Author Topic: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question  (Read 20088 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2011, 05:57:57 AM »
After looking over what Thomas wrote. If he is correct then I think we need to work on the wording. I think this is what Thomas is saying. SUBSTANTIAL ACTION: Two out of turn players acting, with one or both putting chips in the pot, or any actions by three players. I thought that the definition was two OOT players (both) putting chips in the pot or any three actions, (even three checks). Hopefully the new verbiage wil clear it up.

 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 06:15:37 AM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2011, 09:09:36 AM »
Thomas,
 On day two, the question was put to matt regarding whether a check and a bet was considered substantial action and he said, and I quote "NO, a bet and a call is two actions with chips."                      
                            
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 09:17:13 AM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2011, 01:09:25 PM »
Nick, I believe your interpretation is correct.  At least, it's the one that I have.

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2011, 07:52:02 AM »
I am not sure that I agree with wsopmcgee's interpretation of the rule but the rule as he stated it is the one I heard at the summit.  2 actions involving chips or 3 actions.  He is saying that if just 1 action involves chips then a subsequent action (or previous action I suppose) would constitute the second and, therefore, substantial action. 

When I read the rule as stated above I would interpret it as two actions with chips:  so a bet and a call, bet and a raise, a raise and a re-raise.  Or three actions, which would be a bet, fold, fold.  Check, bet, fold. check check bet, check check check, check bet call (which actually fits both scenarios of definitions).  So it will be interesting to see if there are any examples with the new rule and subsequent debate.
Well it could be that I'm the one interpreting it differently.... however, at least I know what I was thinking when I suggested we keep the wording as is.

At the summit, the vote was going to be strictly 2 actions or 3 actions. Period. Whether or not involving chips. If you were going to phrase it as Nick is interpreting, than you would say "Two actions BOTH involving chips". But it's not defined that way. It's defined as "Two actions (meaning any action) involving chips." You are confusing the use of chips (plural) as meaning both actions. Chips is not referring to the actions. It is referring to the wager. Perhaps "Two actions involving a bet" makes more sense, but the phrase "Involving chips" has been an accepted one for a long time.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2011, 08:30:30 AM »
Thomas,
 There is nothing wrong with your interpretation, except the way it was worded. The less actions the better as far as I'm concerned. I actually prefer yours but, that's not the way it is. The definition I gave should make it clear: SUBSTANTIAL ACTION....Action from two players, both putting chips into the pot  (ie.bet and call, or bet and raise), Or any three players acting, after a skipped player.

W0lfster

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2011, 03:06:29 AM »
I have to go along with Thomas, although I see where Nick and Jasper are coming from, as TD's you really have to make a decision based on the wording rather than your initiative on what you might think the answer might be. As far as I see it, a bet and a fold, the fold is still an action and because there was already a bet it should therefore mean the player's hand is dead if he/she does not call attention to it when the 3rd player is to act. Thats my opinion, again I would love to here from Jan also, she seemed to be very keen to talk about the rule at the summit so I think we need to wait for her word on this.

BTW, if you are second from the cut off seat with everyone cheking except one player (second from cut off) and his action is skipped to the cut off who checks and the dealer checks lets say on the flop, when the dealer deals the turn, is that action resulting in a dead hand? Or does he have to wait until the small blind checks or bets again on the turn?

If there was a bet on the flop and you are the CUT OFF and it is skipped to the button and he calls and theres a turn card is that a dead hand also?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2011, 04:52:03 AM »
Wolfster,
 If what Matt defined substantial action to be on day two of the summit is what they want., it should be easy enough to word correctly. There are only two possible scenarios: either: 1.) bet, call.... or 2.) bet, raise.
 If it is any two actions, involving at least one bettor, it could only be: 1.) check, bet....2.) bet, call....3.) bet, fold...or.....4.) bet, raise.....Of course, any three actions is substantial, also.
 I don't agree with your statement when you talk of killing the hand because substantial action took place after the skipped player. I think we need to wait for the official rule before we debate this further. I would also not object to the dealer being considered as one of the persons, if they condone the OOT action.

 I would like to address your questions about the cut-off and second from the cut-off, but I have a tough time following that description. How about, the number of players in the hand, who's bet  (by seat #), in relation to the button. If I do understand you, I think that would be "premature dealing" as oppossed to "substantial action."

