Author Topic: Errors in series again  (Read 7164 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Errors in series again
« on: October 21, 2016, 04:50:19 AM »
Hello,

This question just to check your tendencies because I already know that this subject has to be treated in the next TDA meetings: The errors in series!

In the next (horrible) examples, please forgive the dealer and players big errors and concentrate on the SOLUTIONS ... Not on the human failures, TY.

At the flop with 5 players left - All players always bet in SILENCE - The dealer always make the error to MIX the pot in the middle and to place the turn -

Case 1a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table

Case 1b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action

Case 2a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table

Case 2b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action

Case 3a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table

Case 3b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action

TY



« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 04:51:53 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2016, 09:16:33 AM »
Good morning Guillaume,

Here is my two cents:

First, substantial action is defined in rule #35 and is to be considered only during the case of a misdeal: rule #34D, and in the case of a player that was skipped by action out-of-turn: rule #40B.  Therefore, the substantial action component added to scenarios 1b, 2b, and 3b have no affect on my rulings.  I would rule those scenarios the same as in the scenarios for 1a, 2a, and 3a.

In scenario 1a, player C makes an undercall in turn, which is covered in rule #39B.  As this player was not facing a bet while heads up, nor facing an opening bet on a multiway round, the undercall is NOT AUTOMATICALLY ruled a full call.  Instead, the ruling is left to the TD's discretion.  The TD can rule that must be a full call or they may give the player the option to forfeit the undercall amount and fold.  Technically, players D and E are in the same situation as player C.  The TD's discretion is still in control here.  It is possible that a TD would rule that player C must make a full call, while player D and E have the option of forfeiting and folding.

In scenario 2b, player C makes a raise of less than 50% of a full raise.  According to rule #43A, it is ruled a call.  Players D and E would also become callers under the same rule.

In scenario 3b, player C makes a raise of more than 50% of a full raise.  According to rule #43A, it must be made a full raise of 20,000.  Therefore, I would rule that players D and E have made undercalls while not facing an opening bet during this multiway round (rule #39B).  I would give them the option of forfeiting 16,000 and folding or calling the 20,000 bet of player C.

Regards, B~




Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2016, 11:23:44 AM »
Since nothing was said or implied, I have to assume that none of the action was an all-in. If any action was all-in, that would change things dramatically, and we would need to know who it was to come up with a ruling.


I agree with Bill that the substantial action of the B scenarios is irrelevant.

In scenarios 1 and 3 the prior round was never completed, so the turn action is returned, the turn card gets shuffled in like any other prematurely exposed turn card while completing the flop action.

In scenario 2, the turn is not premature since all flop decisions are already final, except that the excess needs to be returned.

In scenario 3, Players D & E made undercalls, and have options as Bill suggests, and do not have the option to re-raise.

But the thing he missed was, in scenario 3, Players A and B have yet to act on the raise, so they still have the option of re-raising.


For the record, I find it hard to believe any of these scenarios could actually occur. So many mistakes go unnoticed?  But if they did, feel free to invoke Rule One, as well as to give all the players (including those no longer in the hand), and the dealer, a new mantra: "Be aware of the action!"
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2016, 02:37:21 PM »
First TY guys to spend some time on my strange scenarios (but very usefull for the past & futur ruling).

---> Bill: In fact your answers ("normal undercall & underraise rules") are the same I would apply but on FEWER number of errors ... But here it's a huge serie and I voluntary only stopped it after 3 errors plus a turn then plus sub action AND YOU STILL APPLY THE "NORMAL" RULES? WOW ... OK respect ... So what if turn plus sub action plus full round plus river plus sub action etc etc etc? Still applying the normal undercall or underaise rules? In fact it was the point of my question: HOW MANY ERRORS, SUB ACTIONS, NEW BOARD CARDS AND BETTING ROUNDS DO YOU WAIT BEFORE CHANGING FROM NORMAL RULING TO NEW RULING (or accepted action or whatever)?

---> Dave: I agree with you too as the normal way of ruling (agree too with 1 & 3 returning the turn etc) ... But my question is the still the same than for Bill: How many time are you able to come back on an serie of error when made long time before?

Frankly I'm very surprised of your both answers because you can imagine (and I experienced it several time) that after the next board card (here the turn) some player did bet, some did raised, some did went all-in and some did fold BEFORE the error discovered (long time counting witness) ... You really can't apply normal undercall & underaise rules! Come on ... ?!?

