Author Topic: Big Blind Action: Adding Chips to a Bet Not Yet Pulled in, Rule 44 questions  (Read 19511 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2015, 11:19:01 PM »
If this is a call then the following would be the same?
UTG calls the BB with 3 of the 100 chips.
Cutoff raises 500 to 800.
Button calls the 800.
SB folds.
BB calls the 800.
UTG now throws in a 1000 (or 5000 for that matter) chip without comment or indication without removing the chips in place.
Raise or call?
How does the "removal of a single chip" come into play?
Are the blinds different?

Thanks all

Mat, I just saw this follow-up question. Answer is that it is the same. As for the "removal of a single chip", that rule refers to betting multiple chips at the same bet. Here we have three 100's bet earlier, and now a 1000 (or 5000) tossed silently on top of the 100's. So you're not dealing with removal of a single chip, because multiple chips weren't bet this time, only the silent overchip.

Another great question.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2015, 05:41:43 AM »
While you correctly note the suggested solutions, what is more revealing is the discussion and "voting" after this material was presented. There was very uneven voting from the delegates about what constitutes a raise, a call, etc..  At that point it was obvious that to try and finalize something more than what currently appears in the rules could be counter-productive. The bottom-line, as stated in the rule, is that these gestures have a wide range of interpretation and it's in the player's interest to clarify his/her intention before putting out the additional chip(s).

I enjoyed learning a little about the TDA process by watching the Summit videos. It certainly is challenging to reach a meeting of the minds and consensus in voting.  I'm interested in any other materials that might be available.  It is still a bit of a mystery to me of how the TDA reached the bottom-line as it exists in #44 today.

I would prefer a simple rule that could be understood by all.  That would require removing many of the variables that were discussed (number of chips, change due, chip manipulation, etc.) from consideration when determining the players action with chips left in the pot.  Perhaps not so coincidentally, that is what seems to of happened to #44 before publishing the new rule.  As I have said before, when one takes the first sentence of #44 literally, it seems to be quite clear to me as it doesn't make exceptions for any of the variables outlined in the summit discussion.  However, as you folks have made clear to me, the literal interpretation is not REALLY the intention.  Instead, it was simply pointing out yet another warning to the players that without verbal declarations their actions could be determined by the complicated issues by silently adding chips to prior chips.

Put another way, I would prefer:
 
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot.  The multiple-chip rule then applies. 

Now, I know that this also has issues.  For example:
Personally, I would also note that many players are conditioned to not touch chips once they have been wagered (or the pot for the matter), which means it is not always evident to players that they could even have taken back the 300 --
etc.

I think it is quite rational that even a single chip being added to a previous bet to be treated as a multiple-chip bet totaling the full amount of those chips.  This might also be one of the best training aids for players to realize the importance of verbal declarations.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 05:55:24 AM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
BillM16:

Your suggestion is similar to my suggestion from my first post... would you agree?  #1) Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, he must (not should, or may, or if he feels like it), clearly announce his intentions, or his action will always be considered a call. Or, #2 Whenever a player is facing an increase in the amount that he has already placed into the betting area, his action will equate to the closest amount of the sum of his chips.  Undecided Or any other way you want to say it! Until we fix it...it will forever remain our (the TD's) problem.


BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Your suggestion is similar to my suggestion from my first post... would you agree?

Yes indeed Nick, it is very similar and I should have included a reference to it in my previous post.  As you have pointed out in this and other postings, we often seem to think along the same lines. 

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
BillM16,

 It's just clarification and simplicity that I'm (usually) looking for. I believe we often "overthink" some of these scenarios. Anyway, I enjoy reading your replies, and I'm always appreciative for the input from fellow TDA members...especially when we agree. ;D

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2015, 09:58:16 AM »
Quote

Put another way, I would prefer:
 
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot.  The multiple-chip rule then applies. 

Now, I know that this also has issues.  For example:
Personally, I would also note that many players are conditioned to not touch chips once they have been wagered (or the pot for the matter), which means it is not always evident to players that they could even have taken back the 300 --
etc.


