PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: DCJ001 on February 22, 2010, 05:11:27 PM
-
In a Tournament, action folds to the blinds.
Before the small blind gets a chance to act, the big blind says, "You're gonna limp, I'm gonna raise, you're gonna call."
The small blind then limps in. The big blind then tosses in a raise with one motion.
The small blind looks surprised, asks how much more it is to him, picks up two stacks of chips in two hands, says, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," then (in two distinctly separate motions) places the call amount followed by another stack about one second later.
The big blind then says, "You know that's a string raise."
The small blind says, "I said 'I'm gonna pound you back.'"
The big blind calls for a floor person to make a ruling. The small blind says that he said, "I'm gonna pound it up a little more."
The tournament is regulated by TDA rules which state:
30. Methods of Raising
In no-limit or pot-limit, a raise must be made by (1) placing the full amount in the pot in one motion; or (2) verbally declaring the full amount prior to the initial placement of chips into the pot; or (3) verbally declaring “raise” prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear.
You Make The Ruling: Raise Or Call?
-
Pretty straight forward IMO it's a call. No raise was announced and whilst it may of been his intention to raise he did not make his intentions clear therefore his actions of placing the call amount in first can only be assumed a call.
Regards
Stuart
-
I would rule it is a call. I do not believe he met any of the three conditions of TDA Rule 30.
Condition 1 - he did not place the full amount into the pot in one motion,
Condition 2 - he did not make a verbal declaration of the full amount,
Condition 3 - he did not verbally declare "Raise", did not place the amount of the call into the pot with his initial motion and then the full amount of the raise with one additional motion.
As Stuart said, he may fully have intended to raise. However, his method of do so does not meet the requirements of TDA Rule 30.
Hope this helps!!
-
I am making that a call. The sloppier we get in enforcement of clear, concise requirements from the players, the sloppier the game becomes with terminology for poker actions.
Tell me what this means in your part of the country: "Bust it up, sugar." "To the sky". "I guess I'm done, soon".
Without some other clear indication as to the players intent, none of the above statements mean anything in poker.
I cannot skillfully interpret a players intention when they use a foreign language, a slang expression, an original gesture, or some other creative comic verbiage to mean "raise". I like the idea of TD's going to rule 30 whenever there is the slightest doubt about a players' actions.
-
I am making that a call. The sloppier we get in enforcement of clear, concise requirements from the players, the sloppier the game becomes with terminology for poker actions.
Tell me what this means in your part of the country: "Bust it up, sugar." "To the sky". "I guess I'm done, soon".
Without some other clear indication as to the players intent, none of the above statements mean anything in poker.
I cannot skillfully interpret a players intention when they use a foreign language, a slang expression, an original gesture, or some other creative comic verbiage to mean "raise". I like the idea of TD's going to rule 30 whenever there is the slightest doubt about a players' actions.
I appreciate everyone's opinion about this hand.
TDA Rule # 30 says, "verbally declaring 'raise' prior to the placement of the amount to call into the pot and then completing the action with one additional motion. It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear."
It's my impression that, because "raise" is in quotation marks, it must be stated verbatim before the call amount is placed into the pot, when a two motion raise is done. The small blind also said to the big blind, in an effort to justify his position, while waiting for the floor person to arrive, "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" or "Kick it up, buttercup" or "Up scope" or "I feel like putting more in" counts as a raise. None of these phrases, nor the ones to which Dave referred, contain the word "raise."
It's also interesting that the small blind changed his statement from "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," when he attempted to raise, to "I'm gonna pound it up a little more" when the floor person arrived.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the hand that I've outlined in this thread. But, if you're interested in seeing it, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=mFw1EW468rk#t=3m20s
In some ways intent is important. But rules should be applied consistently and with attention to details as words or phrases in quotation marks. I also believe that players with intelligence, knowledge, and experience should understand the rules of poker and should make an effort to play within the rules and to set examples for those who are new to the game.
I welcome any additional opinions or feedback.
-
Before watching the video, I'll state how I'd probably rule if I were standing right behind the action here:
1) Let's assume (as I do, before seeing the tape), that the entirety of the SB's gestures, body language, etc. looked like a guy intent on raising.
2) His statement "push you back", I can construe as gibberish related to raising. Something akin to "back at ya"...
3) And his fistfulls of chips that (I presume) well exceed the call, also indicate he intends to raise.
BUT, as is well pointed out here, both his declare (push you back) and his two-fisted chip advance are both non-standard and don't fall precisely within the outlines for a certain raise.
