Author Topic: Rule 34 question  (Read 10749 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Rule 34 question
« on: April 05, 2013, 12:09:16 PM »
Blinds are 400-800 with 100 chip ante.  UTG raises to 1600.  Seat 6 puts out 100, then mucks his hand but leaves the 100 out.  I get called over.  Seat 6 says that he was watching the baseball game and thought the dealer was asking for his ante for the next hand, he was zoned out and didn't realize what the action was.
I ruled that he could forfeit the 100 only.  Another player was adamant that Seat 6 should have had to call at least the 800 bb since he put chips out in turn and 800 would have been the minimum bet.

I know that in a case where say two players were heads up, one made a bet and the other player who was aware of the total bet put out less chips I have made call the entire bet, but it didn't feel right to me in this instance.  I did not suspect angle shooting, and as no other player had acted yet I did not see action being affected.

I basically invoked Rule #1 per the exact set of circumstances to have him forfeit only 100, but Rule #1 aside, did I still make the right call per Rule #34 or should he have had to call at least 800?

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2013, 12:52:57 PM »
Brian:

I have no problem with your ruling.  There is nothing in rule 34 that requires a player to put the full amount into the pot.  It only says that chips placed in the pot, have to stay in the pot.  You say that making the offender put another 700 into the pot "didn't feel right to me in this instance." and so you invoked rule 1.  In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why we have rule 1.  Don't loose any sleep over this.

Chet

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2013, 02:58:02 PM »
Brian, I have no issue with your ruling under rule 1.  Whether without rule 1 we would force a call -- I.e. whether an under all must be topped up to a call-- is something that is to be settled at the summit this summer and I hope you will bring this up as an example.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3320
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2013, 03:12:02 PM »
Brian,

 I have no problem with your ruling, either. I probably would have given him a stern warning and I might have even given him his 100 back...I know, I know... ;D

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2013, 07:54:03 AM »
I ruled that he could forfeit the 100 only.  Another player was adamant that Seat 6 should have had to call at least the 800 bb since he put chips out in turn and 800 would have been the minimum bet.

Same thing I would have ruled.  Of course another player wants that player to have to put out more chips after mucking!  ;D
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2013, 11:40:01 AM »
Let me change the scenario slightly to see if we have the same decision:
Blinds are 400-800, Player A under the gun puts in 100.  Would we have forced the call of 800 or can he still fold and forfeit 100 only?

He is in turn and makes a calling motion, but puts out way less than the amount it would have been to call.  Essentionally same as previous example, but does rule #1 still have to factor in?

I will definitely bring this up at the summit, thank you.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2013, 11:59:11 AM »
Technically, you have 2 possible rules that come into play here

Money placed in the pot, in turn, stays in the pot.

and

Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the callerís responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponentís 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.


The first is very clear, not really open to interpretation.  So we know the 100 is bound unless you deem the situation worthy of using Rule 1.

The second is kind of open to interpretation.  Whether or not you apply this rule depends on how you interpreted it.

I would bind the 100 and give them the option to call the rest or fold and sacrifice.

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Poker Manager
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2013, 12:49:12 PM »
I know I should just leave it alone since you all seem to be agreeeing with my original ruling and I should take that as a victory  :)

BUT....
Let's say you're heads up on the river and a guy bets 5000.  I am clearly aware of the bet, I even repeat back "5000 to call?".  I stick out 100.  What action would you hold that player to? 
I know that's exaggerated, but can there be a hard rule applied to all circumstances concerning placing in less than the minimum bet/call or will this always be a Rule #1 issue?  At its core, you have the same action, there was a bet, a player put in way less than what the mimimum bet would have been (with and without the raise, it was still way under).  It seems to me that either way you have to apply Rule #1 to what is at its core the same issue.  In my second example, I don't see any way to argue that the player doesn't have to call 5000, for instance, win or lose.


Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2013, 12:55:52 PM »
Great point!  I would agree with making them call on the last example as well.  They were clearly aware of the action to them...the only reason they would do that is to try to angle and get a cheap tell. 
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2013, 04:34:22 PM »
Agree w/Tristan!!

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3320
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2013, 04:39:58 PM »
 Believe it or not, I rule the action a call. Yes...I agree with Tristan and Chet ;D

 The exception would be a player thinking it is his blind and places chips into the pot before the deal is complete.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Rule 34 question
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2013, 04:52:47 PM »
Yes...I agree with Tristan and Chet ;D

Eureka!!  :D
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter