversize wager (including an all-in), and it is not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street has completed, the oversize wager shall stand.
And maybe, perhaps controversially, the dealer should take a back seat rule to correcting bet sizes:
The Dealer will not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand.
I know that die-hard Pot Limit traditionalists might take issue, and insist that "Pot Limit is pot limit", and that all pots should be checked and corrected. It may be argued that if we allow players to simply choose any bet size if no players in the hand object, the game might as well be No Limit, and not Pot Limit. It might also be argued that it opens up the possibility for an angle for players to simply go all-in, and get a read if a player requests that the wager be made right based on the pot. On the other hand, if a player overbets the pot when going all-in, the caller actually has an advantage in that he now has an option as to whether to accept the overbet (and potentially close the action) or to force the bet to the correct amount -- if the caller is not at fault, why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose?
-
And maybe, perhaps controversially, the dealer should take a back seat rule to correcting bet sizes:
The Dealer will not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand.
I know that die-hard Pot Limit traditionalists might take issue, and insist that "Pot Limit is pot limit", and that all pots should be checked and corrected. It may be argued that if we allow players to simply choose any bet size if no players in the hand object, the game might as well be No Limit, and not Pot Limit. It might also be argued that it opens up the possibility for an angle for players to simply go all-in, and get a read if a player requests that the wager be made right based on the pot. On the other hand, if a player overbets the pot when going all-in, the caller actually has an advantage in that he now has an option as to whether to accept the overbet (and potentially close the action) or to force the bet to the correct amount -- if the caller is not at fault, why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose?
I like this! At our place, in cash games, we do not have the dealers call string bets. If a player objects, prior to action, we enforce the valid bet...but only then. It is very similar to the situation you are referring to.
-
Tristan,
Not allowing dealers to call string bets is not in compliance with TDA tournament rules, do you only make exception for cash games? And if so, why?
I don't know... I think we're getting close to taking too many duties away from dealers. We would all be better off if the dealers were properly trained, and we let them run the game.
-
Tristan,
Not allowing dealers to call string bets is not in compliance with TDA tournament rules, do you only make exception for cash games? And if so, why?
At our place, in cash games, we do not have the dealers call string bets.
Yep, only cash games. I didn't make the rule, but I do kind of like it. It is not really less responsibility for the dealers because they still need to know if it is a string bet or not, they just don't call it.
-
Ken,
I agree with most of what you've written but, suggesting that the dealer should not correct the amount of any oversize wager unless requested to do so by a player in the hand...well, that's too much for me to accept. Likewise, allowing more than the pot size bet changes the game...in my opinion, it defeats the purpose of "pot limit" and should never be allowed, at least not intentionally.
You knew this was coming, ;D
-
Like I said, just throwing it out there ;)
OK... what about at a minimum -
If a player makes an oversize wager (including an all-in), and it is not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street has completed, the oversize wager shall stand.
-
K-Lo:
Same thing, in my opinion, with a few less words;
An oversize wager (including an all-in), not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street is complete, shall stand.
Chet
-
Chet... Sounds good to me!
-
An oversize wager (including an all-in), not corrected before substantial action has occurred or the betting for that street is complete, shall stand.
Chet
+1 :D
-
Wait a minute. How do you correct the bet if you want the dealer to sit there and say nothing? Plus the fact that regular pot limit players know what the "pot bet" should be, so when a player in front of them bets "pot" are you saying the caller should be held to the illegal oversize bet? Don't we have enough problems with no limit? Why don't we save pot limit omaha 8 for 2015 ;D After all, the Summit is only a few short months away.
-
Nick - it's ok for the dealer to say something and count the wager to confirm it is less than pot. Players should say something too (immediately) if there is doubt. But if for whatever reason no one says anything and lets an oversized bet sit there uncorrected, it should stand if there has been substantial action or betting on the street is complete.
-
And how do we feel about extending this principle to other situations, such as undersized bets and raises.
For example, the minimum bet for a particular round is 1k, but on the flop, someone (not all-in) bets 800, forgetting that the blinds have gone up. Of course, all the dealers and players should speak up if they notice the minimum is 1k... But suppose no one catches it and substantial occurs or the next street is dealt. Are we comfortable that the underbet should stand?
-
Ken,
I'm okay with it because it's not much different than a player going all-in for less. I've always objected to players being forced to put more into the pot than they wanted. I'm not sure I can properly defend the difference but, that's how I see it. What you speak of is a more common occurrence in limit (for example) when a player bets 5 on a 10 betting round. I believe the proper adjustment should be made but, I'm not sure if we can force the increase after substantial action. I'm sure we'll find an old ruling somewhere, I'll see what I can find.
