Author Topic: 2015 rules #39 Undercall  (Read 11568 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
2015 rules #39 Undercall
« on: August 31, 2015, 03:12:53 PM »
Hello,

Player A bets player B calls player C (at the end of the table) silently pushes all in (huge x10 amount) player D & E fold player F (with no direct sight at C) says call (thinking of calling only A) Then realise the x10 of C and ask for the floor to save him OK TDs discretion means that if the TD "save" here player F proposing him to only forfeit the undercall (to only call the amount of A and fold) as a victim of circumstancies or gross misunderstanding does it sticks to the TDA spirit ?

GG
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 03:15:56 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2015, 07:16:02 PM »
Guillaume,

The 2015 rule 39A is specific when is says a general declaration of "call" commits the player to the full call amount.  However, in watching the 2015 TDA Summit videos it is quite clear that several of the board members defend the recreational player who has a "gross misunderstanding" of the bet that his is calling.  This is one of the many places where a TD can use Rule #1 to do what is in the best interest of the game and fairness.  IMO the fair thing to do in these cases is to allow the unaware rec player the option to fold the hand while forfeiting the amount that Player A bet.  I know that this is not the letter of the law and one must be very careful in making this judgement.  However, it gives the raiser the forfeited chips and one fold, so it is the next best thing to busting someone who wasn't paying attention.

As Linda Johnson said ... using all-in buttons can help solve this problem!!!  If there is an all-in button in front of Player C then Player F is calling and probably needs a miracle.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 07:26:07 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2015, 11:22:54 AM »
Bill,

 I don't understand the logic here, either. What about the Player that is bluffing and his opponent is forced to call? I don't like the rule because it NEVER gives an option to retract an obvious mistake...it's either surrender your short bet, or complete.  :(
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 02:41:21 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2015, 12:35:55 PM »
Bill,

 I don't understand the logic here, either. What about the Player that is bluffing and his opponent is forced to call? I don't like the rule because it NEVER gives an option to retract an obvious mistake...it's eather surrender your short bet, or complete. :(

The option is Rule 1.

But generally speaking, poker rules should not protect players from their own mistakes. Following the action is a defined player responsibility under Rule 2, adopted 2013. Why was the action in this example not in the player's line of sight? If he has a handicap that's understandable, but if he was leaning back in his chair not making an effort to watch his competitors, that's his sole responsibility.

In situations where you as TD feel that the player's mistake was due to issues beyond his control, then you have Rule 1 and can make any ruling you deem "fair" under the circumstances.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2015, 01:30:15 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2015, 02:57:59 PM »
Mike,

 Thanks for your reply. At least there is a little leeway when it's obvious the calling player was mislead or misinformed. Your example of the player sitting back in his chair, or not paying attention has merit but how many times does the "floor" witness this type of activity? In fact, it's been my experience that the great majority of the time I was nowhere near the table when the incident occurred.



 
 

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2015, 03:57:49 AM »
First TY for your help.

Last point - If you judge player F as a "recreational" or "beginner" (or whatever term) player: Would you consider this as a special circumstancy to use rule #1 or not?

Regards,
GG  
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 04:07:06 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2015, 06:40:49 AM »
The All-In button is a nice device but doesn't apply in this case. Player C pushed his chips in. Player F for whatever reason didn't see it. He would not have seen the button either. What if Player C silently slid in a big raise, but not all in?

Why couldn't he see? Was it a case of seat 10 not seeing seat 1? When I sit in either seat, I tend to make extra efforts to see around the dealer. Did the dealer announce the all in? I assume so, so why didn't he hear it?

I like Rule 1, but struggle to see how it applies.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 06:45:19 AM by Dave Miller »
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2015, 09:35:52 AM »
First TY for your help.

Last point - If you judge player F as a "recreational" or "beginner" (or whatever term) player: Would you consider this as a special circumstancy to use rule #1 or not?

Regards,
GG  

G: This is entirely up to you as TD to determine at the time, given all the circumstances.

Certainly the experience level of a player can always be considered, but will not always "determine the outcome".