Under these conditions I would likely grant the guy a raise of whichever fistfull he put out first OR a min raise, whichever is more. I wouldn't grant the second fistfull normally for the reasons stated, as described it sounds like a string raise.
This said, I wouldn't overrule a ruling at the table for a call, and would absolutely admonish the guy to be more clear in his actions in the future. It also raises the question what if this guy did just intend to call but said "push you back".... IMO he COULD be held to at least a minraise if a TD construed that to mean raise. The new rule at the 09 Summit regarding "players responsibility to make their actions clear" puts the responsibility for these nebulous utterances squarely on the player. If the player gets a ruling different than his intention, it's his fault. Now I'll watch the tape...
-
So Dan Negreanu was the SB here. This is an interesting tape. It was ultimately ruled a raise.
For whatever reason, when I initially read the OP I had the impression that the SB had just grabbed two random fistfulls of chips and pushed them out in a string fashion, but in re-reading the OP that's not how it's described and that's not what's on the tape.... The sequence on the tape was: 1) Daniel makes the declaration "I'm gonna pound you back a little more" (the actual words used)... then 2) The amount to call was put out with one fist then 3) The amount to raise was put out with the other ...
Given the entirety of the action on the tape, I think it's consistent with TDA Rule 30, method #3. I disagree with the other player on the tape (Deeb, the BB) here, that this was a string raise, although given that the amounts were pushed out separately it might initially have appeared that way.
While the choice of verbiage on the declare was somewhat dubious, the phrase "...a little more..." just absolutely locks in an obligation to raise, IMO. I agree with the ruling on the tape. I do think DN should have been advised to make his intentions clearer in the future.
-
I am not so sure that it was a valid raise. One thing immediately brought to my attention was that the Floor listened only to DN, did not clarify with the aggrieved BB or the Dealer, instead make quite a quick ruling that the raise stands. given what I saw I don't agree it was a legal raise IMO.
Regards
-
It's also interesting that the small blind changed his statement from "I'm gonna pound you back a little more," when he attempted to raise, to "I'm gonna pound it up a little more" when the floor person arrived.
After the floor person made the ruling and left the table. One of the players not in the hand commented on the change of words (possibly to influence the floor person?)
-
I agree with MikeB here....if we are going to apply part 3 of rule #30, let's use all of the wording, i.e. "It is the player's responsibility to make his intentions clear." Watching the tape only solidifies this adding the part of the phrase that is most important, "a little more." I think that I let this go as a raise and also give the SB a warning to be absolutely clear with your intentions in the future. Also as a TD, i don't care how famous or well known the player is, or whether he's on TV or not, I'm going to the Dealer for an explanation of the situation and not going to let a player bully his way into the explanation. What kind of example/precedence are you allowing to be set there?
my .02
Paul R
-
I would rule it a call. The phrase used by the SB is not entirely clear. The only thing entirely clear is the movement of the hands, and thats two movements and thats a call.
As I said in another post, if the dealer has to think about what you intended to do, then you did not make yourself clear enough. If in doubt it is a string bet.
Georg
-
Something else I noticed when watching the tape: it's interesting that the BB wants it both ways: A) Deeb engages in what could be called distractive banter with his "you limp, I call, you raise" comments (whatever he was mumbling)...
THEN, when Daniel engages in a bit of creative mumbling of his own, Deeb wants DN held to absolute textbook raising language! :)
-
That is a Call. Pounding you more is not declaring a raise, all that is, is table talk.
-
That is a Call. Pounding you more is not declaring a raise, all that is, is table talk.
Neither is "I'm gonna pound you back," which is what was said.
-
I am with the opinion of almost everyone who replied. It is a call.
I would then warn the entire table to verbally declare their bets and not do "childish" games by saying "I am going to pound you back."
-
It would be great if all players had to announce a raise every time. After seeing the video I have to agree with Mike B that the player on the BB was just as guilty as SB. When does a verbal declaration have meaning? Only when it's your turn to act? Would the big blind have a commitment to raise, as he stated, before the SB called? I saw another problem in that video and that was the silent dealer. Has it really become that bad, that a dealer can't control a table and make sure that the players follow basic rules. That dealer didn't even open his mouth when they wanted the floor! By the way, I had no problem with the ruling that was made. I would have allowed the raise, too.
Nick C
-
How was the player in the BB as guilty?? he made a valid raise with chips. there was nothing unclear in his actions.
-
The player in the big blind told the player in the small blind that he was going to raise him before the SB acted. Too much table talk.
