How to know bet amount

[Kiriac]

Blinds 50/100. UTG and UTG+1 toss in single 100 chip. Next player says something and puts in a single 500 chip. The dealer says 200 and flashes 2 fingers. It folds to the small blind who asks if 200 is correct. The dealer says that, yes, 200 is correct. No player says anything to the contrary. The SB calls 200. Now the raiser says that he bet 400 not 200. The button says he heard 400. The dealer calls the floor who rules that the SB can forfeit his 200 or call 400. He may not take back his extra 150. The floor states that it is the player's responsibility to know the action in front of him. He further states that the dealer's statements are only a courtesy to the player and that doesn't relieve him of his need to keep track of what's going on. But how is the SB to know the bet amount?

Hypothetically, since verbal declarations are binding, the raiser could say that he raised to 800 even though he through in a single 500 chip. Would all of the above still apply?

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Kiriac,

I would agree with what the floor said, rule 42 Accepted Action does cover this subject well. With regard to the 800 total hypothetical question, yes IMO the same would apply.

42. Accepted Action. Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. Rule 1 may apply in certain situations at tournament director’s discretion.

Regards
Stu

[Kiriac]

Stu,

So the raiser has no obligation to point out that the dealer has incorrectly stated the amount of the bet three times nor to answer the question asked bi the SB as to the correct bet amount? If I understand what you're saying then it's incumbent on any player who sees a single oversized chip to inquire of the bettor and bettor only of the size of the bet.

[K-Lo]

I have to admit that if I were ruling in this situation, assuming that I can verify the facts as stated, that I would allow the SB to take back his bet and reconsider his action.  Personally, I would invoke the exception of Rule 1. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the floor's decision was wrong.  At the end of the day, invoking the exception is at the particular TD's discretion, and a lot will depend on how he interpreted what had gone down after receiving the accounts from the players and the dealer.  i wasn't there, so I can't say. For example, if the TD said "the SB indicated that he thought that the dealer said 200, but everyone else heard 400, and the SB was confused because he was wearing headphones", well, that would be different.  The fact that the button seems to have heard 400 while the SB didn't might suggest something like this happened.

Rule 42 seems directly on point in this regard, although there has been a lot of debate about this rule, and I personally do not like it much but there it is.  Furthermore, in this case, Rule 34 says that chips that go into the pot in turn, must stay in the pot.  So as a default position, strict application of these rules is understandable and justifiable.

But, based on the original facts as stated, I probably would have invoked my discretion as TD, and ruled that the SB may take back his bet (150) and reconsider his action for the following reasons:

1.  Each player has the responsibility to protect all other players at the table and in the tournament at all times.  If the dealer is about to make an error (e.g. reading the board incorrectly), players who notice the error should point it out.  Similarly, if in fact the dealer had announced 200 and raised two fingers, it is clear that the dealer is clarifying for the table that the single 500 chip does not represent a call, and is confirming the size of the actual wager.  In my view, the bettor also has an obligation to point out the dealer's error as soon as possible, and at least before substantial action has occurred thereafter.  Therefore, the better must share some blame for not having corrected the dealer on at least two occasions - once when the dealer first said 200, and second when the SB asked for clarification of the bet. 

2.  I would tend to rely on Robert's Rules "gross misunderstanding" provisions in this particular case.  In a different thread (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=547.0), I had indicated that I would rarely invoke this gross misunderstanding rule if the amount wagered is in clear view of the person considering a call, since in that case,  the potential caller has the ability and responsibility to independently confirm the amount of wager by visual observation.  However, on the facts of the current post, I would give the SB the benefit of the doubt, not because he should be entitled to rely on information from the dealer, but more so because the caller has no way of visually confirming the amount himself, and has taken reasonable steps to confirm the amount wagered.  According to Robert's Rules, the decision-maker is allowed considerable discretion in these types of situations, and I would have exercised it here.

[DCJ001]

Rule 42 does not apply in this example because it has to do with understanding how many chips a player has placed before himself as a bet or raise, not the amount of a bet or raise that has been stated by a player.

[K-Lo]

That's what I thought the Rule had intended to cover as well.  However, the Rule doesn't make that very clear.  The second sentence is also very general.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi K-Lo,

I would find it unethical for a player not to intervene where they allow other players to call an incorrect amount, that being said, rule 42 is very specific, "It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players." an interpretation has been submitted that rule 42 does not apply to this situation in that a verbal does not form part of the rule, if you care to read the emboldendened section above you should interpret for yourself whether you feel 42 applies or not. The TDA does however, permit 'retract and reconsider' of your action, where you have called an incorrect amount, other TDA compliant rules do not allow retract and reconsider such as my own and WSOP, so therefore it would come down to your own house policy on 'retract and reconsider.'

Regards
Stuart

[K-Lo]

I don't disagree with anything said above. 

I would like to see an addition to the Rules that would provide for something that puts an obligation on the bettor to correct any misunderstandings of his bet amount as soon as possible (he is the best person to know whether there has been a misunderstanding) -- that would alleviate some of my concerns with new Rule 42.

[Nick C]

 The Rule is weak, and poorly written. The full responsibility is on the calling player and it should be shared according to other TDA rules. Every rule that is used in the WSOP does not have to be enforced for the other 99.99% of us that run tournaments.
 K-Lo, and some others that have responded on this subject agree the rule is unclear, unfair and unnecessary!
 Stuart knows the rules better than most. That is why (IMO) he will not agree with some of us  because he will enforce a rule, the way it is written. This is in no way a knock on those that "go by the book" no matter what. I think it should be a wake-up call for the board. The rule hasn't been on the books 6 months yet and, so far, it is the most contentious of all the new TDA rules.

[Stuart Murray]

pretty well put Nick!

I am stricter than your average TD in interpreting rules, although I do bend the grey areas on occasion! 

Stu

[JasperToo]

I very much like the way K-Lo analyzed the situation and I believe I would rule the same way in this scenario.

Nick, you are correct, sir.  I know what the rule was intended to do: deal with those oddball hidden chips and the occasional minor miscount.  But it's language puts many players in a bad spot if they have Stu for their TD