PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2015 Summit => Topic started by: MikeB on October 25, 2013, 08:27:05 AM
-
A very interesting incident occurred recently at the final table of EPT London.
This sequence can be seen on the following You Tube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMwWoIyOPik
The hand starts around 3:47:00, and after several raises 3 players are left pre-flop (using last names: Players Y, G, and K). The action in question involves Player K who is holding A-Q. It is 3-bet to him... he contemplates and then makes a betting action starting at around 3:50:18. Start the video around 3:49:30 or earlier so you have a bit of background. You will see Player K's action, then play is halted during which you'll see and hear a conversation between the floorperson assigned to the table (dark hair) and the chief floor / assistant TD (red tie, glasses) who was not at the table. You will also hear two broadcast commentators on the tape, one of whom is TDA Director Neil Johnson.
While watching the video you will have the opportunity (that the floorstaff did not have), to advance it frame-by-frame, replay, etc. After reviewing same please give your thoughts on the following:
1. Was the action a fair bet as made by Player K or a string bet/ raise? Discuss reasons for your decision... 3 stacks in total are involved in the action so you may find it useful to refer to the action in terms of these 3 stacks.
2. What do you think of the use of video in making a poker ruling, similar to the use of video in other competition (pro sports)? What are the pros and cons and if you did use it, what restrictions might you put on it?
3. Are there any changes / additions to current written rules that might help decision-makers in these type cases?
Keep in mind the goal is not to praise or find fault with anyone, rather to use this as a reference case for discussing these issues.
The poll will be open for 14 days and the results revealed at that time. You may only have one vote total, but you may change your vote. Please be sure to watch the video before voting.
-
Hi Mike,
Interesting video.
#1 Was the action a fair bet as made by Player K or a string bet/ raise? Discuss reasons for your decision... 3 stacks in total are involved in the action so you may find it useful to refer to the action in terms of these 3 stacks.
I believe the bet was a string bet. However, the way the action was described to the TD, I would agree with the call made...a legal raise.
#2 What do you think of the use of video in making a poker ruling, similar to the use of video in other competition (pro sports)? What are the pros and cons and if you did use it, what restrictions might you put on it?
I believe the use of videos could be helpful but, without audio...I have to say, it would still be very inconclusive for situations like this.
#3 Are there any changes / additions to current written rules that might help decision-makers in these type cases?
Beyond insisting that any raise be declared verbally, I can't think of anything at the moment. I'm sure if we "kick" this one around a little, we will think of something. I'd also like to add the fact that the floor was at the table when the incident occurred. This is very unusual and in normal situations, the dealer would be the person relaying the discription of what transpired to the TD.
-
Voting in this poll is greatly appreciated!
-
Mike,
I thought I voted a few days ago. For some reason it didn't record. Maybe that's why you have no responses. just guessing, of course.
-
Mike,
I thought I voted a few days ago. For some reason it didn't record. Maybe that's why you have no responses. just guessing, of course.
There are votes, we just won't see the final tally until 14 days... until then all votes are very welcome and appreciated, as well as comments in this discussion thread.
-
Mike: At this time I am only going to reply to question #2.
At first glance, having and reviewing video seems like a great idea. However, as I think about it more, it becomes less and less practical, at least in my opinion.
Poker Tournaments are timed events, is action at all tables going to be paused because one table has a issue? If action could be reviewed and a decision made in a few minutes, maybe 5 tops, it might be acceptable. Otherwise, I don't think players will support this.
What about cost, who is going to foot the bill? For huge MTT events such as the WSOP and so forth, it may not be an issue, but what about the league events in the UK and the hundreds/thousands of small events at places who cannot afford the "system"
For these and other reasons, I don't think it practical for the TDA to adopt a position on "Instant Replay". Perhaps the TDA could take a position supporting this concept without adopting a rule or a suggestion that it is "mandatory".
Chet
-
In regards to the use of video replay - how available is instant replay during a live event? I know they use it in sports such as the NFL but how many live broadcasts have the resources of the NFL and the tv network cameras and control room? In the NFL the ref can go to the sideline and instantly watch super-slo-mo on some of world's best video/camera equipment. They have several different camera angles to choose from and they have control room staff that can instantly queue up all the relevant shots. Would this same capability be available during a poker broadcast? I can't answer that question, but I doubt it. Would poker rooms or broadcasters be willing to incur the costs to provide an instant replay capability to poker room personel?
-
I agree that the cost factor would also make the use of replay...well...not too practical.
I'd rather the TDA focus on a Declaration for All-in. It is the all-in player's responsibility to announce whenever they are going all-in.
-
I would rule this a string bet as well. It is a bit deceiving because of the line, but ultimately the chips were not wagered in a single motion. Was a second motion involved? Yes. Would the dealer have allowed the player to retain his third stack after pushing the first two out? I think he would, which also suggests to me that it should be called a string bet.
However, like nick pointed out, if I were Luca and the situation was explained to me in the same manner, and my venue enforced a forward motion rule, I probably would have ruled the same. The key is that the TD did not correct Luca when he asked if it the third stack was part of the "forward motion" used in the wager. I don't think it was. Without a forward motion rule though, I would certainly hold him to a wager of the two stacks (which may be a call or a raise depending on the amounts involved).
