Author Topic: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits  (Read 12981 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« on: August 07, 2011, 11:20:45 PM »
If you have a suggestion for a proposed Version 2.0 of the 2011 Rules, please post same here.

Of primary interest are such concerns as:

A) inconsistencies or contradictions
B) clarifications
C) omissions: for example there was a great catch by Thomas McGee that Pot Limit was not included in maximum number of raises (Rule 41) in Version 1.0.

This is not the place to propose entirely new rules, or that the essence of an existing rule be significantly changed... but rather edits that may improve understanding and application of the current rules.


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2011, 08:33:42 AM »
Mike,
 #33 Substantial action First off, I want to say that I understand the meaning and I agree. However, the more I look at it, I feel as though there should be mention of "a player being skipped." Example: After the proper bettor is skipped, Substantial action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two players.....................

 

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2011, 12:29:26 PM »
Mike,
 #33 Substantial action First off, I want to say that I understand the meaning and I agree. However, the more I look at it, I feel as though there should be mention of "a player being skipped." Example: After the proper bettor is skipped, Substantial action is defined as either: A) any two actions involving two players.....................

 

Except this rule does not just apply to a skipped player.  The rule would be used any time that substantial action is used as an indicator that it's too late to change an error.  Rule 32, for example mentions substantial action as a time when a misdeal cannot be called.

So you are trying to wedge in language into a general definition rule for a specific situation when the rule is to be used for many different situations.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2011, 12:40:47 PM »
Good catch Nick. Your subject "Skipped Player" will likely be the topic of a proposed new rule at the next Summit. As you probably recall there was some discussion of it in 2011 during the breakout sessions which met with mixed opinion during the floor discussion... more will be needed to arrive at an industry-wide agreement.

As Jasper points out, Substantial Action is applied in a number of situations, not just skipped player...

Also, in a 2.0 edit or perhaps next Summit, clarification that Substantial Action does not include any "forced" bets seems warranted as there's already been some questions as to whether the blinds themselves are counted as action for S.A. purposes.  
« Last Edit: August 08, 2011, 12:44:12 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2011, 03:35:24 PM »
Mike,
 There are many rules for poker, we that play the game, assume everyone knows; for example; like the action moving clockwise.
I think we should give a very brief mention of the blinds not being counted as action because they are forced bets before cards are even seen. Otherwise we will find ourselves going over the same wording for each rule.

A suggestion:   Under general concepts #5 DIRECTION OF PLAY: All action will proceed clockwise from the dealer, or button. This will include dealing and betting. Forced bets, such as blinds are not considered as action. SEE #33 SUBSTANTIAL ACTION.

 I was thinking of a scenario, where two or three players are skipped in a betting round. I don't think I would rule that the same as skipping only the one proper bettor, which is what we always discuss. I would be more inclined to look directly at #36 and not #33. I would back the action to the proper player.....in other words, even though substantial action occurred, the action reverts to the proper bettor, then if the action does not change to each out of turn, it remanis in the pot.

 Jasper does bring up a good point. There are other situations when the wrong bet is made on a betting round and multiple players have already acted. Example blinds 300/600 and on the turn the first player bets 300 and four players call.


 Mike, I wonder if we shouldn't move this to another section. It's a great discussion but I might be getting away from what you were looking for.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 01:51:38 PM by Nick C »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2011, 09:02:10 AM »
Mike:  I tried printing out the PDF Handout with changes in Red.  I noticed that my printer, HP Deskjet 960C, chopped off the first few characters on the leading edge.  You might want to check that out and increase the margins.  Since this is a PDF, individual users cannot change the margins.

Chet

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2011, 11:32:29 AM »
Chet: what characters are you referring to "first few on leading edge"?

Also, how does the document display for you? are the characters also off the display or...

Mine displays and prints fine (on a brother laser)... could it be a printer setting ?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2011, 12:39:21 PM »
Mike:  About 1/8" is being chopped off.  I have been using a Firefox add-on for PDF documents and that add-on doesn't allow me to make any changes to print settings. 

I tried IE9 with Adobe Reader and it also chopped off the first few letters.  Then I found a setting in Reader.  It is under "File", "Print" or just the "Printer" icon.  When that page opens there is a setting about 2/3 of the way down the page for, "Page Scaling".  It was set to 'None'.  I changed it to, "Shrink to Printable Area" and the whole document printed fine. "Fit to Printable Area" seems to do about the same thing.  It has a much larger left margin that I would like, but at least all the characters are there.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2011, 01:34:45 PM »
Chet,
 Did you and Mike get your printer fixed? If so, do either of you have any thoughts about my suggestion from reply #4 of this post? I can't believe that there isn't more activity on this subject. I guess I'm the only one that has any questions about the new rules.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2011, 08:28:00 AM »
This thread seems to have hit a dead end.  I took it upon myself to research the proper wording for rule #10. My suggestion of the word "their" is appropriate but, there is a better answer.....any player deliberately miscalling his or her hand may be penalized. This is from a great little book that I use from time to time.....thought I'd pass it along.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2011, 10:25:04 AM »
Nick:  I don't disagree in fact I think, that "their" is perfectly fine.  I know that when we first created the "handout" version of the 2009 rules we had a challenge to get it to fit on two pages (or one sheet front and back).  While "his or her" is probably grammatically better, if each instance of this phrase was to be changed to 'his or her', it would add a number of words which may then again be a challenge.

For that reason, I vote for "their".

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2011, 11:22:27 AM »
Chet,
Great. It works better than "her" for sure.

emc300

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2011, 03:56:27 AM »
This may be classified as a new rule for the next summit.  I thought at one time there was a headphone rule or am I thinking of the WSOP rule on this subject?  What is the take on this?
Matt Childress
Playing Field (1990-2010, Gone, but not Forgotten)
Richmond, VA
Twitter: @Matt_Childress

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3345
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2011, 05:15:51 AM »
TDA Rule #4 Communication. States that house rules apply to all other forms of ELECTRONIC DEVICES. That should cover it.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Suggestions for Version 2.0 edits
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2011, 08:38:17 AM »
EMC300:

There used to be a rule that covered phones and all other forms of electronic devices and pretty much eliminated their use.  However, some time ago that rule was changed, basically to restrict ONLY the use of phones at the table.  The reason was the HUGE increase in texting, Twitter, etc., and many pro players developed very large groups of followers who wanted to have "real time" communication while these players were in an event. 

Chet