Nick C
-
This gets more interesting after watching the video again. I have a Question regarding the BB. When he said " you're going to limp, I'm going to raise, and you're going to call." Would you have held the BB to his out of turn verbal declaration, (as stated in rule #29 Verbal Declarations/Acting in turn) if he checked after the SB called? I think this is a perfect example of why this ruling was created, to stop this type of table chatter.
Here is the TDA ruling #29 Verbal Declarations/Acting in Turn
Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Players are required to act in turn. Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.
The way I understand this rule, the only action that was not defined that would have changed the action , would have been a raise by the SB. In that case, the out of turn verbal declaration by the BB could be retracted and not enforced.
Both players were guilty of violations of rules. That's what makes all of this interesting and worthy of debate.
Nick C
-
Everybody is locked on to the verbal declaration(s) or lack there of and the rules do discuss this.
The scenario that becomes tricky is when 2 different stacks are moved at different times and this is where confusion comes to play.
Was the first stack smaller, equal to or greater than the the amount required to be put in? Just because somebody says they're going to push back doesn't declare a raise, and you have to pay close attention to this.
Just remember that there are players who don't use a verbal declarations and the first one who comes to mind is Humberto Brennes.
-
I have a Question regarding the BB. When he said " you're going to limp, I'm going to raise, and you're going to call." Would you have held the BB to his out of turn verbal declaration, (as stated in rule #29 Verbal Declarations/Acting in turn) if he checked after the SB called? I think this is a perfect example of why this ruling was created, to stop this type of table chatter. Here is the TDA ruling #29 Verbal Declarations/Acting in Turn: Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Players are required to act in turn. Action out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed. A check, call or fold is not considered action changing.
The way I understand this rule, the only action that was not defined that would have changed the action , would have been a raise by the SB. In that case, the out of turn verbal declaration by the BB could be retracted and not enforced. Both players were guilty of violations of rules. That's what makes all of this interesting and worthy of debate. Nick C
Hi Nick: First of all I think that you do, as TD, have the authority to enforce any verbal statement that you feel should be enforced. Period. And that's exactly why players should be careful of what they say. Note that at the 2009 Summit the membership added language to Rule 31 that "It is players responsibility to make his intentions clear". While this is found in a rule pertaining to Bets and Raises, it can IMO be applied to ANY situation where a player makes a potentially actionable gesture or expression. And the upshot of it is that when the TD makes a ruling on that action, if the ruling is other than what the player intended, it's the players fault, not the TD's. We are not mindreaders. If we see some action taking place that we feel should be interpreted a certain way, it's our duty to do so. That said, like any set of judges, different TDs may rule differently on non-standard situations. And in this case, the BB's rambling expression is quite non-standard. The "guidelines" that I use wrt verbals out of turn generally include: 1) the verbal must be unambiguous (i.e. "I have to raise" is unambiguous vs. "I probably have to raise" gives the player an out although I might warn on it); 2) I don't like to be put in the situation of enforcing "conditional" expressions. In this case the BBs declaration is conditional "you do this then I do that"... what if he added another player "you do this then he does that then I do X".. it just gets too rambling to be enforceable, IMO, so I usually treat it as trash talk and give a warning if it's too excessive. That said, it's the players responsibility to make themselves clear. If a TD hears this expression and interprets it as a binding commitment, then the player has to live with that, they'll be more careful next time.
-
Mike B,
It was good to hear your response and I agree with you when you say that different TD's will make different rulings. That's what keeps the Discussion Forum alive. I like to teach my student dealers to stay on top of these situations because a floor person isn't always there, with their eyes and ears at the table, when a situation occurs. When an action is unclear to a dealer, it is probably unclear to players also. A good dealer (that wants to save some headaches) should stop the unclear bet, or out of turn action (verbal or otherwise) immediately. Many actions of players are done unintentionally; like betting or raising out of turn because you didn't see the intervening player. When caught in time, this can usually be backed-up and corrected. Unfortunately sometimes these bets can't be retracted for a number of reasons.
My big concern is the few players that make intentional "moves" like betting out of turn to get a reaction from another player. There are players that talk too much, there are players that we wish would say more. There are players that respect the game and follow the rules and then there are the ones we are always talking about. The best rule of all is under GENERAL CONCEPTS rule #1 Floor People; The best interest of the game and fairness are mentioned and The Floorperson's decision is final.
I'd really like to see the dealers become a little more involved and quick to recognize mistakes before they require a decision from the floor.
I would also like to point out that I made a mistake on an earlier post on this subject: While dissecting rule #29 I failed to recognize a bet along with the mentioned raise as changing the action to the out of turn bettor.
