Author Topic: Rule 44  (Read 6484 times)

RayJ

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Rule 44
« on: June 24, 2013, 01:49:22 AM »
Is rule 44 based on ONE CHIP being thrown into the pot and the verbal (for example) announcement is 4....Levels at 200/400 and a 5000 chip is thrown in.....I understand the bet would be 400...the least amout allowed by the level....
NOW, levels are 600/1200 and after the flop, first person to act THROWS 2 5000 chips into the pot and announces 18.....( could be 1800 or 18,000) Would I give back ONE  5000 chip plus the difference for the other 5000 chip, OR .....because TWO Chips came into the pot, a total of 10,000, do I require him to "continue" putting chips into the pot to make it 18,000 (18)....If you rule to allow rule 44, the lessor amount, that is a problem....is rule 44 for a single chip?  if so, print it that way, and also mention if multiple chips come in, then the player must complete to  the next possible 18....
Rule It: NL Deep Stack $235...Levels 600/1200 w 200 ante....Had a few calls, pulled the monies in, burn and put out the flop....First to act Throws 2 5000 chips into the pot and says 18....just 18 and realizes (maybe/maybe not) he meant to throw 2 1000 chips in.....MAYBE????....I stopped the action, explained the unique situation he just created, explained what he needs to do, but also that I will call the floor over to rule.....I look at the facts, not the players opinion at the table, or try to  figure the true intent...I see two oversized chips equalling 10,000 units and I say, "you owe the pot 8000 more units"...I call the floor...How would you rule?..
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 01:59:27 AM by RayJ »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2013, 06:28:53 AM »
Ray,

 If the blinds are 600/1200 the first raise must be at least to 2400 and not the 1800 you suggest. Furthermore, if a player tossed two chips of 5000 each and said 18, it would have to be 18,000. That's the way I see it. Like you said, he would owe another 8,000. This, of curse, would depend on him saying the 18 before placing the chips into the pot.

And welcome to the forum.
 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 06:33:31 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2013, 10:14:33 AM »
Ray, thanks for great topic. My thoughts:

1: Rule 44 is for any verbalized bet (not just single chip) which might reasonably have two meanings. And reasonable is in the judgement of the TD. Example: 250-500 THE, early in a hand, both 500 and 5000 chips are on the table, pot is small. Post flop first to act SAYS five (but doesn't throw out a chip)... well 500 is reasonable here... but he could also be opening for 5k.... so Rule 44 would favor calling that a bet of 500... But later in the hand, There's 15,000 in the pot, and bets on the turn were all in the 1000's, on the river someone says "5", is it reasonable to assume that's a bet of 500 (even though 500 denomination chips are in his stack)?... ultimately it's a TD's judgement call.

Note... the word "reasonable" doesn't appear in the 2011 rules, but you may see it in the 2013 version....

2: In your last example 'first to act throws in two 5000's and says 18"... the visual I get on this is that the two chips were thrown first... if just a second after he says "18"... well to me the chips talk here and the verbal afterwards is irrelevant... I would rule it a bet of 10,000.  The bigger problem would be if he says "18" and then 1 sec later throws out two 5000s. In that case I think you have a post-flop open for 18K. Depending on the pre-flop action there's probably at least 6k in the pot already, could be easily 12k or more if there was a pre-flop raise and callers. While 18K might seem like an overbet in this situation, it's not an unrealistic bet either and the guy did throw out 10K... I just don't have a problem holding him to the 18k here.... betting discipline is crucial and you may have to make an example of this player if he didn't intend 18k. And if he really intended to open for "18 hundred" he'll be more careful next time; it's players responsibility to make his intentions clear, it's not TDs duty to try and "make it right" every time a player misunderstands what he's doing.

But bottom line, my preferred ruling here would be an opening bet for 10k... the verbal "18" was blurted out slightly (maybe miliseconds) after the chips hit the surface, it's confusing, and the chips are crystal clear.