I would not be surprised if this were to be debated again. I am not sure it would get enough support to pass though. The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than  less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored. This tends to have less impact on the innocent players (e.g. they will not be raised out of the hand).

Just so I am clear, under your proposed rule, how would the following be decided?

Blinds are 100-200. Big blind posts 200, has 1 5000 chip left behind. There is a min-raise to 400 and several callers. Action is back to the big blind, and he throws in the 5000 chip silently. Under your proposed rule, what would this wager be?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Ken,
If you ask me, it's no different than any other situation where the action is unclear. It is interesting that you should mention the fact that he only has one 5000 chip remaining, because this should have no relevance at all. The fact that he silently acted is the problem.  I truly believe it would be much easier to teach the players to say what they mean, as opposed to re-writing every rule to fit each and every situation their ignorance creates. The rule that I suggest would put the BB all-in because he said nothing, or did not remove his 200 first. Sure it's confusing, but until the players realize; the dealers and other players are not mind readers, their unclear action, may translate to an unintended result!
 We need to teach the players the basic, simple rules of etiquette, the first just might be to let the players know what in the hell you're doing!
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:08:14 AM by Nick C »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2015, 12:25:24 PM »
Just so I am clear, under your proposed rule, how would the following be decided?

Blinds are 100-200. Big blind posts 200, has 1 5000 chip left behind. There is a min-raise to 400 and several callers. Action is back to the big blind, and he throws in the 5000 chip silently. Under your proposed rule, what would this wager be?

It is interesting that you should mention the fact that he only has one 5000 chip remaining, because this should have no relevance at all. The fact that he silently acted is the problem.

I propose that even a single chip be treated as a multiple-chip bet when placed silently into the pot on top of chips from a prior bet. So, in your example the player would be all-in.

A player with chips in the pot from a prior bet may withdraw one or more of those chips either before placing new chips into the pot or during the single continuous motion of placing new chips and withdrawing old chips to complete the bet.

As Nick says, the problem is the fact that the player has chosen to act silently.  If this is allowed - and I cannot see obtaining enough support for eliminating this option - then the silent player must realize that the bet must be completed with only one forward motion.  The safest way is to first remove the unwanted chips before adding the new chips.  However, it may be acceptable to bring in new chips and then to remove the unwanted chips with one continuous motion from his stack, to his bet, and back to his stack.  Of course, the remaining chip total would become the new bet.

I'm glad to say that I don't see angle shooters often and sad to say that I do see them even occasionally.  Imagine the opportunity for the occasional angler in the scenario that you mentioned.  With min-raisers all around there might be an opportunity to toss in 5K and see how many fold before running into someone that asks "Is that a raise or a call?" (Assuming for a moment that the dealer isn't in full control.)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 12:43:26 PM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2015, 12:50:50 PM »

I would prefer a simple rule that could be understood by all.  That would require removing many of the variables that were discussed (number of chips, change due, chip manipulation, etc.) from consideration when determining the players action with chips left in the pot.  Perhaps not so coincidentally, that is what seems to of happened to #44 before publishing the new rule.  As I have said before, when one takes the first sentence of #44 literally, it seems to be quite clear to me as it doesn't make exceptions for any of the variables outlined in the summit discussion.  However, as you folks have made clear to me, the literal interpretation is not REALLY the intention.  Instead, it was simply pointing out yet another warning to the players that without verbal declarations their actions could be determined by the complicated issues by silently adding chips to prior chips.

Put another way, I would prefer:
 
When a player is facing a raise the FULL AMOUNT of all previous chips left behind from a prior bet are ALWAYS included to any chips SILENTLY added to the pot.  The multiple-chip rule then applies.  

I think it is quite rational that even a single chip being added to a previous bet to be treated as a multiple-chip bet totaling the full amount of those chips.  This might also be one of the best training aids for players to realize the importance of verbal declarations.

Bill: great option to include in the discussion at the Summit. It certainly does address everything: whatever you add to chips in front of you, BOTH the original chips and the chip(s) you add will be counted as one total bet.