 By the way, I actually like Thomas's rule. I always thought that any two actions is substantial. However, that is not the way it was worded.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 04:58:58 AM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2011, 06:35:26 AM »
I would like to hear Jan chime in too, after the rule is officially out.  I am pretty sure she and Matt both had the same opinion about two things on this rule:

1. two actions involving chips = each action would involve a chips NOT two actions and one involves chips..

2. If a player FACES a bet when he gets skipped and the action is substantial THEN the hand is killed. -  If a player does NOT face a bet when he is skipped and the action is substantial then he would have the option to call or fold ( I believe they would not give him an option to raise.)

I thought this topic was pretty clear after the discussion at the summit, surprised to see it still has a little debate.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2011, 05:57:18 PM »
Jasper,
 I'm sorry but, I don't understand your response on #2. What do you mean, if a player faces a bet? Would you explain what you mean about when not facing a bet? You think the topic is pretty clear. I don't. When a player is skipped, and substantial action takes place, I thought that the player could only call or fold when the action returned to them. How does a skipped player, not face a bet? I have never killed a player's hand when action passed him by unless the next card was dealt, or the next round began and they were not in for all bets.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2011, 08:28:40 PM »
Yes I can explain it.  You say you have never killed a skipped players hand and the interesting thing is that killing the hand was a large part of the discussion that Jan and Michael were involved in.

A player faces a bet in two ways: preflop he faces the forced bet of the big blind.  Post flop a player faces a bet when someone bets in front of him. 

Now post flop a player could theoretically NOt be facing a bet if he is first to act or the action is checked to him.

So in the first case, if a player who faces a bet is skipped, then if substantial action has occurred after him, his hand would be dead (this is what I heard Savage say and what I thought was intended and right).

in the second case, where a player does not face a bet if he is skipped and substantial action occurs after him, he will have the option to call or fold when action returns to him.  The theory here is that the skipped player simply has to say "Oh, I checked" and we can't know better.  In the first case, the skipped player has no excuse.

Yes, this puts a lot on the skipped player, but if we penalize the OOT player then it's all fair.

And, apparently it is a topic clear in my own mind :)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2011, 08:16:03 AM »
Jasper,
 What about the player, post flop, that is first to act (not really facing a bet), but is skipped by a bet and a call, or a bet and an instant raise? You're going to kill the skipped players hand? No, I've never done that. I never killed a player's hand, when the offending player was the out of turn bettor.

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2011, 12:59:44 PM »
You wouldn't have to kill the player's hand in that situation.  He is not facing a bet, so when the action gets back to him he would have the option to call or fold... so it's not a problem.  We are only talking about killing a hand if the player that was skipped is facing a bet when the skip occurred...

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2011, 02:52:56 PM »
Jasper,
 You might be right when you say it is clear in your own mind, but I don't get it. If I don't understand what a rule is supposed to convey, how can I enforce it, or teach it?

IMO, substantial action can only be initiated by the OOT player, that skips the proper bettor. There is very little discussion about stopping substantial action before it gets that far. All I hear of is; players can not retract their bets when a bet is made (out of turn). Linda mentioned it at the summit, and I am curious how that will be worked into the new rule.

Ricky9

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 26
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2011, 06:26:47 PM »
FWIW I agree with Jasper, if a player is paying attention it is easy to know if he is facing a bet as chips will be in the pot, if a player behind even moves to put chips in, the missed player should call time. If time is not called I think hand should be dead. Not facing a bet is slightly more forgivable, therefore if a couple of players insta check after then hand should be passive not killed.

However, after watching the summit I believe the agreement on the rule is that action will be rolled back to missed player if substantial action has not taken place or passive if substantial action has taken place.

I do have an argument against that though, in a 6 max or final stages of a comp is this rule still acceptable when the missed player can effectively know the potential action of over 50% of the table? Going to the extreme if 3 players are left in a comp (post flop(lets say the dealer is a numpty)) and indicates to the BB that it is his action first (checks) and UTG (checks) whilst the SB is tipping the waitress .... it is rolled back and the SB has all options open?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 06:33:40 PM by Ricky9 »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2011, 06:28:18 PM »
You're right, Nick, about there being little discussion about stopping the action.  I think that is because the assumption is that we are always supposed to act in turn as a player, or control the action as a dealer.  If that happened we wouldn't need any rule at all about a skipped player.  So for the purposes of this rule we have to assume that everybody failed at there jobs and now we have to do something about it.

I am with you though, everybody needs to watch the action and stop it before it goes too far if someone is skipped, I think that would include other players at the table.