Thanks for the great post!
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 10:18:37 AM by MikeB »

RayJ

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2013, 11:13:35 AM »
Thanks....In my situation, the word 18 came ahead of chips hitting the felt (2  5000 chips) hence multiple chips.....what happens if 3  5000 chips came into the pot with 18 announced first, etc...
Leaving a "resonable" call by a TD is (IMO) not the best way, fore a players stack in a tournament is his "life", and the life of all the tournament players are affected by this "resonable" decision>>>If it were possible to stop the game, ask all the registered players to "vote", should the player be forced to put 18,000 into the pot (leaving him short stacked maybe and possibly be out of the tournament soon), therefore one less player to compete against) or to "vote", OH, Let the poor guy go, made a mistake, just put in 1800!....
  At their choosing, todays players can be distracted by Ear Buds, I Pads, MP Players, Video, Massages, Rail conversations, or none of the above....
  A player with none of the above distractions, but total concentration on the game at hand, may become a victim of a TD's judgement "resonable" call and could affect his tournament life....
I wish for Black and White so the good dealer's are on the same page as the TD making the call...The TD's aren't at the table to witness the "spirit of the game", the "gamesmanship", bantering, if any, etc....However, whatever it is, it is....we dealers recognize a "foul", and our only job is to "call the floor"....and the system does work and takes the dealer out of the decision making process...but I would like Rule 44 to be a ONE chip rule....not a rule for a "stack of chips" which is "multiple chips"...keep it simple...

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2013, 12:45:28 PM »
RayJ,

 Based on whether the 18 was spoken before the chips hit the table, the smallest commitment could be the 10,000 that the player put into the pot (as Mike explained), or the player could be forced to put 18,000 (another 8K) into the pot.

 RayJ, I am with you when you say you are looking for the intent of the player. I have always been in favor of the intent and what's in the best interest of the game, as opposed to the strict rules that force players to complete unintentional bets. Unfortunately, our tournament rules do not allow bets to be retracted. We have had extensive conversation along those lines but, the great majority seem to put the responsibility on the calling player and, IMO, substantial action should be a factor, but it is not.

 Good subject.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 03:17:54 PM by Nick C »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2013, 01:50:38 PM »
Hi RayJ!

In the situation you bring up, if I read it correctly, you are talking about post-flop.  You are correct in saying the bet could be either 1,800 or 18,000 when the player said "18".  The first thing I would ask the dealer is if the chips hit the felt first or if the verbal came first.  If the chips hit, it would be a 10k bet.  If the verbal came first, I would make it 1,800. 

As Mike pointed out, there is no stipulation to rule 44 on the amount of chips involved.  There really doesn't need to be any stipulation added.  The reason for going for the smallest amount is to limit the damage done.  The reason we are there making the call is because the player's intent was unclear.  It's good to err on the side of caution.  If someone is going to learn a lesson by making a mistake, at least it won't cost as much that way. 

As I have dealt for quite a few years, I understand where you are coming from when you express frustration with not knowing how the TD will rule.  However, from being a floor and then a TD for years, I can also tell you that it is better to not have your hands tied in a situation like this.  There are so many situations and all of them are slightly different.  More people would be 'victims' if the rules were set in stone and more people would be 'victims' if you let their opponents vote on their fate.  A good tournament director is a fair and neutral party and will always use the full situation to make the best possible call.  Unfortunately, since there is a lot of knowledge and prior experience that are part of the decision making process, there will never be a way for a dealer to know what the outcome will be ahead of time.

When a situation comes up, a dealer should just stop the action and call "Floor".  Never get emotionally involved by telling the players what will or should happen before the floor gets there.  When the floor/TD gets there, the dealer should calmly, without bias, explain exactly what happened.  After the Floor/TD makes a ruling, just move on without comment.  If there is a question with the ruling, the dealer should ask in between pushes or on their next break.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2013, 03:34:08 PM »
Tristan,

 Thanks for not jumping all over me for my obvious error. Somehow I thought the original post referred to pre-flop :-[

 I like the way both you and RayJ suggest the dealer handle the situation; by calling the floor. Knowing the players should always be a consideration in the decision making process because the angle-shooters usually have a track record that precedes them.  Repeat offenders and seasoned players that should know the rules might call for a more strict interpretation of the rules, as opposed to a new player. That's how I feel, but I know many others disagree.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Rule 44
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2013, 05:44:48 PM »
Tristan:

You have my vote for post of the year.  I agree with everything that was said.  As you noted, it is highly situational. 

And I also agree with what Nick is essentially hinting to in his last post - that player history can come into play.

See some of you Ina few days!

K