POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2015 Summit

Substantial action: How should it be defined?

<< < (6/6)

MikeB:

--- Quote from: Guillaume Gleize on June 05, 2015, 03:31:05 AM ---
By the way: Mike what is your personal choice?

Regards, GG
--- End quote ---

G: Several thoughts,

1: The most important for me is that the TDA and WSOP (and other venues of course) remain aligned on this rule. Substantial Action is an important threshold that really needs to be consistent. If you go back to 2011 and listen to ALL the debate, you'll see it was very extensive. All the pros and cons of 2 vs. 3 were laid out. The 2011 WSOP language was the obvious compromise IMO.

2: That said, just personally, for me the least "substantial" action is a check. I consider a fold to be quite substantial by contrast: for example, I would consider 3 folds to be dramatically more "substantial" than 3 checks. So if I was to propose a tweak to the rule, it would exclude a fast "check-bet" as substantial action.

WSOPMcGee:

--- Quote from: MikeB on June 05, 2015, 11:03:12 AM ---
But by far the most important consideration is #1 above, keeping unity in the Association.


--- End quote ---

I just want to address this point really quickly even though it has little to do with this particular thread and Subject Headline.

Maybe this is the goal, however, you currently have all new board members who do not use TDA rules within their own tournaments. Not only is that not unifying, it's divisive. And I'm not saying that having different viewpoints among the board is a bad thing. It encourages discussion. But I am saying that if your goal as an association is to keep unity then maybe the folks atop the association ought to use the rules that they represent, because right now they don't.

Back to the issue.....

Being one of the persons described as "Floor", I know what I said by stating "2 actions involving chips" (vs what I meant) and was then quickly followed by a floor person who said "it's 2 people putting money in the pot or 3 actions". Listening to this part of the video extensively now, I can see where the confusion is coming from and it occurs because what I'm talking about is described as the WSOP rule and then a motion is put forth to adopt the WSOP rule.

Of course, no one is going to object to that.

I wasn't talking about the WSOP rule even though I described it nearly word for word. But at the time I was talking about a floor person being incapable of deciphering whether it's a Bet and a Call vs a Bet and a Fold. That's what I was talking about or at least trying to convey and I thought I did convey it when both Matt and the other floor restated in some form that it would be 2 actions both with people putting chips in the pot.

This exact situation came up early at this years WSOP. Player UTG called, next player folded, the action was stopped by another player who had one card and then another player realized he had grabbed a 3rd card by mistake and both players were in the blind. Under the current WSOP and TDA rule, I had to rule their hands dead due to improper number of cards and substantial action. However, I could have used rule No.1, best interest of the game. There also used to be a rule called the Proper Card rule. However I've only seen it used sparingly by older veteran floor persons and it's not usually passed on any longer to younger floor people and is considered rare and obsolete.

The Proper Card Rule:

Both blinds must have their proper cards. If not, then misdeal.

Simple rule.

Maybe this rule needs to comeback given the above situation.

Maybe establish a hierarchy of rules.

Or simply define substantial action as "Two actions, in turn, both WITH chips or Three total actions."

#2 - A separate but similar situation also occurred a few days later. UTG called, next player fold, next player has only 1 card and action is stopped. Again under WSOP and TDA rules, the player with one card now has a dead hand, both due to improper number of cards and substantial action. Again, the solution is above.

However, for some reason if this player with only one card was somehow on the button, most, if not all floor persons would deal the button the top card and continue. Whereas, above the players hand is dead.

Why?

There's is no clear evidence that button was not skipped on the first deal and simply was not dealt his last card, nor is there evidence that the card was there from the last hand already and was skipped due to already having a card and failure of the dealer to deliver his second card. The button hand should be dead too. But I'd say 99% of all floor people would give him the top card off the deck.

Why not give the skipped player the top card as well if you are fairly certain that he was simply skipped as the Button?

It's a random card, make the player whole. <----- Anyways..... another tangent and small rant.

I hope I get a chance on to meet, greet and debate this on the floor at the Summit this year.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page