PS: Very interesting point for me those "errors in series" and I thank you to accept to speak about this rude and unclear subject because the day some clean rules will be made by the TDA: it will help me very much!

Regards,
GG
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 03:08:58 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2016, 07:14:32 AM »
First TY guys to spend some time on my strange scenarios (but very usefull for the past & futur ruling).
...
In fact it was the point of my question: HOW MANY ERRORS, SUB ACTIONS, NEW BOARD CARDS AND BETTING ROUNDS DO YOU WAIT BEFORE CHANGING FROM NORMAL RULING TO NEW RULING (or accepted action or whatever)?
...
Frankly I'm very surprised of your both answers because you can imagine (and I experienced it several time) that after the next board card (here the turn) some player did bet, some did raised, some did went all-in and some did fold BEFORE the error discovered (long time counting witness) ... You really can't apply normal undercall & underaise rules! Come on ... ?!?
Regards,
GG

GG, in these situations the TD must do whatever is most fair to all and in the best interest of the game.  That includes breaking or bending the rules.  This is especially true in games where the series of errors occurs frequently.  Bottom line, house rules apply and the TD has final decision.

I have worked at one club where a group of Romani's (or Gypsies, as they call themselves) reserve the club exclusively to play poker.  In these games, the rules become mere suggestions.  It becomes a big family game with the TD there only to settle unresolved disputes to keep the game going, often with creative solutions, like a cut of the cards :).  In these games, we barely follow TDA rules, we abarely follow house rules, instead, we are mostly following Gypsy rules (no derogation intended).  In the best interest of the game, the family members rule and the TD merely makes it official.  How is this in the best interest of the game?  In effect, it is their house rules and their game.

 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2016, 04:27:34 PM by BillM16 »

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2016, 08:03:44 AM »
...
In scenario 3, Players D & E made undercalls, and have options as Bill suggests, and do not have the option to re-raise.

But the thing he missed was, in scenario 3, Players A and B have yet to act on the raise, so they still have the option of re-raising.

For the record, I find it hard to believe any of these scenarios could actually occur. So many mistakes go unnoticed?  But if they did, feel free to invoke Rule One, as well as to give all the players (including those no longer in the hand), and the dealer, a new mantra: "Be aware of the action!"

All of the players at the table, as well as the dealer, have failed to correct the errors before the turn.  Therefore, in scenario 3, I would rule that players A and B have the option of either calling the 20,000 or folding their 10,000.

In all three scenarios, I would correct the action on the flop as stated previously.  As to the cases of substantial action after the premature turn card:  I would unwind them to the extent possible to correct the flop and then proceed with a new turn.  In the worst case scenarios, I would return all bets and kill the entire hand. 

These things should never happen if the dealer is receiving a paycheck.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2016, 04:26:41 PM by BillM16 »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3344
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2016, 05:28:34 AM »
I'm not understanding these situations...Turn on board + substantial action. Can anyone explain?

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2016, 04:00:19 AM »
OK so the question was about errors in series (under calls or under raises) witch are quite common in my place and that I know how to manage BUT HERE FOLLOWED BY MANY ACTIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ... (witch really happen here sometime to times) ...

So it seems that the TDA is not already clear in those cases ... See also here --> http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1307.0
But I take your opinion that the sub action cannot be used here (at least BEFORE the next board cards) so:

Then waiting for TDA clarifications, here are the (hard) decisions I would take if alone with my numerous players and far away from your (precious) advices:

Case 1a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn is taken back, C+D+E can each forfeit 6000 or call

Case 1b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, A+B take back 4000 each ... (another solution would oblige C+D+E to add 4000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)

Case 2a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn stands, C+D+E take back 2000 each

Case 2b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, C+D+E take back 2000 each ... (another solution would oblige A+B to add 2000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)

Case 3a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn is taken back, C must raise 20000, D+E can each forfeit 16000 or call

Case 3b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, C+D+E take back 6000 each ... (another solution would oblige A+B to add 6000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)

So my new proposal is that the DELAY to react to errors in series in not the sub action (as you recommand me) but until the next board cards (included) ---> So until there we rule those errors normally ... But IMO if any sub action AFTER the next board cards we CAN'T manage them normally and my (humble method) is to use rule #1 then and most of the times to make the previous bets equal to the LOWEST* amount.