Every TD is a bit different in ruling, just like every judge... personally I consider keeping discipline in betting to be just about my #1 duty. Time after time when I've come to a table and there's been an "honest" mistake I've ruled more or less strictly by the book, and given a short education on how to avoid the problem next time... it not only educates the new player, but it also sends a message to all the other players, some of whom may also be new.

The other consideration is that if I give this newbie a break on an important betting matter, then what happens the next time there's a betting error at that table? If I let it slide once, then isn't it only fair I let it slide again?

So, short answer is I personally wouldn't consider experience in this case, but might in others.

What I would consider here is whether the player, regardless of whether they are new or a pro, had any reasonable reason why they didn't see the action... was something blocking their view, some noise occurring, something that understandably distracted their attention... OR regardless of new or pro do they have a disability? If any of those occur, then I would be very amenable to adjusting the bet in some way under Rule 1.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 09:39:50 AM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2015, 11:48:59 AM »
It is interesting to note the difference in the binding verbal call rule #39A and the non-verbal undercall rule #39B.  Because Player F said "call" the binding call rule #39A governs.  However, had Player F simply pushed out chips equal to the amount of Player A's opening bet, then this becomes an undercall situation where rule #39B explicitly allows the TD's discretion to be applied.  Let's say Player A opened for 500, Player B called, and Player C raised to 50,000 while Player D & E fold.  Now if Player F doesn't use the word "call", but instead says "500" or throws in the 500, he may be more likely to be saved by the TD. 

I would imagine that, under the circumstances, some TD's would save Player F in both scenarios.  We can also assume that some TD's would require Player F to make the full call in both scenarios.  And, of course, there will be some TD's that bind Player F to the full call only if he actually said "call" but to allow him to forfeit the undercall amount and fold only if he didn't make a general verbal declaration of call.

As a player, it might seem that, when it comes to calling, keeping silent and let your chips do the talking could be safest.  As a TD, it might seem that, when it comes to using discretion, general verbal declarations are to be treated as more binding than amounts declared verbally or chips pushed to the pot.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2015, 03:29:55 PM »
It is interesting to note the difference in the binding verbal call rule #39A and the non-verbal undercall rule #39B.  Because Player F said "call" the binding call rule #39A governs.  However, had Player F simply pushed out chips equal to the amount of Player A's opening bet, then this becomes an undercall situation where rule #39B explicitly allows the TD's discretion to be applied.  

Bill that's exactly right, and an important point. Note that some consider that to be a "punishment" of sorts to the player who explicitly says "call" or "raise". However:

1: How else are you supposed to treat it?

2: The option to forfeit the bet and fold is not guaranteed, and any intent to angle can be taken into consideration.

3: Could be just as much or worse of an angle if Player C is allowed to declare  "Call [hesitate] ... five hundred" when A opens for 500 and B raises to 6k, and then C is allowed to forfeit 500 and fold.

4: For players who follow the action, declaring your intent up front has the advantage of sparing you from any error you might make in putting out more/fewer chips than you intended to.

5: This was the intention of the prior language that stated "Verbal declarations in turn are binding". It's just now more fleshed out in 2015 which says:: A) all bets in turn are binding; and B) General declarations of action ("call", "raise") are binding to the full current action.

6: If you think some extenuating circumstance beyond the player's control, or a disability precluded the player from understanding the full current action, you can always use Rule 1 in fairness.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 03:34:09 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2015, 07:34:56 PM »

2: The option to forfeit the bet and fold is not guaranteed, and any intent to angle can be taken into consideration.

3: Could be just as much or worse of an angle if Player C is allowed to declare  "Call [hesitate] ... five hundred" when A opens for 500 and B raises to 6k, and then C is allowed to forfeit 500 and fold.


It is hard for me to appreciate these two points with my experience. I'm speaking of the case of an undercall that can be an angle.  How can anyone work an angle to any benefit by faking a call for a greater amount while willingly forfeit the lesser amount? I have never seen this attempted, and certainly never recognized that it had worked to success.  Please tell me as how this works.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2015, 12:25:00 AM »

2: The option to forfeit the bet and fold is not guaranteed, and any intent to angle can be taken into consideration.

3: Could be just as much or worse of an angle if Player C is allowed to declare  "Call [hesitate] ... five hundred" when A opens for 500 and B raises to 6k, and then C is allowed to forfeit 500 and fold.


It is hard for me to appreciate these two points with my experience. I'm speaking of the case of an undercall that can be an angle.  How can anyone work an angle to any benefit by faking a call for a greater amount while willingly forfeit the lesser amount? I have never seen this attempted, and certainly never recognized that it had worked to success.  Please tell me as how this works.


Not saying that deliberately under-calling is a common angle, but the possibility is there.

Item 2: Example: NLHE 1-2k, Post-flop A opens for 6k and B pushes out 20k.  C could theoretically push out 6k in hopes of getting a read as to whether A and/or B are happy about his "possible" call. If he doesn't like the read he might hope the TD gives him the option of leaving the 6k in and folding, but this is not guaranteed, and if the TD suspects C is angling he can take that into consideration and hold him to a full call, or hold to a full call just to keep betting discipline in place.

Item 3: If a player were allowed to undercall by "Call ... 6k" in the above example, that would be a tremendous option, to have a moment to assess opponent reactions prior to deciding whether to full-call or fold. The initial declaration of call binding to full action precludes this.

But the larger issue of the OP is whether there is a built-in "advantage" to the player who silently pushes out chips vs. the player who declares call and an amount. For the listed reasons the advantage isn't particularly great for an attentive player.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 12:26:55 AM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2015, 07:12:35 AM »
Thanks Mike, I think I understand better the concerns.  We have all seen players who will go to lengths attempting to get a read on a player before acting.  The caller will count a stack of calling chips.  He might even cut out another stack of raising chips.  He might ask, "How much are you playing behind?"  Of course, all of this requires the caller to observe his opponents reaction.  In your examples, the "Call [hesitate] ... five hundred" could be a similar attempt.  But, given the need for observation of the actual raiser, I find it hard to believe that the angleshooter would get away with this as the dealer and other players would recognize the angle.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is a "built-in advantage to the silent attentive player" for the same reasons that you listed.  But certainly there is a "built-in disadvantage to the inattentive verbal player" because the TD has to overrule #39A instead of simply following #39B as the written rule. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of educating players and having them pay a little as they learn is a fantastic teacher.  It is easiest to teach rules that are simple and applies equally to all.  Telling players that there are differences between verbal calling and chip calling isn't easy or simple.  This is, perhaps, especially true when the difference is only for a general verbal action vs. a verbal amount.  It is these subtle differences, and how they are enforced, that might contribute to a misconception that a TD is putting the recreational player at a disadvantage while protecting the house regulars.  You asked: "1: How else are you supposed to treat it?"  I must admit, I'm not quite sure of the solution given everything else that has been written here, but I do think I prefer something closer to the wording that I suggested in http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1211.msg10529#msg10529:

39: Calling the Correct Amount

In hands involving multiway action, when one or more raises have occurred, players may erroneously attempt to call the lesser amount of a posted blind, an initial bet, or an earlier raise without realizing that they are facing a raise of a greater amount.  In these cases, the TD may use their discretion to require the player to either call the greater amount or to allow them to fold while forfeiting the lessor amount.

In hands involving heads-up action, and in all cases when calling an initial bet, the call is required to be the full amount of the bet or raise.

 

This doesn't eliminate Rule #1 as it is always an option, nor does it explicitly reiterate it as a valid option in only some certain variations of undercalls.  The implication that TD discretion is more appropriate under certain circumstances is perhaps my primary objection.  This is not necessarily because I disagree with the fundamental premise but I do respectfully disagree with the notion that it should be made explicitly in #39B.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 09:40:12 AM by BillM16 »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2015, 10:52:05 PM »
I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is a "built-in advantage to the silent attentive player" for the same reasons that you listed.  But certainly there is a "built-in disadvantage to the inattentive verbal player" because the TD has to overrule #39A instead of simply following #39B as the written rule.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of educating players and having them pay a little as they learn is a fantastic teacher.  It is easiest to teach rules that are simple and applies equally to all.  Telling players that there are differences between verbal calling and chip calling isn't easy or simple.  This is, perhaps, especially true when the difference is only for a general verbal action vs. a verbal amount.  It is these subtle differences, and how they are enforced, that might contribute to a misconception that a TD is putting the recreational player at a disadvantage while protecting the house regulars.  You asked: "1: How else are you supposed to treat it?"  I must admit, I'm not quite sure of the solution given everything else that has been written here, but I do think I prefer something closer to the wording that I suggested in http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1211.msg10529#msg10529:

39: Calling the Correct Amount  

In hands involving multiway action, when one or more raises have occurred, players may erroneously attempt to call the lesser amount of a posted blind, an initial bet, or an earlier raise without realizing that they are facing a raise of a greater amount.  In these cases, the TD may use their discretion to require the player to either call the greater amount or to allow them to fold while forfeiting the lessor amount.

In hands involving heads-up action, and in all cases when calling an initial bet, the call is required to be the full amount of the bet or raise.

 

This doesn't eliminate Rule #1 as it is always an option, nor does it explicitly reiterate it as a valid option in only some certain variations of undercalls.  The implication that TD discretion is more appropriate under certain circumstances is perhaps my primary objection.  This is not necessarily because I disagree with the fundamental premise but I do respectfully disagree with the notion that it should be made explicitly in #39B.
 The above encapsulates alot on this topic:

1: "built-in disadvantage to the non-attentive verbal player".  But is there? What "disadvantage" is there to requiring someone who says "call" to call whatever the full bet amount is?

2: "players may erroneously... without realizing".   But how do we know it's in error without realizing and not deliberate? i.e. how do we write "intent" into the rule? Sure, as TD you can make that and any other determination you think obvious, but making intent an element of the rule is something the Association has historically avoided.

3: SO, the only circumstance in which there is a clear "call" of the lesser amount is when such chip amount is pushed out, or some verbal phrase is used such as "200 _____" that isn't first preceded by "call". We don't know whether the undercall was a deliberate ruse or honest mistake, just that the player clearly intends to call that lesser amount.

To be certain, there is a camp of TDs that won't parse the verbal so strictly... who would consider an unhesitant "Call 200" to be the equivalent of silently pushing out 200, because in their judgement it's equally clear with such verbal that 200 is the intended bet, even if call is first declared. Then there's the stricter camp that says once call is declared any erroneous value afterwards is irrelevant since call has been declared. which of these 2 is right? They both have merit. This takes us to your last point about not liking TD discretion... this is a murky area, and IF the rules are to accomodate an option where a player will be allowed to forfeit an undercall and fold you either say in EVERY case that is not heads-up or action following the opener the player has such option, or that the option is at TDs discretion. I personally like discretion because in most situations I'm inclined to require a full call unless there's a huge bet disparity and/or understandable circumstances where any reasonably attentive player might get the bet wrong.

Keep in mind that prior to the 2013 Summit there were numerous situations in the discussion-sphere where the proposed solution was "forfeit and fold", but there were no guidelines as to when that is and is not an appropriate option.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 10:55:16 PM by MikeB »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
Re: 2015 rules #39 Undercall
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2015, 08:04:42 AM »

This takes us to your last point about not liking TD discretion... this is a murky area, and IF the rules are to accomodate an option where a player will be allowed to forfeit an undercall and fold you either say in EVERY case that is not heads-up or action following the opener the player has such option, or that the option is at TDs discretion. I personally like discretion because in most situations I'm inclined to require a full call unless there's a huge bet disparity and/or understandable circumstances where any reasonably attentive player might get the bet wrong.


Mike, I agree with most people that the ruling should be that calls and undercalls must be full calls with very few exceptions.  I think I may have mislead you with my failing attempt to use different words to describe the exceptional areas that 39B makes.  Again, my real objection to #39B is in these two phrases:

  • In other situations, TD’s discretion applies.
  • This rule addresses when a player must make a full call and when, at TDs discretion, he may forfeit the underbet and fold.

Those statements contradict the well-known general rule as written in #49:  As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion. 

Does #39B say that Rule #1 can only be applied as described within? 

 



 
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 08:05:43 AM by BillM16 »