-
All:
I find it hard to believe, especially with a full or almost full table of players,who are supposed to be paying attention to what is going on, that a "short bet" would not be brought to the dealers attention. I will agree that it can happen, especially in this day of headphones and texting and on and on, but shouldn't there be some repercussions for the players that fail to ensure the integrity of the game? With 6 and 7 figure payouts being common and the "thrill" of the TV camera, it is easy for any given player to make an honest mistake and in good faith fail to put the correct number of chips in the pot.
I don't see a whole lot of difference whether the mistake is too few or too many chips, the pot is not right and each player has as much responsibility as the other players, including the dealer, to ensure everything is right. But the question becomes, what can be done? Is it practical to assess each player a penalty? If not, what other remedy do we have?
Chet
-
Chet,
I agree with all you say about multiple players, and the dealer all missing the incorrect amount being wagered. I also agree with the following questions you wrote: " But the question becomes, what can be done? Is it practical to assess each player a penalty? If not, what other remedy do we have?"
I do not agree with; " I don't see a whole lot of difference whether the mistake is too few or too many chips...."
Somehow exceeding the limit, in a limit game, just doesn't seem right.
-
Nick:
Staying on Limit Poker for the sake of argument:
Are you saying that you think there is a difference between the player who puts too many chips in, compared to the player who puts too few chips in.
I fail to see how exceeding the bet in limit is any more wrong than shorting the limit in limit.
Moving on to no limit or pot limit, isn't the player who says, "Call", and fails to put enough chips in, just as "guilty" as the player who says "Call, and puts too many chips in? What about the player who says "Raise" and again fails to put the correct amount of chips in?
What isn't "Right" is the fact that the player put the wrong amount into the pot.
What also isn't "Right" is that none of the other players "spoke up" to correct the error (assuming they didn't). So who is the most at fault, the player who made (what may have been an honest mistake) the error, the players who failed to notice the error and bring it to the attention of the dealer, or the dealer who failed to notice the error and correct it.
I can certainly see where the concept of "Substantial Action" could apply and I don't see that it makes any difference whether the amount of chips put forward (and in question for this discussion) is less or more than what it should be. I can also see where the concept of "Accepted Action" could apply and again, I fail to see what difference it makes if the amount of chips is less or more than it should be.
Maybe these last few posts should be moved from the Pot Limit thread to the more general thread on Substantial Action/Accepted Action. MikeB if you think so, please feel free to do so.
Chet
-
Chet betting too much, or too little is wrong in any game. I feel the lesser of the 2 wrongs is betting under the minimum...it causes less damage. How far "over" is too far?
Accepted Action is a joke.
All of a sudden you want the dealer, or one of the other players, to bring it to everyone's attention, in pot limit, that the wrong amount is being bet. Yet, when a calling player asks how much the bet is, you want the dealer to sit there like a dummy and say nothing ::)
Chet, we don't agree on much, do we? I guess you can just chalk this up as another. I have to admit, I welcome the controversy...keeps things interesting, at least for the one tenth of 1% of the members that participate on the Forum.
-
A quick follow-up poll:
Player A & B are involved in a hand.
Player A bets. Player B says "all-in" and pushes all of his chips forward.
Dealer steps in and says "you're not all-in" as Player B has more chips than a pot-sized raise. The dealer counts out the amount of the raise, and pushes the remainder back to B.
Player A announces "well, I raise all-in too" and he pushes his stack forward. While doing this, he exposes pocket Aces.
Player B says "oh well, I fold then". Player A indicates that player B was all-in, "so how could he fold? Even if he didn't actually have enough chips to raise all-in, his intention was clearly to be all-in"...
Force B to call or fold?
-
K-Lo: My 2 cents FWIW --
I don't believe that "All-In" is a valid bet statement in PLO when the player has more chips than are necessary to make the pot size raise. Therefore, I don't believe that player B can be "forced" to call the last raise by player A. His intention is beside the point because at that point in the hand he cannot make any action that would result in all his chips going into the pot. If player B said "All-in" after the last raise by Player A but before the hole cards were exposed, and then after seeing the exposed cards said I fold, could he be forced to call the raise.
As I said FWIW.