Thanks for listening
Nick C
-
I thought this was pretty forward and in the best interest of the games fairness DN anounced his intention but was extermely vague as TD I would call this a string raise and it is not allowed and a warning for misrepresenting the intent to other players and the dealer ,this is why verbal is binding ,(to clarify intent to the table)he had no problem being verbal ,so why be vague? is it to be malicious ? maybe (I dont think so here ) but nonetheless,thats my call.
Good luck, Michael Lorne
-
Michael,
I assume that you find nothing wrong with the verbal comments of the BB prior to what you believe to be a string raise by the small blind? I think that sometimes we try to over-think a situation when making a call on action out of turn. The ruling should be quite simple. This is what I consider. THIS IS NOT A TDA RULE. This is my interpretation of rulings that I have used with favorable response.
INTENT
1) Any deliberate action out of turn will not be tolerated. Verbal or otherwise. This includes folding out of turn.
a) Deliberate action should include words or actions and gestures.
b) If the action can be backed up to the proper player, the player that checked out of turn can only call, check or fold.
OUT OF TURN
2) Action out of turn is binding if the intervening player or players that were skipped do not change the action by initiating a bet or raise
a) Action out of turn can not be retracted by the offender once action ensues behind them. Example; player A bets, players B and C are skipped by
the out of turn raise by player D. Player E re-raises. At this point it is too late to back-up the action to the proper player. Player D may call all bets but, may not retract his out of turn raise.
CHARACTER AND REPUTATION
3) The character and reputation of certain players may be considered when making a final decision. An accidental out of turn action may be handled with a warning; however, a repeat offender is subject to severe penalty, up to and including exclusion from play.
-
Ok, I watched the video.
It’s so good to see even the pros do stupid stuff.
That was so “home game” of DN.
The video may have been edited but the TD should have listened to the dealer before her heard from anyone else.
DN’s words and actions did indicate a raise but to just read the question I had doubts.
As TD I would have gotten the information from the dealer then if I wasn’t 100% clear listen to the players.
I would have allowed the raise and mentioned to DN to be clearer about his intentions.
Martin
-
Martin,
I would like to know if you agree with the replies that I made on this subject. It is obvious to me that you are a dealer and by some of your responses, a good one. I have been training poker dealers for about thirty years and I have a tendency to blame them for many of the problems that are discussed on this forum. If you look back on a couple of my replies on this subject, you will notice that I mentioned the fact that the dealer didn't even call for the floor, Daniel did. If you were dealing, the situation might have been completely different. Do you agree?
Nick C
-
Nick,
Thanks for the comments. I have dealt for the WSOP and WPT. I try to do it right.
First of all, by the way the players acted after the raise, it looked like the Dealer did call it a raise. Then when the players started asking for the Floor he should have made it clear that is what they wanted and called the Floor for the players. He seemed to freeze up at that point and leave it up to DN to call the Floor
Most of this stuff was mindless chatter, what Deeb said before the action and DN’s comments about being a “child” it’s all just banter between players. It’s unnecessary but all too common.
The only thing I have a problem with is the assumption that DN’s reputation and celebrity status had anything to do with the decision. Every player should have the same rights and under the rules.
Thanks,
Martin
-
The compelling factor for me is that the floor person didn't speak to the dealer first or ask if what DN said was correct. When the floor makes this decision without checking all the facts, he is basing the decision on only DN's statement, unclear or not.
Hearing the first comment it is clearly a call and the bet was a string raise. Even after the second changed comment I may have also ruled it a call because it was not a definitive comment.
-
It is a call, but I believe if the SB stated raise and the amount of the raise then he could raise in more than one motion due to the fact it maybe a large chipstack. If he said raise however with no amount stated then I would allow him to raise in only one motion. I think thats right lol.
-
I went back to look at the video again but, it was removed from youtube.
-
I went back to look at the video again but, it was removed from youtube.
http://goo.gl/wBJ12
-
Thanks DCJ001, but I can't open that one either.
-
Me either.
-
Here is why we can no longer access the video:
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
* ESPN
* ESPN
* ESPN
-
The more I look at this post, the more I am convinced that the right call was made. I know that the video is no longer available but, I'm sure everyone that responded remembers it. I am considering what those of you would rule, if after Daniel's (raise?) action, Deeb had re-raised? Although Daniel did not clearly use the word "raise" and from the feedback of many, the call could have gone either way. I guess, I'm trying to find out how those of you that felt it was a call, would feel if the opposing player accepted Daniel's action as a raise?