POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2013 Summit
Review of Accepted Action language.
Nick C:
K-Lo,
IMO, If the all-in player does not win the pot, and their bet is covered by a calling player, they can not play another hand.
All-in is everything. If the amount of the all-in is quoted as 100 (by the dealer or player) and it turns out to be 120 the all-in can only win 100. IMO, the calling player can only win 100, also. The only question we need to answer is what happens to the extra 20 from the all-in if he loses? Chips removed from play seems the most logical. I believe this would work for multi-way pots as well.
I think I'm agreeing with the last line of the prior post ;D "The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different."
Mike,
I'm assuming your even money analogy is for head to head only.
K-Lo:
--- Quote ---I'll take the view that poker iis an even-money gamble:
2: But he expects to lose all of his chips if he loses, but win an equal amount if he wins. Again, if he can lose 100% but only win 80% he's not making an even-money bet.
3: If poker is a game of even-money bets, which I think it is, then the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose... and the amount should be the same for both players. Otherwise it's not an even-money bet between the players involved.
--- End quote ---
Mike:
I don't disagree with any of this, but i feel these assumptions about the game make the most sense when the game is fair to both players. The specific situation at issue casts some doubt on the fairness of the game, and whether those assumptions should hold. Aren't we essentially balancing "the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose" with "the expectation that a player should be able to rely on the honest count of the dealer"? If the latter is considered to be of greater importance, then I don't see anything wrong with "breaking" the even-money expectation.
Note that it is simple enough to bring the situation back to an even-money gamble if the caller is about to rely on an incorrect dealer count... The bettor just has to step in and correct the count. The chips are his, he is permitted to handle his own chips, and the dealer is likely counting the chips in front of him. He is in the best position to correct it. I personally feel that everyone at the table should have a role in ensuring that a dealer's count is correct, but I can sympathize with the contrary position that questions whether the bettor should have an obligation to become involved once he goes all-in.
Ok, I think we have probably beat this horse to death. ::)
Brian Vickers:
Our casino utlizes a combination of the "accepted action" and the "gross misunderstanding" rules. Our rule is that if a caller is given the wrong count by the dealer and loses, he is only responsible for up to 50% of the difference.
i.e. If a player is all-in for 12000 but the dealer states he has 10000 he will still pay off 12000 because it falls within the 50% difference rule. If a player goes all in for 18000 but the dealer states 10000 the player will only have to pay off 15000 if he loses. If he wins he may win the entire stack.
This rule only applies if given an "exact count" and it turns out to be wrong. Any statement such as "around 10,000" or any amount stated by the player that the dealer does not confirm do not apply here and the correct all-in amount would be the correct all-in amount.
Another exception is in a case such as a player saying "All-in for 2000" where the exact count ends up being grossly higher (such as if the amount was actually 10,000) but the other player says call quickly. If the dealer corrects the inaccuracy before another player has acted or before cards are revealed, a player may be given an opportunity to take back his call completely. I'm not at work or I'd look up the exact wording on this rule.
Edit: I'm not saying the rule is "perfect", as I know that no rule could be perfect in this situation, but I'm just sharing our rule here.
MikeB:
Brian, your rule is 100% compliant with TDA 41: a) You have accepted action in place for most situations AND b) you have a Rule 1 exception for egregious cases ("gross misunderstandings") at house discretion.
What you've done is to put your specific exception language in writing and define exactly under what conditions you will have an exception and what the exception will be. This is exactly what some other venues represented at the 2011 Summit do. Those venues voted to adopt 41 after the Rule 1 discretion language was added b/c they recognized that their specific exception language was now compliant with the general Rule 1 exception.
I really think that this is where the most fruitful discussion at the next Summit will be focused: is there any specific exception language that can be commonly agreed on? ... rather than trying to reject the premise of accepted action itself. Even if no changes are made it will be useful to hear of the kinds of exception language that specific venues are using.
BTW Brian, how does your exception rule work in practice? Have you had any major problems w/ it or do you find it reasonably functional?
Nick C:
ACCEPTED ACTION
Poker is a game that requires mutual participation. The responsibility for accuracy on amounts wagered; is shared by the bettor, and ultimately the caller. Therefore, any player that calls a bet, without a requested confirmation from the dealer, will be held to the full amount wagered. In the event of incorrect information the floor will intervene to decide the liability to the losing player.
You didn't think I was going to stop on this one, did you? ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version