I would love the idea of instant replay, but I think it could be abused. As others pointed out, it would also be costly. But it would certainly help in other situations (e.g. When tabled cards are accidentally mucked). So if a major tourney were able to offer it, I would not be against allowing it to be used at the TD's discretion.
-
Ken,
Would you agree that without audio, many replay's would be inconclusive? I do see a purpose for tabled cards that were mucked and many other similar situations. I'm just wondering what "new" set of rules we will need to control requests for "Instant Poker Replay."
It does have some appeal but, when I look at the NFL Replay's, even with the most sophisticated equipment, number of camera's, etc...they still have a tough time getting it right! :-\ Bottom line...I don't think we're ready...yet. There are some situations, as explained by others, where replay's do have a place. I believe surveillance tops the list.
I have to say, this raises a couple issues that I've had regarding many of the "youtube" videos that we've discussed on a regular basis. It always amazed me that these big networks fail to give "sufficient" video coverage to all tables in major events. How many times have we watched TD's and floorpersonel called to a table, without seeing what happened? What we see, much of the time, is the situation being explained to the floor by the dealer, or the player's rehashing what took place. We can't even get a video from a televised WSOP event! ::)
-
I wouldn't say that the replay would necessary be inconclusive... Unless the situation involved a dispute where what a player said came into question, the audio may or may not be needed to review the situation. If the video is not very helpful, then you would have to do your best to make the judgment call since that is what you would have seen had you been at the table anyways! ;)
On a related note, I was thinking a lot of problems could be solved (not necessarily this one but others that involve players misconstruing wagered amounts) if players were given the incentive to complete their betting actions by moving the correct number of chips in front of them before subsequent players act. What would happen if we required players to ensure that chips associated with any wager made are to be pushed forward in the correct amount and made clearly visible for all players to see, AND before the next player acts, and failure to do so may result in their wager being misinterpreted? For example, if a player is all-in, they should push their stacks forward if no all in button is being used, and not just leave the call amount in front...or when they are raising, they should be counting the full amount of their wager out and pushing it forward before the next person acts... Or similarly when they are calling, they should move the amount if the call forward promptly before the next person acts so that it is clear that a call was made and he still has cards. In other words, any verbal bet, while binding, should be followed up with the matching chips moved into the pot ASAP.
Just thinking out loud here....
If poker is considered a visual game, we should ensure that all bets are always clearly visible and in the correct amounts (this also means that when the amount is visually different from the wager e.g. Using oversized chips, it is even more important that the dealer ensure everyone is aware of this... Or use a "change coming" button... ;). If we were able to use "change" buttons, all-in buttons, and force all other wagers to be pushed forward and to be exact, think of how much easier our decisions would be? If a player makes a betting irregularity because he claims he didn't know that a player bet X, we could simply point to the bet out in front and he no longer has an excuse. And if for some reason the bet was not put out or did not match, we have a good excuse to provide some relief under Rule 1. Although we may do this currently anyways, the rules don't explicitly put much of an obligation on bettors to follow up with putting the correct number of chips into the pot quickly.
Sorry for the long spiel... Just thought I would put it out there. I'm selling "change" buttons if anyone is interested. ;)
-
Ken,
Enough buttons, already! :D
This brings me back to an earlier post (unanswered). Who said verbal is binding, and why should it be? If player's pushed their wager forward, that's all we'd need... just like Ken suggests.
-
I'm going to go with string bet, because it is a string bet by definition. There is a part of me that doesn't like it though as it looked like his intention is to push all three stacks...you can see that even when he has two stacks, he pauses to try to get a better angle on the third stack. The camera was not on his face, so I could not tell if he looks around to gain information while doing it.
I know it is not our job to judge intent and I also agree that players do things like this at their own risk. Many rules are made to protect against certain circumstances in certain scenarios...with video and the additional information that is provided, we have more insight on a situation and sometimes it can show you that the situation you are protecting against is not present...so should the standard ruling be followed to the letter or should the circumstances dictate the ruling? Would you disqualify a player from a tournament for putting all of their chips in their pocket in transit from their broken game if you knew 100% that they put the same amount in as they took out, they had no other chips in their pockets, and they are a new player or do you stick with the set ruling on chips out of sight?
I have made plenty of calls where I get called to the table to determine whether a bet was a string or other questionable betting circumstances and in many of them I ask the table if it was obvious what the player was trying to do. If three players tell me, (for example) "It was obvious he was trying to raise, but the chip fell out of his hand as he was reaching out," I let the raise stand.
-
Tristan, You wrote: "I have made plenty of calls where I get called to the table to determine whether a bet was a string or other questionable betting circumstances and in many of them I ask the table if it was obvious what the player was trying to do. If three players tell me, (for example) "It was obvious he was trying to raise, but the chip fell out of his hand as he was reaching out," I let the raise stand."
