Undercalling

[MikeB]

Hi Nick: good questions on this rule, and of course it will be re-examined in 2015 as to workability... In answer to your questions:

1: Opening bet is used because it is (or should be) unmistakable. There's been no other bet prior to it so the next player should know what it is.

2: A raise means a second bet has been made... so there is some possibility that the undercaller got it wrong and called a prior (lower) bet amount. That's for the TD to assess.

If you use Accepted Action then every undercall must be brought up to a full call and there would be no provision for allowing a player to leave an undercall in and fold. This rule is meant to address those few situations where the TD believes there is a legitimate misunderstanding of the bet amount, and the he or shee wants the latitude to allow the player to leave the undercall amount in and fold.

[Tristan]

Tristan, I'm sorry buddy but this is not correct; mulitway simply means more than 2 players in contention for the pot.  

Yeah, by definition, you are right.  I do remember GG being involved in the conversation on this topic at the summit though and I think that was the best example to demonstrate what he was confused on. 

[WSOPMcGee]

Multiway is multiple different bet sizes out there.

Is this a Minnesotan thing? Definitely a new definition that I'm not used to.

Guillame - "USUALLY" The word Multiway or Multi-way means more than two players in a hand or pot.

Multiway used in a sentence: "I was in a multiway pot with 4 callers behind me."

[WSOPMcGee]

Mike,

 I'm a little confused (again) on this one. Are you saying that the rule applies when a player under-calls any wager? Head to head, or multiple players, makes no difference? Action alone, with no verbal, is the same as saying call? So...any under-call, is automatically adjusted to a call.

Hi Nick: My understanding of the undercall rule is basically this:

1: If under-calling the opening bet, OR undercalling any bet heads-up: it must be brought up to a full call. There's no option to leave your undercall in the pot and fold.

2: If under-calling anything else, it's TDs discretion. One option the TD has is to allow the player to leave the undercall in and fold. But another option is to require a full call... just depends on the TDs assessment of all the facts at the time.

This is not my understanding.

[WSOPMcGee]

Okay, Mike, why is opening bet used? Would the rule not apply to a raise after the opening bet? Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. There must be a better way to explain these situations. Reading this rule over and over isn't helping me.

I want to just  reading this.

Why not just use Accepted Action? You know how I feel about AA ), but wouldn't that cover it?

I want to just  reading this 

I think your reading comprehension is good Nick. They don't make'em like you anymore, built for the long haul. What I think is happening here is...... let's just make stuff up. I mean somebody has to, right?



 

[MikeB]

Okay, Mike, why is opening bet used? Would the rule not apply to a raise after the opening bet? Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. There must be a better way to explain these situations. Reading this rule over and over isn't helping me.

I want to just   reading this.

Why not just use Accepted Action? You know how I feel about AA ), but wouldn't that cover it?

I want to just   reading this  

I think your reading comprehension is good Nick. They don't make'em like you anymore, built for the long haul. What I think is happening here is...... let's just make stuff up. I mean somebody has to, right?



 

This rule was adopted at the 2013 Summit in response to the question "when must a player bring an undercall up to a full call, and when might they be allowed to leave the undercall in the pot and fold".  Proposals for alternative language will certainly be considered at the 2015 Summit this Summer.

[Nick C]

Hi Nick: good questions on this rule, and of course it will be re-examined in 2015 as to workability... In answer to your questions:

1: Opening bet is used because it is (or should be) unmistakable. There's been no other bet prior to it so the next player should know what it is.

2: A raise means a second bet has been made... so there is some possibility that the undercaller got it wrong and called a prior (lower) bet amount. That's for the TD to assess.

If you use Accepted Action then every undercall must be brought up to a full call and there would be no provision for allowing a player to leave an undercall in and fold. This rule is meant to address those few situations where the TD believes there is a legitimate misunderstanding of the bet amount, and the he or shee wants the latitude to allow the player to leave the undercall amount in and fold.

These are my concerns:
Looking back at your earlier reply, I'm really concerned with the part you wrote "situations where the TD believes there is a legitimate misunderstanding" This is where the problem lies. Is it really in the best interest of the game, to force a player to surrender any amount when, as you stated, a legitimate (mistake) misunderstanding occurred? At the 2011 Summit, we had some discussion as to if, or when a player's unintentional bet could be backed-up and corrected. I always felt strongly about correcting the action as long as others have not acted.

