Author Topic: Two topics: boxed card AND thoughts on substantial action  (Read 12777 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2013, 01:48:17 AM »
RE: No substantial action in RRoP

RROP, Sec 3: General Poker, Misdeals, Para 1 states:

1. Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled. In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands.

RROP Sec 3: General Poker, Betting and Raising, Para 12 states:

12. To retain the right to act, a player must stop the action by calling “time” (or an equivalent word). Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act. You cannot forfeit your right to act if any player in front of you has not acted, only if you fail to act when it legally becomes your turn. Therefore, if you wait for someone whose turn comes before you, and three or more players act behind you, this still does not hinder your right to act.

While the term substantial action is not specifically found in the above, RRoP is describing the same thing when he says that "two players acting" locks in a misdeal, and "3 or more players acting behind you" may cause you to "lose your right to act". The TDA membership has adopted slightly different definitions (2 actions, at least one with chips, or any 3 actions.... thanks to Thomas McGee who proposed this specific terminology in 2011... and the WSOP which I believe was using it by then?), but it's similar in intent to the guidelines in RRoP. The essence of substantial action being that there must be a point, after X amount of action, that there's no going back...
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 01:55:05 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2013, 06:46:46 AM »
Mike,

 Are you suggesting that the part of the rule underlined comply's with the TDA? I do not.  "action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands."

 Blinds and bring in's do not count as action, correct? In addition, the first line from Robert's Rules only applies to the initial deal, and in stud games, it makes no reference to calling or folding: 1.) "Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled."

 I was at the 2011 Summit, and the initial suggestion for our definition of substantial action was changed when Version 2.0 was adopted. On both days of that summit, we decided that two actions (both involving chips, or any three actions)...it was then changed to two actions, at least one involving chips...big difference.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2013, 10:01:08 AM »
Mike,

 Are you suggesting that the part of the rule underlined comply's with the TDA? I do not.  "action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. In stud games, action is considered to occur when two players after the forced bet have acted on their hands."
It's not identical to the TDA rule but it is extremely close. The only difference being that the TDA doesn't recognize two folds as substantial action on the initial deal, whereas RRoP does. The TDA requires EITHER a) two actions, at least one which puts chips in the pot... i.e. a call and anything else or a raise and anything else OR b) 3 folds or 3 checks as substantial action.

Blinds and bring in's do not count as action, correct?
That's right

In addition, the first line from Robert's Rules only applies to the initial deal, and in stud games, it makes no reference to calling or folding: 1.) "Once action begins, a misdeal cannot be called. The deal will be played, and no money will be returned to any player whose hand is fouled."
 In stud games (or board games), RRoP simply refers to "any two actions" after the antes,, blinds, and/or forced bring-in. He doesn't distinguish whether those actions are calls, folds, or raises (i.e. whether they involve chips in the pot or not).

Also, in 2013 the TDA went further and looked at substantial action in cases of multiple out-of-turn bets... in which case a check and call would also be binding in OOT situations. In Betting and Raising, Rule 12, RRoP alludes to substantial action OOT when he says: "Failure to stop the action before 3 or more players have acted behind you MAY cause you to lose the right to act..." That's a different standard than what RRoP uses for substantial action on the initial deal. In the interest of conformity and having a single standard, the TDA adopted the same standard for both the initial deal and OOT at the 2013 Summit.


I was at the 2011 Summit, and the initial suggestion for our definition of substantial action was changed when Version 2.0 was adopted. On both days of that summit, we decided that two actions (both involving chips, or any three actions)...it was then changed to two actions, at least one involving chips...big difference.
Yes, but there was a misunderstanding in 2011 TDA Version 1.0.... Thomas McGee clarified that his proposal was what was amended in Version 2.0. Again from memory it was also amended to be in line with the widely-used standing WSOP rules in Version 2.0... I recall an e-mail from Jack Effel to that effect (pointing out the error) after Version 1.0 was released, again if memory serves :)
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:47:54 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2013, 10:57:44 AM »
Mike,

 You say there was a misunderstanding but, Matt Savage confirmed that two actions, at least one involving chips was what the TDA was going to adopt. Everyone in attendance heard it and that is what we were expecting.

 The whole point of this discussion is to clarify the difference between the TDA and Robert's Rules. When action takes place on any hand, a misdeal should be avoided and the hand should play out.