I have no problem with that. That's why I allowed the string raise in my story. So when can we "bend" the rules? How many conditions should we consider before making a ruling? That's the tough part...isn't it?
-
I understand the urge to be lenient and go with what appears to be a clear intent, but I have to say that even this one was a bit iffy. I personally prefer being strict in these circumstances, particularly since the bet is ultimately unclear and it is a lesser amount that would stick if we called it a string bet.
He could have used two hands when one clearly looked like it was not going to work, he could have counted out the stacks behind the line and then verbalize the amount. Really, there are so many ways he could have made this bet less ambiguous.
That being said, some players are good at faking string bets to fend off a raise.
-
Oh, don't get me wrong...I too find this one iffy. I was about 70% sure he was going for that 3rd stack and not just fumbling into it...not 100%. Also the camera never shows his face so I can't really see if he is looking for information while doing it. It clearly falls into the realm of string bet of iffy intent.
My comments were made to open conversation regarding video footage, the additional information we can gain from it, and how it can possibly change the current standard of rulings.
My thoughts on video to make calls: Are all tables going to have the same footage? If not, are we giving an advantage/disadvantage to players who play at the televised tables? Is that fair to the whole field? Also, can we afford to stop the clock for situations?
The cost is too high imo, but I think if you are going to do it, it should have the same type of coverage for all of the tables in play.
The chips coming button is an interesting idea. What about the thought of rfid chips? Probably cheaper than cameras in the long run and can clear up a lot of betting issues.
-
Tristan,
Forgive me but, What about the thought of rfid chips? I don't understand.
-
Tristan:
Please clarify how RFID chips are going to help clarify if a betting action is a string bet or not. I know what they are, but unless the table "RFID reader" is activated only if the chips cross a certain point in front of the player (Is this implementing a defacto betting line?), how does this help identify a string bet?
Chet
-
Nick - RFID chips have a microchip in them, so when you place a stack of chips in the appropriate location (over an rfid reader), it tells you how much is there.
Chet - They may not. Maybe not the right spot to bring it up, but since we were talking about questionable betting and involving new tech more...it just made me think about it. Not sure if it would solve problems or create more...just was thinking out loud.
-
Tristan:
:)
Chet
-
Tristan...thanks, didn't know that.
-
Final week for voting in this poll... please get your vote in. You do not need to post on this thread in order to vote. Thanks!
-
I appear to be in the minority, but after looking at the video and listening to the description/discussion between the floor persons, I agree with the decision of the floor. He definitely starting his betting action by moving 3 stacks. Granted the 3rd stack did not move very far, but it did move forward before it "dropped" off his thumb. I agree with the decision that his is not a string bet.
In my opinion the whole thing depends upon whether he started the original action by moving 2 or 3 stacks. It is clear to me that the 3rd stack moved forward, albeit only a little. Had that 3rd stack not moved, I would then rule it a string bet, but move it did.
Chet
Added the following:
Personally, I would like to see a rule requiring all raises to be verbally declared including the total amount of the bet. However, I am not real sure this is a practical rule. What do you do if the players do not speak the language of the event? I know that if I were to attend an event in most all of Europe/Asia/etc., I would be at a disadvantage because I am one of those "English Only" folks. So I think we can propose all kinds of rules to resolve a multitude of problems, but they may not be practical in the "real world".
-
Chet,
I see nothing wrong with your suggestion: "Personally, I would like to see a rule requiring all raises to be verbally declared including the total amount of the bet." It has always been a rule for player's to make their intentions clear, whatever language they speak. It should be simple enough for a bettor to either push the complete amount forward, or translate the amount to the dealer. We already have rules that suggest; the calling player should wait until the bet, or raise amounts are established. What's wrong with waiting for a dealer confirmation before the next player acts? Failure to wait for clarification of the wagered amount, when facing a bet, is where all the problems begin.
-
So the vote is 5 to 3 in favor of declaring the action in the video a string bet.... also there's some very worthwhile ideas here on the subject of use of video-replay where available. Many thanks to Neil Johnson for sharing this case, and to everyone who participated in the discussion and poll.
-
As a member of the "string bet" camp, there are two issues here that I find most compelling:
1) To the idea that this is a legitimate bet of 3 stacks because Player C initially nudged 3 stacks, therefore establishing intent to bet all 3, here's the problem: based on the initial nudge of stack 3, would you force player C to go back and push stack 3 out if he had brought his hand to rest after pushing out the first 2 stacks? If the answer is no, which I think it should be, then IMO you can't use "intent" to justify this as a legit bet of 3 stacks. If you're going on intent, then if he brought his hand to rest after putting out the first 2, you would have to rule that he must go back and fetch the 3rd stack because he nudged it initially. Since stack 3 remained virtually in contact with his unbet chipstacks I think a ruling forcing him to go back for it would have been met with alot of criticism.
2) How do you rule when the next player bets like this? And the next? Obviously this is an intolerable betting gesture and any TD would quickly put a stop to it. Betting and raising is the essence of poker, in fact it is the largest single category of TDA Rules. The best time to stop a non-standard betting method is the first time it occurs.