One problem with this approach, however, is that IMO almost everyone (dealers, TD's, and players) have come to consider prior bet chips as a prior bet (whether or not change is due) and a silent overchip as a call of the raise amount. To change that and say that in this circumstance an overchip is part of previously bet chips unless the player declares call first may be considered to much of a change, we'll see.

.... So, in line with your idea, I'll throw this version out for discussion: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet.  From one POV I know that's kind of obvious, however it says either it's a call, or all chips in the pile constitute the total bet. Not that I think that necessarily would be adopted, but it's good for the debate process.

A couple years ago Dave Lamb proposed something along the lines of this decision algorithm:
A) Consider the amount needed for the player to call;
B) If the new chip(s) put out BY THEMSELVES would constitute a raise, then the raise amount is the total of all chips, including any change due from the initial bet;
C) Otherwise it's a call.     

The key in B is that we don't deduct the change due from the initial bet in calculating how much extra it is for the player to call.  Example: 150-300, the BB has a 500 posted (200 change due)... Player C raises to 900 total... so it's 600 more for the BB to call (he's committed to 300 from his prior bet of the BB, and he's facing 900 total). If the BB puts out a new amount of chips, either mixed or single, that does not constitute a raise of a bet of 600, then it's a call (the 200 change is not taken into consideration). However, if the BB puts out a new amount of chips that by itself is a raise above 600, then the total pile, including the new chips and the prior bet (including the 200 change) is now the total bet.

Now with this (or any other decision tree) we're back to whether the average dealer can remember that and calculate it accurately. Hence the certain language of Rule 44: a player is advised to declare his action prior to putting out new chips.

Many thanks for raising this important issue...
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 03:20:27 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2015, 04:37:17 PM »
Bill: great option to include in the discussion at the Summit. It certainly does address everything: whatever you add to chips in front of you, BOTH the original chips and the chip(s) you add will be counted as one total bet.

One problem with this approach, however, is that IMO almost everyone (dealers, TD's, and players) have come to consider prior bet chips as a prior bet (whether or not change is due) and a silent overchip as a call of the raise amount. To change that and say that in this circumstance an overchip is part of previously bet chips unless the player declares call first may be considered to much of a change, we'll see.


Mike, I do realize that this represents a departure from the traditional interpretation of a silent overchip on top of a prior bet as being a call.  However, I also believe that this is where the root of the problem exists.  The complex decision trees stem from this very root.  IMO, learning that one plus one is two ought to be pretty simple everyone.  If you add a single chip to an existing chip it is two chips not one.

.... So, in line with your idea, I'll throw this version out for discussion: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet.  From one POV I know that's kind of obvious, however it says either it's a call, or all chips in the pile constitute the total bet. Not that I think that necessarily would be adopted, but it's good for the debate process.

A couple years ago Dave Lamb proposed something along the lines of this decision algorithm:
A) Consider the amount needed for the player to call;
B) If the new chip(s) put out BY THEMSELVES would constitute a raise, then the raise amount is the total of all chips, including any change due from the initial bet;
C) Otherwise it's a call.     


Rather than attempting to word this in a way that allows one to hold on the traditional single chip rule as (almost) always being a call, I prefer a clear and concise 1+1=2 type of rule. However, again as this is a departure, it certainly implies a need for some leniency during a reasonable transitional learning period.  It may actually be easier to get consensus as everyone will certainly understand it.   
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 05:13:39 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Gentlemen: It's getting late and this requires more time than I have to give at the moment. However, a couple points I'd like to mention. Mike's Quote. "the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet. Problem #1...I find it interesting that several mention the combination of chips as one bet. I prefer the wording from my earlier post..."the sum of all chips" Same thing isn't it? #2... Example: 150-300, the BB has a 500 posted (200 change due)... The BB must get his change immediately, there should never be 500 posted by the BB when the big is 300. #3 One of the problems we have (constantly) with most of our rules is suggested again in the same sentence: "the TD may interpret...." I suggest we start substituting "may" for "must" or "will."
 Quoting Mike again: in lieu of a call or any other obvious interpretation, the TD may interpret the combination of chips as one total bet.  
I suggest: "the TD will interpret...."
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:09:35 AM by Nick C »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
I respect the difference of opinion and am fine with it going up for debate. I just don't think it will gather enough support to pass, simply because it's such a huge departure from what has always been done, and I'm not sure there is enough evidence that suggests the current way is so wrong as to need fixing.