 Why does the TDA have to copy every rule of the WSOP? A couple have proven to be controversial, and the most current new rule (first card off) is not even going to be used by the WSOP.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2013, 11:27:01 AM »
The TDA doesn't copy every WSOP rule, where does that idea come from? Rules suggestions come from a very wide range of sources....

The proposal that Thomas made was consistent with WSOP rules >>> and 2011 Version 1.0 was in error due to a misunderstanding... Do you want an error to stand because of a misunderstanding?

... The Association seems fine with 2011 Version 2.0 as amended... nobody suggested a further change to the 2011 Version 2.0 TDA substantial action rules at Summit VI. The only change was to expand them to apply to OOT action as well... thus clearing up long-standing confusion over what should happen in the case of multiple OOT actions, a hole in the rules for a long time...  What does RRoP "lose your right to act" mean? Ask two people, get two answers... and isn't it preferable to have one standard for all cases of substantial action, not two, unless there's a real good case for two standards which in this case there isn't.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 11:34:17 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2013, 12:10:01 PM »
Mike,

 If you'd like to continue this discussion why not send me an email. I don't agree with much of what you said about the methods used by the TDA to finalize a rule. While we're on the subject, I don't see any better clarification on out of turn situations, than we had before.

 I didn't write the rules, I'm merely trying to recognize the difference. You make it sound like there is very little difference between RR's and the TDA. Any two actions after the bring-in is much different from any three actions...and any two actions is much different from two actions involving chips.

 Completely different.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2013, 04:49:35 PM »
Mike,

While we're on the subject, I don't see any better clarification on out of turn situations, than we had before.
See 2013 TDA Rule 38-B, newly adopted at Summit VI


 I didn't write the rules, I'm merely trying to recognize the difference. You make it sound like there is very little difference between RR's and the TDA.
On the initial deal, the only difference I'm aware of is that RRoP recognizes two folds as substantial action, whereas the TDA does not. Everything else on the initial deal is the same, no?

As for OOT action, RRoP has a different standard than they have for the initial deal. That's confusing for dealers who have to remember two sets of substantial action parameters, hence the Association overwhelmingly adopted the same conditions for substantial action in both instances.
 
Any two actions after the bring-in is much different from any three actions...and any two actions is much different from two actions involving chips.  Completely different.
Well, while it sounds like a huge difference, as I mentioned earlier, the only EFFECTIVE difference after required antes, blinds, and/or bring-ins is that RRoP considers 2 folds substantial action whereas the TDA requires 3 folds... everything else is identical, no? Call-Call, Call-Fold, Fold-Call, Call-Raise, Raise-Call, Raise-Raise, Raise-Fold, Fold-Raise... those are all identical. Only Fold-Fold is treated differently.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 04:59:18 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2013, 06:06:06 PM »
Mike,

 Your interpretation is only for the first betting round. What happens on forth street in stud when a player is skipped and one player checks and the next player checks after the OOT ? (two players acted)...or in a flop game, on the turn, when two player's check after the skipped player? According to Robert's rules, action has taken place. The TDA would require three players to act. Correct?

 This leads to other unanswered questions from prior posts on this subject. When does the TDA allow dealer's to correct the out of turn?

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2013, 06:34:04 PM »
Mike, Your interpretation is only for the first betting round.
 Yes, there are two conditions of substantial action: the initial betting, and action OOT... the TDA has the same standard for both (2 actions, at least one of which involves chips OR any 3 actions) while RRoP has a different standard for each (any 2 actions for initial betting round, any 3 actions for action OOT). It's interesting that discussions at Summit VI considered all of these, but settled on the idea that the standard of substantial action should be the same for both conditions. Not in small part for consistency of execution and ease of remembering the standard by dealers. Where the Association remains divided is on the subject of how to treat the skipped hand when S.A.O.O.T. occurs on the current betting round.... some venues opt to kill the hand while others opt to limit the hand to non-aggressive action. Where there is general consensus, IMO, is that if S.A.O.O.T. occurs and the next card is dealt, the skipped hand is dead. This will undoubtedly be a topic at Summit VII.

