Author Topic: A few irregularities at my home game (questions)  (Read 4247 times)

BrentW

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
A few irregularities at my home game (questions)
« on: November 22, 2010, 04:43:17 AM »
Greetings all!   

I have been hosting poker tournaments for about 3 years, and the first 2 years and 9 months went swimmingly.  :-)  But the last 3 months, it's like there's a full moon every Friday night at my house.  I have had some situations happen, and I would like your input.  I use Robert's Rules of Poker as my bible, unless TDA rules supersede RROP, which would be rare.  I am going to post a few in the same topic -- it seemed better than bombarding the board with 6 new topics from a new user.  I will post 3 now, and then more later on. 

**********************************************************************

Scenario 1:  NLHE tournament (all of these are NLHE tourneys) - Jeff and Mabel are currently in a hand; both have over 100,000 in chips.  The turn card is revealed.  Jeff bets 4,000.  Mabel says "I raise" without yet stating an amount, or pushing any chips forward.  Jeff, jumping the gun, says "I call".  I ruled that since Mabel's action had not been completed, his "call" was not binding (he can't call an "infinite amount"), and I let the table know that Jeff still had action.  I gave him a warning for acting out of turn.  Mabel then raised to 12,000.  Jeff then says "I raise" (??!!??!!) and went all-in.  Mabel's husband did not at ALL like the fact that Jeff was allowed to raise after saying "I call".  I have reviewed RROP and it is very....murky...on this subject.

a) Is Jeff's initial call binding for any amount?  What if Mabel goes all-in for 100K after hearing this, as she has the nuts?  Is he liable for the whole amount, if any? 
b) If he is NOT liable for the call, does he still have "full action" (ie: can he raise?) The rules would APPEAR to say that while his call was not binding, he may also not raise, which I find incredible.  Either he has action, or he doesn't.  You can't have "neutered action".  Can you?


******************************************************
Scenario 2:  A new NLHE hand is dealt.  Upon 3 players folding, and one player limping in, it is discovered that the button was not moved.  I rule that since the Big Blind didn't protest until 4 people had acted, the hand is live.  Additionally I point out that he voluntarily put his BB out in front of him.  He says that there is a rule that "you can't be the big blind twice" and thus. it trumps the "significant action" rule.  I said I have never seen any rule about "you can't be the BB twice".  I said that's something that poker players say so much, that people think it's a rule, when in fact it's not.  You CAN be the BB twice, if for example, you get moved to a new table in rebalancing. 

a) Is the hand indeed live?  Does the fact that he put his BB out in front of him when the hand started mean anything?  Would the ruling have been different if he HADN'T have put his BB out there?

**********************************************************
Scenario 3: We are at the turn in a 3-handed NLHE hand.  Player A bets 14,000 (1 pink and 4 yellow, where the pink is 10,000). Player B says I call, and puts out 4,000.  As player C is folding, it is noticed that Player B only put in 4K.  He says that he thought it was 4K.  He says he didn't see the pink chip behind the yellow chips (Player 1 had his pink chip on the bottom and had "rainbowed" his chips somewhat, so the pink chip was a little obscured from Player B's viewpoint.  I rule that it falls unde the "gross misunderstanding" part of RROP.  Someone at the table, a fellow TD, says that RROP "gross misunderstanding" applies only to RAISES.  I say that the spirit of the rule seems to indicate that all bets are covered, not just raises (why would it be just raises?)  I rule that Player B can reconsider and withdraw, and I do not make him put his 4,000 in the pot.

a) Should I have made him call?  Does this fall under the RROP defintion?
b) Should I have made him leave in the 4K? 
(BTW, it was not indisputable whether or not Player C had folded first or WHEN the error was caught, so I didn't take that in to consideration.  I know that if another player acts, then PLayer B would be forced to call the entire bet.  )

Thank you for your input!  I hope it's OK putting these in the same topic!

Brent

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: A few irregularities at my home game (questions)
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2010, 08:25:26 AM »
BrentW,
Scenario 1, I would not allow Jeff to raise.
Scenario 2, This is a little more complex. The blinds are not considered action, but the fact that 4 players acted (3 by folding) could justify the ruling that the hand should play-out. There is a procedure that is followed that advises to never have the BB two hands in succession. I don't , however believe that it is a "rule." To answer your question, IMO, if the BB were not posted I would easily rule the hand be redealt with the proper blinds.
Scenario 3,  If player C was out, leaving only two players, I would not allow Player C to retract his 4000. I might consider allowing Player A to accept the misunderstod wager as 4000, allowing Player A to retract 10000. This is one of those touchy situations where it helps knowing the players and knowing that the actions were truly just a misunderstanding. The ideal situation (of course) would be for Player B to call the additional 10000.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: A few irregularities at my home game (questions)
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2010, 08:40:14 AM »

**********************************************************************

Scenario 1: 

a) Is Jeff's initial call binding for any amount?  What if Mabel goes all-in for 100K after hearing this, as she has the nuts?  Is he liable for the whole amount, if any? 
b) If he is NOT liable for the call, does he still have "full action" (ie: can he raise?) The rules would APPEAR to say that while his call was not binding, he may also not raise, which I find incredible.  Either he has action, or he doesn't.  You can't have "neutered action".  Can you?