 There's something in these rules, about in turn, and out of turn, and substantial action, and Accepted Action , that all run together for mass confusion. There are times, that we  (TD's) know with certainty, a mistake was made on a wagered amount. We need to stop altering the eventual outcome of a tournament, because the wrong player was awarded chips that he didn't deserve or, lost more chips than he should have. There really needs to be more protection for our players.

[/font]

[WSOPMcGee]

Okay, Mike, why is opening bet used? Would the rule not apply to a raise after the opening bet? Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. There must be a better way to explain these situations. Reading this rule over and over isn't helping me.

I want to just   reading this.

Why not just use Accepted Action? You know how I feel about AA ), but wouldn't that cover it?

I want to just   reading this  

I think your reading comprehension is good Nick. They don't make'em like you anymore, built for the long haul. What I think is happening here is...... let's just make stuff up. I mean somebody has to, right?



 

This rule was adopted at the 2013 Summit in response to the question "when must a player bring an undercall up to a full call, and when might they be allowed to leave the undercall in the pot and fold".  Proposals for alternative language will certainly be considered at the 2015 Summit this Summer.

I understand Mike. The language of the rule is certainly an issue.

Here's one of my problems with the TDA Summit meetings. Every vote is done by "Show of Hands". Because of this, many TDs like myself who may miss either Day 1 or Day 2, are not there when a show of hands vote takes place. Which means our voice is certainly not heard at the time of the meeting to give alternate views to all proposed changes. Certainly with all the worldly technology we have available to us we can figure out a better way to vote.

Also whenever we "agree" upon these rules changes and adjustments (especially in 2013), much of the language used to describe the rule is not reviewed or proof read (or so it appears). The wording and verbiage of some rules is misleading and confusing. I actually fear for the direction of the TDA. Participation on the forum is less. We don't hear from the board members hardly at all. Now I'm on a tangent.

Anyhow, that's all off topic and hope to see you all at the next summit.

[Brian Vickers]

I understand Mike. The language of the rule is certainly an issue.

Here's one of my problems with the TDA Summit meetings. Every vote is done by "Show of Hands". Because of this, many TDs like myself who may miss either Day 1 or Day 2, are not there when a show of hands vote takes place. Which means our voice is certainly not heard at the time of the meeting to give alternate views to all proposed changes. Certainly with all the worldly technology we have available to us we can figure out a better way to vote.

Also whenever we "agree" upon these rules changes and adjustments (especially in 2013), much of the language used to describe the rule is not reviewed or proof read (or so it appears). The wording and verbiage of some rules is misleading and confusing. I actually fear for the direction of the TDA. Participation on the forum is less. We don't hear from the board members hardly at all. Now I'm on a tangent.

Anyhow, that's all off topic and hope to see you all at the next summit.
[/quote]

I agree with the voting system.  Perhaps after rules are proposed at the summit, we can have an online vote for proposed rules that closes after 2-3 days?  The problem I see with "show of hands" is the same as any voting system where you see others results immediately, human nature makes people want to root for the winner.  It's why people bandwagon in sports and why the Oscars have become to predictable. If someone sees the majority voting one way, people tend to follow whether they agree or not because they don't want to be seen as taking the contrarian approach.  If we do an online voting, I would prefer not to be able to view the results until they are final.  Thats said, I do like the "can you live with it?" option we had in 2013

[Nick C]

Brian: I like some of your suggestions and I'd like to add a couple more. How about secret ballots at the Summit. Take a vote and submit a yes or no on a piece of paper. I'd also like members to submit their suggestions for rules that need to be changed, eliminated, or amended, prior to the Summit. This might help eliminate time wasted on rules that need no tweaking.

Restricting the votes to those members that are able to attend will certainly limit the input and omit the majority of members from participation. I attended the Summit in 2011 but will probably not be able to attend the last week of June this year.

 I know Mike has a pretty good idea of what's on the agenda for TDA Sumit VII...how about a sneak preview, Mike.

[MikeB]

 I know Mike has a pretty good idea of what's on the agenda for TDA Sumit VII...how about a sneak preview, Mike.

For sure: Full review of all current TDA Rules

There will be a "suggestions" box available shortly, and suggestions can always be e-mailed to "AskTheBoard@PokerTDA.com"

Also see this category of suggestion threads.... probably not all of these will be on the agenda but those of greatest interest are likely to be:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=36.0

[BillM16]

This is how I interpret rule 37a.

An under-call occurs when a player acting in turn silently bets less than the current full-call amount.  When heads up, an under-call must be made a full-call.  Otherwise, a multiway-player has the option of folding and forfeiting the under-call to the pot or calling the current full-call amount.  In all other situations, TD’s discretion applies.