I agree that the rule in question could use some clarifying, but clarifying AND changing the "default" to a (usually big) raise rather than a call?  I just don't see it happening without a stronger supporting argument as to why a change (in the result I mean, not the language of the rule) is necessary.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
 TDA #44 Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In. The problem could originate with the wording of the rule itself..."Not pulled in"? Chips should never be "pulled in" until the betting round is complete. Therefore, a better description would be: Chips from an incomplete bet. Consider the small blind position, (which is where the discussed situation occurs on a regular basis), the SB is never pulled into the pot until his "option" is fulfilled. In fact, the only time a player is allowed (or should be allowed), to remove any chips from the pot is when they are completing a blind, a bet, or a raise! Players are not even allowed to rake-in their own pot!

 Every poker player knows that "Verbal is Binding"...why not introduce: "Verbal is Mandatory!" ;)

 There are exceptions to every rule, but perhaps our rule (#44) should be reduced to: #44 Incomplete Previously Bet Chips: Players MUST verbally declare their bet amount before altering - in any way - their incomplete wager. This will include: removing or increasing any chips in order to complete a blind bet, a call amount, or a raise.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
TDA #44 Previous Bet Chips Not Pulled In. The problem could originate with the wording of the rule itself..."Not pulled in"? Chips should never be "pulled in" until the betting round is complete. Therefore, a better description would be: Chips from an incomplete bet. Consider the small blind position, (which is where the discussed situation occurs on a regular basis), the SB is never pulled into the pot until his "option" is fulfilled. In fact, the only time a player is allowed (or should be allowed), to remove any chips from the pot is when they are completing a blind, a bet, or a raise! Players are not even allowed to rake-in their own pot!

 Every poker player knows that "Verbal is Binding"...why not introduce: "Verbal is Mandatory!" ;)

 There are exceptions to every rule, but perhaps our rule (#44) should be reduced to: #44 Incomplete Previously Bet Chips: Players MUST verbally declare their bet amount before altering - in any way - their incomplete wager. This will include: removing or increasing any chips in order to complete a blind bet, a call amount, or a raise.

Again, I like your thinking here Nick and would like to add along those lines. 

It is true that the root of the problem exists as a result of
  • player chips not pulled in from a prior bet
  • change may be due on the prior bet
  • player is now facing a raise
  • player acts silently with one or more chips
  • existing well known single chip and multiple chip rules are being applied inconsistently in this situation


What are the legal options for players in this situation?
  • fold and receive any change due
  • announce either call or raise before handling the chips
  • removing all or part of the chips from the prior bet before making a silent response to the raise which would then follow existing single and multiple chip betting rules

IMO, most TDs would agree with the above list.  (The only complication might be when part of the bet is removed. Would the TDA agree that it then ALWAYS constitutes a multiple chip bet?)

That brings us back to focus on the original problem: Players in this specific situation who want to act silently and while leaving ALL of his prior bet chips in front. 
What can be done to improve upon this specific situation?
  • Make "Verbal is Mandatory!" (as Nick said)
  • Always include the chips being added with the full amount of prior bet chips left behind and then follow the existing multiple chip rule (my preference)
  • Institute Dave Lamb's algorithm (or some other variation). See post from: MikeB on April 05, 2015, 12:50:50 PM

Are there any other options that would represent an improvement?

While watching the video from the 2013 Summit it is very apparent that there is a whole lot of difficulty in getting so many people to comprehend the specific problem and the alternatives for improvement.  I hope we can make the 2015 discussion easier (although I'm sure it will never be "easy").
 
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 08:45:37 AM by BillM16 »

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Big Blind Action
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2015, 09:08:46 AM »

The issue with such a rule change is that it tends to favor rulings where the player is obliged to put in more chips than less, which is somewhat contrary to a widely-held view that where there is ambiguity, the lesser action is typically favored.


You've hammered the nail.