* not in all cases for sure


« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 07:02:58 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2016, 08:46:40 PM »
Hi G:
These situations are almost all Rule-1 examples, because they involve so many multiple mistakes that a single rule just won't cover it. Fortunately they happen rarely.

You're looking at such conflicting issues as: Chips in the pot must stay in the pot, board cards won't stand if the prior betting round is incomplete, players must follow the action (and protect their bets), and the general concept of substantial action. They are all in conflict in these examples, and so you have to use Rule 1 to craft the best (or least hurtful) solution.

At the 2015 Summit there was discussion about when a short opening bet is locked in. Example: Blinds 2k-4k, and on the Turn Player A opens for 3k. At what point does that bet get corrected, and at what point is it locked in? The two main choices would be: A) anytime before the end of the round; or B) once substantial action occurs. The majority of people preferred using the latter, i.e. the bet would be locked in once substantial action followed. Now, substantial action is classically used for misdeals and for skipped players, but this is an example of where it could be used to lock in incorrect bets.

Anyway, see my suggested solutions in bold italics below.

OK so the question was about errors in series (under calls or under raises) witch are quite common in my place and that I know how to manage BUT HERE FOLLOWED BY MANY ACTIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ... (witch really happen here sometime to times) ...

So it seems that the TDA is not already clear in those cases ... See also here --> http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1307.0
But I take your opinion that the sub action cannot be used here (at least BEFORE the next board cards) so:

Then waiting for TDA clarifications, here are the (hard) decisions I would take if alone with my numerous players and far away from your (precious) advices:

Case 1a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn is taken back, C+D+E can each forfeit 6000 or call

Your two main choices are either 1) as you describe, or 2) to say that A and B didn't protect their bets, there was substantial action AND board cards dealt after them, and it's less injurious to return 4k to each A and B. Of course this violates "chips in the post must stay in the pot" and "board cards dealt prior to completion of the prior betting round won't stand". I would say Option 1 is more persuasive for me in that it really emphasizes the importance of finishing betting, without too much disruption.
[/b]

Case 1b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 6000 - D push 6000 - E push 6000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, A+B take back 4000 each ... (another solution would oblige C+D+E to add 4000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)   

This is too big a mess. Nothing is really sacred, I think you just have to fashion the least injurious solution here. A and B protected NOTHING... they just didn't defend their bets, I think it's too much to unwind all this action. Better to give A and B their 4k back.

Case 2a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn stands, C+D+E take back 2000 each

This is screwy as 12000 wouldn't be a valid raise in no-limit. According to TDA rules, silently pushing 12000 against a 10k bet is a call. That's a good basis for ruling that C-D-and E each get 2k back and the turn stands.

Case 2b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 12000 - D push 12000 - E push 12000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, C+D+E take back 2000 each ... (another solution would oblige A+B to add 2000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)

Again, 12000 is not a valid raise to a 10000 initial bet. I'd say C-D-and E all called 10k and give them 2k back. Not to mention all the hassle of taking down the turn.

Case 3a) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table
Turn is taken back, C must raise 20000, D+E can each forfeit 16000 or call

Agreed with your solution.


Case 3b) A push 10000 - B push 10000 - C push 16000 - D push 16000 - E push 16000 - Pot mixed in the middle - Turn on the table + Substantial Action
Turn and action stand, C+D+E take back 6000 each ... (another solution would oblige A+B to add 6000 (!?) but no way for me to give them any choice nor to kill their hands like some do!)

This is a real mess. 16K is a mandatory 20k... Do I want to take down the board plus follow-on substantial action?  C-D-E did not defend their 16K bet... and it wasn't fully valid to begin with...  Somehow giving C-D-E the 6k back seems least injurious overall. Does this happen alot for you?


So my new proposal is that the DELAY to react to errors in series in not the sub action (as you recommand me) but until the next board cards (included) ---> So until there we rule those errors normally ... But IMO if any sub action AFTER the next board cards we CAN'T manage them normally and my (humble method) is to use rule #1 then and most of the times to make the previous bets equal to the LOWEST* amount.

For sure there's nothing "normal" about such messes. The question is whether we want to write a specific rule about it, or leave it as a Rule 1 workout. Thanks as always for the interesting cases!

* not in all cases for sure
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 07:57:16 PM by MikeB »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2016, 03:20:47 PM »
---> Dave: I agree with you too as the normal way of ruling (agree too with 1 & 3 returning the turn etc) ... But my question is the still the same than for Bill: How many time are you able to come back on an serie of error when made long time before?
As I mentioned in my initial reply, I can't believe that many errors can happen at once and go unnoticed.

But, if that's the case, then you just have to interpret the rules and situation the best you can, and use Rule One as a fall-back position.


Hi G:
These situations are almost all Rule-1 examples, because they involve so many multiple mistakes that a single rule just won't cover it. Fortunately they happen rarely.
Ditto.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2016, 05:27:51 PM »
Hey guys!
Thanks for your advices.

About the fact that it happens often or not: OK now I have to give you a secret: I manage many huge SELF DEALING tournaments including THOUSANDS of players sponsored by big poker rooms so yes: Those errors in series do exist in my (strange) world! My next one is in two weeks with 2200 players and many side events!

Check here ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGV2JSWPsI
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 05:30:26 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Dave MIller Gaming
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2016, 07:25:47 PM »
>> Self dealing.
That explains A LOT!

While I now retract my comment about the rarity of the situation, I stand by my other comments and ruling.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2016, 04:48:52 PM »
---> Dave: OK & TY

---> MikeB: Well that's the point: If you use the Sub. Action to freeze the error against one single previous bet (or big blind) ---> Why not ... BUT what if the previous bets are numerous (forming a previous sub. action too)? THAT was one of the main point of my original question!

I mean: A bets 10000 + B calls 10000 + C calls 10000 THEN D undercall 6000 + E undercall 6000 + F undercall 6000 ---> OK there is Sub. Action AFTER the error of D but can you really here freeze the D+E+F 6000 ? ... So what about A+B+C then?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 03:47:56 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2016, 03:31:43 AM »
... So to answer your question about until what point a serie of betting errors can be corrected or locked:

 A) anytime before the end of the round? or B) once substantial action occurs?

... After being on the B) solution, I'm back on the A) solution and for me the delay finish when new board card PLUS sub. action or when showdown.

Another point is when locking the situation because late (after board plus sub. action or after showdown) what is the tendency: Equalize the amounts up or down? Kill some hands? (yark!) Give some choice? (yark!) OK all that is rule n1 but my tendency if LATE errors in series would be:

If one player was alone in the misunderstanding: My tendency would be to equalize him alone up or down (no choice nor killed hand).
ex: A 6000 - B 10000 - C 10000 - D 10000 = A must add 4000

If two groups of players (so 2 groups of sub. action) in the misunderstanding: My tendency would be to equalize the amounts down.
ex: A 6000 - B 6000 - C 10000 - D 10000 = C+D take back 4000 each
To be said: Like you I hate to take back chips from the table and give them back to some players but I hate more to oblige players to add chips when they are NUMEROUS to have understood the same amount AND when the misunderstanding occurred a CENTURY before!

Those are only my actual tendencies when ruling those errors in series (witch really occurs in my several thousand players in self-dealing tourneys) ...
But I'm still very open to your advices ... if they are more numerous than mine ... so starting here with two lol!

Regards,
GG
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 03:52:00 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Errors in series again
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2016, 12:03:09 PM »
---> MikeB: Well that's the point: If you use the Sub. Action to freeze the error against one single previous bet (or big blind) ---> Why not ... BUT what if the previous bets are numerous (forming a previous sub. action too)? THAT was one of the main point of my

G: I realize the difference between using SA to lock in an abnormal opening bet vs. locking in a bet elsewhere later in the betting round. I just used the example to show there is some precedent for taking substantial action into consideration when looking at abnormal betting generally.

The bottom line is, when you have so many errors, there are violations of more than one of the "cardinal rules" of poker. How do you pick one cardinal rule over the other? IMO, you have to use Rule 1 and try and fashion the least disruptive solution. It will be interesting to see if any further concrete rules or suggestions come out at the 2017 Summit. Thanks for presenting these cases.

Also congrats on hosting such large self-dealt tournies. In the US we have numerous local leagues and tours that are self-dealt. Such events are extremely important to the game and are often the place where players will get their formative experience with tournaments!
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 12:07:39 PM by MikeB »