Accepted Action question

[Tristan]

It has recently become a topic of debate at our establishment...how strict is accepted action?

Situation:  Blinds are 1000/2000, player A raises all-in, Player B throws in 2000. 

There are two opinions here.  One is that player B has to call the all-in.  "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..."  Putting chips into a pot behind a bet signifies either a call or raise depending on the amount of chips.  Giving player B an option to call the rest or sacrifice the 2000 and fold can leave opportunities for angle shots. 

The other opinion is that making Player B call the all-in is too strict.  They should be allowed to either sacrifice the 2000 and fold or call the full amount.

Thoughts?

[K-Lo]

I believe the current trend is to bind B's 2000 to the pot, and give B the option to "top-up" his bet to a call or he may fold.  In your example, B did not verbalize "call", but even if he did say "call" but mistakenly thought he was calling 2000, I expect the same option to be given particularly where there is a significant discrepancy between the amount put into the pot and the amount to be called.

I sympathize with the observation about the angle shooting though - presumably if B only puts in 2K and there is some reaction from a subsequent player that lets B reconsider calling A's all-in or not, then B may have an incentive to try the angle.  On the other hand, if the rule were to force a call of the all-in in every circumstance, an angle would still be open albeit a different one - B could put in 2K and then 'reluctantly' call with a strong hand, hoping to induce another player with a weaker hand to call (where the weaker hand might not have called had B more confidently called A's all-in bet).  So neither option would prevent angle-shooting. 

There is also the fairness issue that you alluded to - it is not uncommon to come across situations where A's all-in is for a significant amount and it is clear that B honestly thought he was calling only 2K (e.g. especially if A's chips were not pushed forward to be counted and the all-in was not clearly announced by the dealer).  In these cases, it may be unfair to hold B to the all-in call, and I think giving B the option of sacrificing the 2000 and folding is a reasonable compromise.  If B repeatedly "under-calls" and you suspect an angle, you could always issue a warning. 

I think your example is slightly different from the typical Accepted Action scenarios, where B has the opportunity to count the chips of A's all-in, but relies on the statement of a player or the dealer of the all-in amount rather than confirming the amount himself.

K

[Nick C]

Hello Tristan,

 I have to agree with K-Lo when he says your example is different from most questions regarding accepted action. I think any player that insta-calls without a request or confirmation on the amount from the bettor, or the dealer, would be obligated to the full amount. Why was the calling player unaware of the raise in front of him? I guess under conditions of gross misunderstanding the use of rule #1 would still keep us in compliance with TDA Accepted Action.

 I would have no problem allowing the calling player the option of surrendering his under call, or calling the full amount. I can only assume the all-in was a significant amount. If the player was unaware of the raise in front of him, would you allow him to retract his unintentional bet if substantial action had not occurred? Or, do you insist that he at least be obligated to the 2000?

 The problem I have with the rule is; when the calling player requests a count and is given the wrong information. In Tristan's example, that was not the case.

[Tristan]

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback!

Nick, I am a bit confused by your answer as you said two different things...I am just curious what your answer was.

I think any player that insta-calls without a request or confirmation on the amount from the bettor, or the dealer, would be obligated to the full amount.

or

 I would have no problem allowing the calling player the option of surrendering his under call, or calling the full amount.

Thanks!

[Nick C]

Tristan,
 I guess I'm trying to separate the player that knows he is calling a bet in front of him, from the one that (for whatever reason) did not realize that the intervening player raised. How much was the all-in? Was it 2100? Or was it a significant amount? The current rule gives quite a bit of flexibility for the floor. I always try to lean in the direction of the intent of the player and will be more strict when a player is more seasoned, and should know better.

 If the player is aware of the action in front of them, I might force him to at least his 2000. If the player was unaware of the intervening player, I would consider allowing him to retract his unintentional bet (that he thought was a call) if the next player did not react. I hope this makes more sense.

 Without knowing the players involved, or the amount of the all-in, that's the best that I have for now.

[K-Lo]

Agreed with what Nick says.

[Stuart Murray]

TDA rules on their own merits allow the player to "retract his 2,000 and re-consider his actions," most TDA compliant rules (WSOP My Own Companies etc) will require the 2,000 to stay in and the player may only call the remainder or fold.

I don't really see this as an accepted action rule in your situation, more a player acting without realising the bet has changed from 0 to all-in.

Regards
Stuart

[Tristan]

Perfect, thanks guys!