Since it is quite clear that Jeff knew Mabel was raising and he declared a call out of turn his action "May be binding" if action doesn't change in front of him.  Since action can't change in front of him, Mabel has to put a raise in, then Jeff will have to call.  You can INDEED HAVE NEUTERED action.  Jeff can't change his action because Mabel raised which was the action Jeff called.  Mabel would be smart to just put in a min raise here and wait for the river but that is just my .02 cents.

******************************************************
Scenario 2: 

a) Is the hand indeed live?  Does the fact that he put his BB out in front of him when the hand started mean anything?  Would the ruling have been different if he HADN'T have put his BB out there?

"Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called...action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted."  Your ruling is correct.

I disagree with part of what you say about the big blind, and it is a small thing, but it should not occur that you have the big blind twice when REBALANCING tables as you should be taking a player from the full table DUE FOR THE BLIND and place them in a seat closest to the blind.  However, when BREAKING A TABLE there is a chance that you could get stuck with the big blind twice.


**********************************************************
Scenario 3:
a) Should I have made him call?  Does this fall under the RROP defintion?
b) Should I have made him leave in the 4K? 
(BTW, it was not indisputable whether or not Player C had folded first or WHEN the error was caught, so I didn't take that in to consideration.  I know that if another player acts, then PLayer B would be forced to call the entire bet.  )

This one is one that I have had trouble with and there is another thread that discusses it fairly well.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=235.0

I think that you are correct in this scenario has it seems pretty clear that there is a reasonable chance player B truly didn't know what the action was and his physical action subsequent to his verbal action demonstrated his misunderstanding than he should be given the opportunity to withdraw and reconsider.

This is the part that fascinates me about this rule and the different ways that people would rule.  I have taken the scenario in the other thread to about 6 different TD's and gotten a pretty even split on how they would decide.  The interesting thing, and the part that I can't get my head around, is that they get stuck on the VERBAL part.  If the player had simply physically placed the 4000 chips in the pot without verbalizing then no one has a problem letting him pull the action and reconsider (though some like to leave the called amount in the pot).  But many get stuck with the fact that the player VERBALIZED an action even though his subsequent physical action demonstrated his misunderstanding.  What I have learned from this study of this rule is that the only time it is a good idea to verbalize your action is when you want to raise and take an extra step putting the raising chips in the pot.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: A few irregularities at my home game (questions)
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2010, 11:40:53 PM »
Thanks for the post, Brent, and welcome to this Forum....
Scenario 1: I think a TD has some latitude on this one. I take the minimalist approach. What is the action to Jeff at the time he says "I call". The action is, as you state, undefined, except that it is AT LEAST the minimum raise. So the position I usually take for this situation is obligating Jeff to call a min raise, but anything above that is considered action changing. I advise Mabel of this prior to her declaring her raise amount so she knows the ramifications of making a min-raise vs. a larger raise. In fact it's a good practice to always advise the correct in-turn player as to the ramifications of their action when there's been an out-of-turn declaration ahead of them.... they are entitled to know what the ruling will be depending on the action they take. My recollection from the 2009 Summit is that if a player is released from an out-of-turn declaration, they have all options open to them (call, raise, fold).

Scenario 2: I would rule that substantial action has occured and that the hand should continue. As for the concept that "you can't be the big blind twice", they are probably referring to button and blind placement when you go to to heads-up action on the final table (i.e. if the prior BB is still in the game he won't be the BB for this hand, he'll be the SB, regardless of where the button was on the prior hand).

Scenario 3: I feel the player as the rules now stand is at the mercy of the TD. If you use the gross misunderstanding language of RROP as a guide (Sec. 14, Rule 12), it is only a suggested remedy, and "the decision maker is allowed considerable discretion"... even his 80% threshold is just a suggestion of where to cutoff any claim of gross misunderstanding. But countering the gross misunderstanding remedy is the idea that we want players to follow the action and be responsible for their actions. This guy said "I call", the chips were clearly visible he just didn't make much of an effort to look at them. How much leeway am I going to give a player like this? Let's say I rule that he called because there was absolutely nothing keeping him from being fully aware of the action... and that he should put out the additional 10K chip. I think that's a legitimate ruling. Equally, I respect your call that he should be given gross misunderstanding consideration. Personally I feel that the additional 10k probably isn't going to crush this guy and it emphasizes the point that you have to follow the action. I generally entertain the idea of gross misunderstanding only if there's some form of intervening distraction that would have understandably kept the player from fully knowning the amount of the bet to him and I don't see that here.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 12:00:45 AM by MikeB »