Author Topic: Opinion on decision  (Read 17706 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2011, 08:11:30 AM »
It will be so great if this definition "two actions involving chips or any three actions" would be generalized to the 3 cases:

1) A misdeal followed by ... (actually 2 actions) ...
2) A wrong board followed by ... (actually nothing clear) ...
3) A forgotten player followed by ... (actually 3 actions) ...

... to determine THE REAL DELAY TO REACT TO THOSES SITUATIONS !?!

« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 08:12:36 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2011, 10:48:41 AM »
If the second improper action were allowed, or prompted by the dealer, that too would be considered substantial action, would it not? If not, then we must erase substantial action from all head to head action. I believe the dealer counts in the equation.
 Guillaume Gleize,
I like your definition of two actions involving chips or any three actions, I especially liked when you used  "Freeze the action." All you have to do is consider whether you want to include the dealer as one of those participants. If it is too confusing, leave it the way you have it. There are always other factors that the floor needs to consider, and when we are talking about substantial action (or significant action), it involves premature betting, out of turn betting, and too many situations to mention.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 11:00:17 AM by Nick C »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2011, 06:18:44 PM »
This definition (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions) is beautifull and I'm ready to use it but it will break the traditionnal RRoP "2 actions after a misdeal & 3 actions after a forgotten player"!

So if we use this new definition, would you agree that:

1) Any initial error of deal (preflop) followed only by 2 folds before being discovered can be declared a misdeal because there were no "substantial action" (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions)?

2) Any forgotten player during a betting round followed only by an open-bet & a raise is enought to freeze the forgotten player (can't create action anymore) because there were "substancial action" (2 actions involving chips)?

Can't wait for the next TDA MEETING (won't be there because of european tourneys but will follow it very closely)!

GG
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 06:20:36 PM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2011, 07:55:04 PM »
Guillaume,
 I can agree with #1 but I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the forgotten player can't create action anymore. There are other links where we have discused this at great length. If you are implying that the players hand is dead, then I would say that is not right. I would say that the player could only call or fold when the action is returned to him, unless the dealer has turned the next board card. I don't want to complicate this but, I need an example that better explains what you mean; can't create action.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2011, 01:56:06 AM »
OK about the case #2 sorry not being clear: yes the result is that the player could only call or fold when the action is returned to him BUT THE MAIN POINT WAS THE DELAY:

Is it after 3 players acted (RRoP) or after the new expression of "substantial action" (2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions)?

So in the #2 my question was: Does the fact to be followed only by an open-bet + a raise is enought to "punish" the forgotten player because there were "substancial action" (2 actions involving chips) knowing that we didn't have the 3 actions recommanded by the RRoP?

GG

« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 03:02:41 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2011, 03:35:07 AM »
Guillaume,
 I like your definition of substantial action but, others may disagree. The big decisions that you will have to consider is; are you sure you want to" punish" the forgotten player, or the offending player that bet out of turn? You will have to determine why the player was skipped, and then make your decision as to who was at fault.
 There are too many situations to cover all of substantial action but, I will try to cover a basic scenario: Player A bets, Player B is skipped, PlayerC calls (first action), Player D folds (second action, but no bet). The skipped Player (B) now speaks out and stops the action from continuing. I would allow the action to be backed up to the proper bettor. If Player B, or the dealer allowed one more player to act (the third action), then it would be too late to back it up.
 My advise is to focus on the reason the improper action took place. Only then will you be able to make the right call. The forgotten player is not always the one at fault. All you have to decide is if you are going to consider the dealer in the equation. I hope this helps you understand. This is my interpretation of substantial action.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2011, 06:35:40 AM »
TY for this answer ... so I hope you will excuse my (very) last question (rude right?):

First I know about the special circumstancies and don't worry: I will never apply the rules like a robot ... But I need to have a strong base under all this ... so my last question will be:

In your last example and under normal conditions, if player D raised or called instead of folding and then player B (skipped) stops everything: it would be 2 actions (with bets) so I suppose it would be too late to for the action to be backed up right?

If yes: so we apply the "2 actions involving chips or 3 total actions"!
If no: so we stick to the RRoP "3 actions"!

(just to establish a base rule before all the special circumstancies)

GG
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 06:42:13 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3359
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2011, 11:32:27 AM »
Short answer, in my opinion; Two actions involving chips,or any three actions. Remember, if you are going to consider the dealer, this would change. I will give another example and keep in mind, this is how I understand substantial action. Example: Player A bets, Player B is skipped, Player C bets out of turn and the dealer tells Player D that the bet is on him and he folds, because the dealer was involved this could be considered substantial action, even though there were not two out of turn players betting.

 That's about all I have on this one.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Opinion on decision
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2011, 03:30:09 AM »
Thanks for all your advises Nick.

Long live poker!

;)