Chet
-
The sequence of events, if I am understanding it correctly, is:
Player A bets
Player B attempts to bet all-in
Dealer corrects the action
Player A attempts to bet all-in and flips hand
Player B folds
As the dealer corrected the action before Player A made his all-in attempt, we have to assume that Player B (and the dealer) felt that Player B was only committed for the max raise prior to Player A's action.
So B made a valid fold IMO.
-
Player B can not raise all-in if the amount exceeds the allowable limit, (I'm agreeing with Chet). I guess I would compare his action to going all-in for $25 when facing a $10 bet on a $10 betting round, of a limit game. The only raise he could make would be $10 more...not $15.
I also agree with Tristan that Player B is only responsible for the maximum allowable bet he could have made, and I would allow him to fold after Player A prematurely showed his winning hand.
-
Agreed with Chet, Tristan, and Nick C.
So a follow-up to the follow-up:
Do you take any action against a player who repeatedly bets "all-in" and pushes all of his chips forward, every time he wishes to raises the "pot", knowing that he will be forced to only put in the amount of the pot every time? Perhaps he/she thinks it is a legal "angle" to make his hand look stronger than it is, for example.
In a previous post, I had suggested the possibility of amending the etiquette rule to include repeated instances of "unclear betting" as grounds for a warning/penalty - but in the absence of that, how would you approach this situation?
-
I think the etiquette rule still covers it: "Examples include, but are not limited to".
I would most likely not say anything the first time it happened (honest mistake?), give them a warning the second time, and then give an orbit for a third incident.
-
I agree with both opinions. I was wondering how you feel about this being different from the player that insists on betting "pot" in a no limit game? It's kind of the same thing. I remember discussions that we had on prior posts. They're not "proper" wagers but, they do reflect the intent to raise.
Players should never bet "pot" in limit, and never go all-in (when they're chips exceed the pot size) in PLO.
-
Players should never bet "pot" in limit, and never go all-in (when they're chips exceed the pot size) in PLO.
Agreed :)
-
Both of you agree? What is this world coming to? ;)
-
Yeah! Tristan and I agree! What says Ken? ;D
-
:). Yes I agree too. Although like I've said in previous threads, ideally I would like to see some provision that explicitly addresses unclear acts of betting that appears to be intentionally deceptive in the etiquette rule (but it's not a high priority).
-
I get what you are saying Ken. My concern is if we make a defined list and a situation comes up that IS an etiquette violation but it isn't on the list, we would bind our own hands. Do you think that would be better or worse than leaving a non-specific rule that gives us more leeway in order to decide what actions are bad enough to warrant a penalty? The way it is worded now, I feel, does give us that leeway.
-
Both of you agree? What is this world coming to? ;)
Lol, it isn't the first time Nick and I have agreed. ;D But in all reality, what good would a topic debate be without a good sparring partner? ;)
-
Tristan et all:
If you want to make a list of items that are subject to the rule, in other words some examples, but you don't want that list to be all inclusive, then you need to begin the list with "Including, but not limited to, the following:".
-
Right, and that is the way it is worded currently.
54: Etiquette Violations
Repeated etiquette violations will result in penalties. Examples include, but are not limited to, unnecessarily touching other players’ cards or chips, delay of the game, repeatedly acting out of turn or excessive chatter.
So what I am trying to figure out if it is ok the way it is, if unclear betting should be added to the list, or if there should be a specific list of violations.
I am fine with the way it is, and I am good with adding unclear betting terms in the examples. I just wonder about making a specific list; we would have to be very thorough.
-
Tristan:
Personally, I would leave it as it is. I am somewhat concerned that the rules and so forth are going to get so long and detailed that nobody will be able to keep up to speed unless they have a printed copy at all times. Besides, we as the TD need to be able to use these rules as teaching tools for the new players as well as enforcement tools for the angle shooters. Flexibility is very important and if we start putting each and every situation in a list we risk the chance of loosing that.
chet
-
Yep, yep! ;D The shorter the rules are, the easier time I have memorizing them!
-
I also like the idea of short rules...However, I would not object to a list of examples that would better explain when, and why, a rule has been broken.
I will use TDA #26 At Your Seat as an example: A player must be at his seat by the time all players have been dealt complete initial hands in order to have a live hand. A player must be at his seat in order to call time. At your seat means either seated or standing in front of your table position, or within arms reach of your chair, or....
How about TDA #43 String Bets and Raises? I know all TDA members are aware of what a string bet, or string raise is...but do you think a brief explanation would be a bad idea?