Tristan,
I can't agree that voting at the summit is best for a number of reasons. I'll wager that 30% in attendance probable live in Las Vegas. How can you say that all of the top industry leaders were present?
Tournament Directors and staff were there from PokerStars, WSOP, WPT, Commerce, Bay101, Venetian, Aria, Thunder Valley, Borgata, Ante Up and Card Player cruises, and so many more that I can't remember off the top of my head. Both of the large card rooms in MN were represented. There were even representatives from other countries. I don't like to answer a question with a question, but which industry leaders were missing? After you name the ones that were missing, then go back and read my post again...because I said "most of the industry leaders", I never said
all.
If I may, I'll take this time to voice the real reasons for my frustration. #1 I was unable to attend.
#2 Those that did attend did not address issues we've been debating from the forum. I really thought that several of the main posters on the forum (in attendance) would speak up when TDA #41 Accepted Action was not even considered for discussion.
We went through every rule Nick. Read what Mike said (especially the part about AA at the bottom):
Far from the forum having "little impact" on the Summit agenda, the forum issues had tremendous influence. Please see the long list of suggested topics thread:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=30.0
Just a cursory review of the titles of those threads finds:
1: Raise rule on re-opening. Will be put into Illustration Addendum
2: When are cards dead at showdown: Done
3: ATSAH: Done
4: Tabling: Done
5: Forward motion at showdown: Done
6: More re-opening the bet questions… done, done, and done
7: Draw game rules, silent chip bets on minimum openers, etc… Tabled for Summit VII. FWIW, the rule was significantly discussed in pre-meetings, with a split panel, for example between calling a 1000 silent opener in the following example a 600 minimum open vs. a 1000 open: 2-7 lowball, blinds 150-300, the UTG tosses out a 1000, is this a min open of 600 or max for the chip? (1000). I will say that the house that uses the game the most favors the 1000 here. But all-in-all tabled due to heavier topics.
8: Rule 45, non-standard folds question, the term “reasonably have two different meanings” was added.
9: Extra chips found after chip race: done
10: Boxed cards / more misdeal language: Tabled, left to conventional rules for the moment. Summit VII material
11: Koroknoi vs. Baumann case, need a rule: done
12: Illustrations needed for raising rules: Done
13: Clarification on how to handle in-turn undercalls: when can they leave the bet in and fold, when must they call: done
14: Skipped player questions: Tackled the “Substantial Action Out of Turn” Issue: Done
15: Showdown Order, who shows first: Done, standardized globally.
16: Rule for premature discarding by player thinking they’ve won: Done
17: Revisions needed to re-opening the bet language: done
18: What constitutes tabling? Done again
19: Showdown: are verbal capitulations binding? When are cards retrievable / non-retrievable: done
20: New rule for minimum opener games: deferred to Summit VII but see above
21: Shootout tournament questions: deferred to Summit VII
22: Fix for Rule 37: done
23: Folding in turn when checked to OR when first to act: clarified, done.
There has been alot of discussion about Accepted Action on the forum, but nobody spoke up about it at the Summit that I'm aware of. Everyone had their opportunity, the AA rule was deliberately put on it's own slide with no other rules... just so the Summit could squarely focus on anyone's complaints...
And here's what I've observed with this rule since adoption. If a house cannot live with it verbatim, the house goes ahead and writes it's own exception language which is entirely permissible under the last sentence of the rule: "Rule 1 applies at TDs discretion". This allows the house to use AA to the extent they find it useful, and at the point where they feel compelled to have pre-written guidelines for exceptional situations, they have them.
If this were a major problem, in practice, for attendees you would have seen hands in the air... I was in the front of the room so maybe I missed someone's outcry on this, did anyone else see anyone wanting to initiate discussion on AA?
I know you don't like Accepted Action, but there were 180 people at the Summit that didn't raise a problem with it after using it for the last two years...you are entitled to your opinion, but for the greater good can you not accept it and go along with the other 99.5%?
Tristan, As of today; there were 7751 posts in 846 topics by 1760 members. I defy you to find a single post that indicated a need for a rule that would change killing a players hand if they are not seated by the time the dealer dealt the last card to the button?
Like I said before: Unification. WSOP changed their stance to TDA on some issues, TDA changed their stance for WSOP on some issues. PokerStars adjusted some of theirs to TDA standards, and TDA adjusted some for PokerStars. PokerStars adjusted for WSOP and vice versa.
Bottom line is, Neil presented his case for why he has the rule at the EPT and other PokerStars PTs and why, in his opinion, it
should be that way. He did a very good job at it because after he was done and there was some discussion on the topic...everyone voted it in.
Even if some of the others may not 'like' the rule, they understood the reasoning behind it and they realized that putting aside their differences would help create a better environment for poker. It is hard on players to have to think about which event they are playing at and then know what the rules are, and it is hard on staff to have to deal with players that don't understand why the rule is different at different venues.
That is, in essence, what TDA is about. Never will every TD, Card Room Manager, Floor, or Dealer
all agree on how any one rule should be written, but we
can reach compromises that we can all live with.