Author Topic: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases  (Read 5500 times)

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Hello,

Hope you will excuse if my following example is not real but I really need to understand this specific kind of situation : the terrible "ERROR SERIES"
(Please no wasting time answers like "This should not happen" or "Your dealer must be fired" but only help to the ruling thank you)

A bets 15.000
B says “I’m in” (meaning a call) before pushing 3 chips of 5.000 (leaving 1 chip of 25.000 in front of him so his full stack is 40.000)
C  (who understood “All in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 25.000 before saying “Call”
D ( who understood “All-in” from B) says “call” before pushing 1 chip of 100.000
E (who understood “All-in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 5.000 and 1 chip of 25.000 (his full stack of 35.000) before saying  “Call and All-in” …

… THAT’S WHEN …

That’s when the dealer (who clearly eared the “I’m in” from B and got it as a call of 15.000 by B) realize that he didn’t saw the second chip of 25.000 by C and let the full table begin a serie of misunderstandings!
The dealer and B call for the floor!

1)   Do we freeze the bets and oblige B to go all in because he did let substantial action occur after him before calling the floor and because he didn’t make his intentions clear (#2 + #40)?
2)   Do we go back to a call from B and change all the bets behind him because an unclear betting must be ruled as the lesser value (#49) and because the dealer also got it as a “call”?
In this case what about E who would have preferred to only call for 15.000 instead of his full 35.000?

 ???

 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 10:27:49 AM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Misunderstandings in series
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 08:11:38 AM »
I have to be courageous and propose first a real solution BEFORE you send me your helping answers:

OK I hate as a TD to let somebody be eliminated from my tournaments by an error when I judge him innocent!

So here I would tend to prefer ruling #2 with the lesser value (the call) choosed for B. I would then have made C and D call for only 15.000 EXCEPTIONALY (using the TDA "golden" rule 1 and for the same reason I hate eliminating someone on errors) I would have let E tell me his intentions and choose between call for 15.000 or All-in for 35.000 (no fold possible for sure)!

I know my decision may not be the best or the purest but it's my perception of the "best interest of the game".
Arf ...

Now your humble servitor listen to you ...

 ::)

  
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 08:13:43 AM by Guillaume Gleize »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Misunderstandings in series
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 10:07:29 AM »
G: First off, please check your personal messages on this forum, I sent you a PM on an different matter you will probably find very interesting!

IMO this is totally a Rule 1 judgement. As you can see, a special rule cannot be written to fit every case of misunderstanding. So we have to revert to use Rule 1 AND the best interpretation of the facts, like any judge.

NOTE: Rule 1 has two priorities: FAIRNESS but also "best interest of the game" (BIG). One of the BIG is keeping discipline, and following rules. That's not the only BIG, but it's an important one... so ultimately you have to balance the two.

In your example, most people heard player B say "all-in"... but for those listening carefully, he truly said "I'm in".  "I'm in" is very different than "all in"... so he's okay staying at a 15k bet in my judgement.  [HOWEVER, if he just mumbled "blank - in", and EVERYONE heard him say "all-in"... sorry it's in the BIG to put the guy all in and keep discipline, but that's another case for another day!]

Where it gets more difficult is how to treat C, D, and E. And there you just have to use the totality of the facts in the case... what actually happened?? Here are two scenarios:

1. C quickly pushes out two 25k chips, immediately saying call. and then D and E quickly push out their chips.

2. C looks at the 15k sitting in from of B, pauses and thinks... then deliberately silently pushes out two 25k's... then says "I call"...
D thinks for 20 seconds... looking at the 15k in front of B, then the 50k in front of C... then says call...
E also takes his time to contemplate the bets... before calling all in.

In case 1 it's easier to rule that there was a audio error... (i.e. B heard the wrong thing and the bettors all piled on, everyone thinking they heard the same bet)...

That's very different than case 2 where you really have grounds to hold C, D, and E to a bet of 50k.... and it's often in the BIG in such a case to enforce the discipline of the betting rules.

NOW, about you, the TD... you are a tournament director, not a mind-reader. ALL the mistakes here are on the players. It's their job to follow the action and get the bets right (yes the dealer has big responsibility too)...  I think sometimes you look for the "perfect" ruling, when it doesn't exist... These are mistakes made by players that TDs will do their best to sort out with Rule 1.

Keep in mind, my comments above are strictly my personal Rule 1 interpretations, another TD may make a different decision.

BTW... If you want a "misunderstanding" rule to refer to from time to time, you might take a look at RRoP. From memory, Bob has a guideline (that's all it is, a guideline), that if the misunderstanding is within 80% of the correct bet, you force everyone to go to the correct bet. When the misunderstanding is wider than 20% then you can be more lenient IF the circumstances warrant... which they very well may in Case 1 above. The TDA has contemplated a specific "gross misunderstanding" rule in past Summits but generally avoided adopting anything, in favor of the specificity of other rules and the general fall-back to Rule 1.

Thanks for these examples, they are great cases to think about.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 10:28:35 AM by MikeB »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2014, 11:14:09 AM »
A bets 15.000
B says “I’m in” (meaning a call) before pushing 3 chips of 5.000 (leaving 1 chip of 25.000 in front of him so his full stack is 40.000)
C  (who understood “All in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 25.000 before saying “Call”
D ( who understood “All-in” from B) says “call” before pushing 1 chip of 100.000
E (who understood “All-in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 5.000 and 1 chip of 25.000 (his full stack of 35.000) before saying  “Call and All-in”

I agree with Mike that there is no technical rule to govern this situation and that it is TD's discretion.