What happens on forth street in stud when a player is skipped and one player checks and the next player checks after the OOT ? (two players acted)...
Two checks OOT is not substantial action by either RRoP (requires 3 actions), or TDA (which also requires 3 actions if no chips are involved)... so the rules for 2 checks OOT are identical: substantial action has not occurred, and the action should be backed up to the skipped player.

or in a flop game, on the turn, when two player's check after the skipped player? According to Robert's rules, action has taken place. The TDA would require three players to act. Correct?
Not correct. RRoP Vers 11, Section 3, Betting and Raising, Para. 12 says "Failure to stop the action before three or more players have acted behind you may cause you to lose the right to act."... so as I've been saying for several posts, RRoP has one substantial action threshold for the initial round (any 2 actions), and another for action OOT (any 3 actions).[/quote]

This leads to other unanswered questions from prior posts on this subject. When does the TDA allow dealer's to correct the out of turn?
Action should be backed up to the skipped player as long as substantial action OOT has not occured. See TDA 2013 Rule 38-B for more info on this.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:12:31 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2013, 11:54:15 AM »
Mike,

 First of all, I'd like to take a break from our debate to thank you for your participation. I've always had a problem with killing a skipped player's hand, when the out of turn bettor is at fault. So I am not in the "camp" of those that agree with killing the skipped player's hand..unless, of course, there is a deliberate stall, or some other irregularity occurs. I prefer limiting the skipped player to a non-aggressive action.

I am not in favor of your suggestion to kill the skipped player's hand. ...."some venues opt to kill the hand while others opt to limit the hand to non-aggressive action. Where there is general consensus, IMO, is that if S.A.O.O.T. occurs and the next card is dealt, the skipped hand is dead. This will undoubtedly be a topic at Summit VII".

 Let's take a look at why a player is skipped; #1 The out of turn offender bets, unintentionally.
                                                              #2 The dealer directs the wrong player to act.
                                                              #3 The out of turn player acts deliberately.
                                                              #4 The skipped player is hiding his cards or stalling.
I will return with my solutions, and reasoning on my next post.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 02:35:28 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: boxed card
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2013, 12:47:03 PM »
Mike,
 I've always had a problem with killing a skipped player's hand, when the out of turn bettor is at fault. So I am not in the "camp" of those that agree with killing the skipped player's hand..unless, of course, there is a deliberate stall, or some other irregularity occurs. I prefer limiting the skipped player to a non-aggressive action.

I am not in favor of your suggestion to kill the skipped player's hand. ...

Nick: Just to clarify, generally I'm not personally in favor of killing the skipped hand during the same betting round except in egregious situations. Thus I also prefer limiting the player to non-aggression. However I also recognize that there is a significant-sized and very respected contingent of TDA members who do favor killing the hand when S.A.O.O.T. occurs... and obviously a consensus may be difficult to achieve on this one.

At the least I would like to see language to the effect that the hand is dead if SAOOT occurs and the next card is dealt, because virtually everyone agrees on that.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: boxed card
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2013, 03:30:58 AM »
Mike,

 We have drifted from "boxed card" to substantial action. I'm okay with it but someday down the road we'll be looking for this thread and....

 I will agree 100% with killing a hand of the skipped player when substantial action out of turn (SAOOT) occurs and the next board card is dealt. However, how do we handle a situation when one player bets, OOT, and the dealer burns and turns? I have been trying to get some confirmation from one of our rulemakers, that would confirm the fact that the dealer must be counted as a "person" in this situation. The incidence, and frequency, of this situation is as common as any "out of turn."

 This also raises other questions: How does the TDA handle the dealer burning and turning before the last bettor calls a bet?
                                             How does the TDA  handle the dealer burning and turning when the next to last bettor is skipped...by the last out of turn bettor? (as mentioned above). My problem with these situations has always been too much "blame" being placed on the skipped player. The "skipped" player can only be possible when; another player bets prematurely (out of turn), or the dealer directs the wrong player to act, or the skipped player is deliberately in violation of poker etiquette...such as; deliberately hiding their cards, or stalling to wait for a reaction from a player behind them.

 Out of turn is a serious violation that needs to be addressed with warnings and penalties. If the dealer's and player's abide by these simple rules, the skipped player will be a thing of the past. It seems to me that we are putting too much blame on the skipped player, and not enough punishment on the out of turn.