Short bets & substantial action!

[Guillaume Gleize]

My God ... so many cases ... so many work ... no unemployment in this job!



OK may I ask you that one:

Little tourney in casino
Blinds 50-100
5 players at the flop
Pot is 1550
P1 bets 1000!
P2 says only "raise" and put 3000!
(here the dealer and some players think it's a minraise of 2000 because one of the three chips of 1000 accidentally went under the two others ... but P2 actually did push 3000 in the table!)
P3 says "ok for the two" and put 2000!
(here dealer and following players agree ... while P1 & P2 start guessing ... but the action follow quickly)
P4 says "OK for me" and put 2000!
P5 says "I come with you all" and put 2000 in!
Here P1 and mostly P2 realize clearly that 3 players are wrong and ask for the floor!
...
- If you rule the reaction of P2 too slow because of substantial action behind him ... what about the 1000 more he bet (he spent 3000)?
- Or maybe you allways adjust all the short bets, even if they are numerosous, as long as the betting round isn't over and the next board card not opened?
  (In this case 3 players must adjust their bets but please don't explain how it works because it's ok with me and it's not the point of this post-TY)

The deep spirit of my question is: the "substantial action" is used for example with the misdeals and the skipped players but does it works also with the short bets?

GG

[chet]

GG:

I am somewhat unclear as to the sequence of events and maybe even to the actual events themselves, so I am going to make some assumptions and give you different answers based on different assumptions:

You said, "...P2 says only "raise" and put 3000!  (here the dealer and some players think it's a minraise of 2000 because one of the three chips of 1000 accidentally went under the two others ... but P2 actually did push 3000 in the table!)..." 

1.  If P2 put all three chips in the pot at the same time, I would rule the bet valid and require the following players to call the 3000.

2.  If P2 did not put all three chips in the pot at the same time, I would rule it a string bet and assuming the 2000 went in first, only allow a min raise to 2000.

What are P1 and P2 guessing about? 

The more often I read your post, the more it appears to me that P2 did put 3000 into the pot as a valid bet.  It may be that two chips were on top of each other with the 3rd chip behind and somewhat concealed.  However, that is not P2's problem, in my opinion.  I do not believe that "substantial action" can be applied here as it is P2s raise that needs to be protected not the short bets.  Why would you want to protect the "short betters"?  I guess my "final answer" would be that P3, P4 and P5 have to call the 3000 and put the additional chips into the pot OR you might let them fold.  If you let them fold, the 2000 stays in the pot as far as I am concerned.  The reason ------ They could and should have asked the dealer to clarify the amount of the bet by P2.  The fault lies with P3, P4 and P5 for not paying attention.

Hope this helps!

[MikeB]

GG; There's no specific TDA rule that covers this, so I think you have to use Rule 1 in the best interest of the game.

You can construe a RRoP rule regarding "misunderstood bets". From memory, RRoP allows some leeway in interpreting whether or not the difference between a bet actually made and a bet "understood" is significant or not. From memory, he uses the example of 80% as being a threshold where a mis-understood bet amount should be brought up to the actual bet. But that is only a recommendation.

If you look at it like this: 3,000 is the bet, and these players have put in 66% of that bet (2000 / 3000 = 66%). So they are very close to the 80% "example" standard that RRoP uses (which would be 2400 in this case). I feel that asking the players to bring their bets up to 3000 is not such a strain in this circumstance and that's what I would do. It's marginal to say that P2 should have followed the action and noticed the undercalls... we could as easily say that the subsequent players should follow the action as well. So we're left to decide, I think, if the misunderstanding is substantial or not, and there's not an exact line drawn for that as of yet, perhaps there should be.

Another important way of looking at it is this: Could P2 be held to a bet of 3,000?  Let's assume his bet was initially misunderstood as 2000. Could a player to his left speak up and say "no, he bet a binding 3,000". I believe the answer to that is yes... P2 is in jeopardy of being held to his push of 3,000. This is another reason why I prefer the ruling here that the 3,000 stands and the remaining players must come up to it. Fortunately I don't see this happening very often.

[Nick C]

Obviously the bet was misunderstood by the dealer and the players...so I see nothing wrong with rule #1. I would have no problem with backing up the action and allowing the players the option of completing to 3000 or retracting their bet. The player that made the wager has a certain responsibility to be sure that his bet is understood. However, the new rule below does not support how I feel.
  The 2011 World Series of Poker introduced the new Rule #89 Accepted action: Poker is a game of observation, it's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then releases said amount into the pot. It is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in bet.
 I don't like it, and it's not a TDA rule but, it's as close as I could find that pertains to the question.

[Spence]

The bet IS 3000 to call. The others must call the 3000. This is not a limit game where when someone says raise that the next player can immediately act. It is the players responsibility to make sure they are calling the right amount.

[Nick C]

Spence,
 Once we realize that the correct amount was 3000, who is at fault for the mistake? The first player that put in the wriong amount? Do you rule that he is the one that induced the next player to also bet the wrong amount, or do you force all players to increase to the proper wager without retracting their 2000? Why was the bet unclear to everyone? The player that made the bet should have a responsibility to others that his bet is understood, that's why I don't like the WSOP Tournament rule.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Wait wait wait ... ok:

CHET: they call at 3000 or fold & loose 2000!
MIKEB & SPENCE: they all call at 3000!
NICKC: they all call at 3000 or fold  & loose nothing!

My favorite (and applied one) is the CHET's! This "chips on the table must stand" is a great modern rule that oblige the players to pay attention to the game! Remember that no one said really "CALL" wich would have me oblige them to put the 3000! It's a serie of short calls WITHOUT any official verbal call! Important deetail in my eyes (& ears). It also as a kind of logic that fits with Mike's 80% theory but WITHOUT numbering it: here they just have to put 1000 to call ... I think they will do it most of the time. If the real bet of P2 was 30,000 ... I'm sure they will release the 2000 with pleasure!  

In fact you all seems not to use the "substantial action" after any short bet right? Even if it's a different kind? Like:

a) Short call followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
b) Short open bet under the BB followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
c) Short raise after a BB followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?
d) Short raise after a bet followed by 3 actions or more including raises etc ... ?

It's sure that whatever CHET, MIKE or NICK solution, if you ALLWAYS adjust the short bets as long as the betting round isn't over and NEVER apply the "substantial action behind" rule ... it's must simpliest than what we used to do here and I like it!

We could then conclude that substantial action behind a misdeal, a wrong board or a skipped player will freeze the action but not in the case of a serie of short bets!

Why not ... I love it ... but like many other examples ... WHO can definitly decide WHAT? THE TDA!