This is my opinion and what I would rule:

Since it was clear to the dealer that B was calling, I feel that the call is valid. 

Player C pushed out 50k and afterwards said call, I would hold that to a 50k bet.  His action was first before the verbal.

Player D said "call" and put out 100k.  Player D is bound to a 50k call.

Player E said "call & all-in" with his stack of 35k.  That is also binding.



Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »
A bets 15.000
B says “I’m in” (meaning a call) before pushing 3 chips of 5.000 (leaving 1 chip of 25.000 in front of him so his full stack is 40.000)
C  (who understood “All in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 25.000 before saying “Call”
D ( who understood “All-in” from B) says “call” before pushing 1 chip of 100.000
E (who understood “All-in” from B) pushes 2 chips of 5.000 and 1 chip of 25.000 (his full stack of 35.000) before saying  “Call and All-in”

I agree with Mike that there is no technical rule to govern this situation and that it is TD's discretion.

This is my opinion and what I would rule:

Since it was clear to the dealer that B was calling, I feel that the call is valid.  

Player C pushed out 50k and afterwards said call, I would hold that to a 50k bet.  His action was first before the verbal.

Player D said "call" and put out 100k.  Player D is bound to a 50k call.

Player E said "call & all-in" with his stack of 35k.  That is also binding.

And I have no technical problem with that ruling... in fact it would be my "Case 2" ruling in the BIG if I think the players had reasonable time to contemplate their bets

However, we do have a situation where at least 3 bettors say they unmistakably heard B say "all-in"... so in "Case 1", if the total facts in the case look like the 3 bettors insta-calling what they thought was a 40k bet by B, then protesting in a chorus "hey the guy said all-in"... then under Rule 1 I can entertain straightening the bet out to 15k all-around. I guess a major key for me is whether they are insta-calls or contemplated bets.... (i.e. does it truly look like a common audio error?).  Player E is a bit more vulnerable because he pushed before saying Call; so his bet could be construed as an all-in raise regardless, but we're told he's part of the chorus that thought B said "all in"; it's all situational....
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 03:24:58 PM by MikeB »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2014, 03:42:54 PM »
And I have no technical problem with that ruling... in fact it would be my "Case 2" ruling in the BIG if I think the players had reasonable time to contemplate their bets

However, we do have a situation where at least 3 bettors say they unmistakably heard B say "all-in"... so in "Case 1", if the total facts in the case look like the 3 bettors insta-calling what they thought was a 40k bet by B, then protesting in a chorus "hey the guy said all-in"... then under Rule 1 I can entertain straightening the bet out to 15k all-around. I guess a major key for me is whether they are insta-calls or contemplated bets.... (i.e. does it truly look like a common audio error?).  Player E is a bit more vulnerable because he pushed before saying Call; so his bet could be construed as an all-in raise regardless, but we're told he's part of the chorus that thought B said "all in"; it's all situational....

Very true.  More information would be great here. 

Did anyone besides B and the dealer hear "I'm in" instead of "All-In"? 

Do we know 100% that C, D, and E were only acting on B's statement?  Is it possible that D (or E) was acting only based on what C did?

Why did no one question that B only put out 15k and kept 25k back?

How big was the pause that C made between his bet and his verbal?

Depending on all of the answers to those questions, a case could be made for B being held to an all-in (non standard terms at their own risk), action being backed up, or action standing as a 50k bet by C with a call by D and E.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2014, 11:47:21 PM »
I would generally handle it as suggested by Tristan.  Clearly C, D, and E were all prepared to call the larger amount of $40K (they all understood all-in), so I'm not really that inclined to make it less than that. 

We are holding C to $50K - I might consider giving D an option to retract, but likely not given the amounts.

As for A, he can call for the rest of his chips or fold (and forfeit his 15K).  It was his mistake for using any phrase other than "call" -- especially one that sounds like an all-in -- so he's going to have to live with whatever ruling comes his way.

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Misunderstandings in series of bets and raises: how to rule in these cases
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2014, 04:37:05 PM »
I'm in a little bit of a different camp on this one.

First the dealer makes an error by not clarifying B's action

The action that concerns me the most here is Player C's action. Your description depicts C's action as two separate actions. Meaning... he put out two 25.000 chips and then there was a pause and then he said call. Which to me is different that.... he put out two 25.000 chips and simultaneously said call. Here we describe it as a "bang bang" play. Like two guns shots. Bang bang. One shot right after the next.

Then this is where the dealer makes a critical error. By not either correcting C's bet to a 15.000 call or by announcing raise. The players behind C, D and E, both hear the words call and therefore do the same, despite the large denominations in chips. Because the dealer did nothing players D and E thought the bet was more than 15.000. That much we can be certain of. Does it matter in the grand scene of "Bet and Call" how much the bets are? Not really. They were willing to "Bet and Call" at least 15.000 and that's really all we need to know.

Once we know that everyone wants to play for whatever the clear amount is, we can get through the rest of the hand. What surprises me the most is, not a single player after B asked how much the bet was.

Unless there's a clear pause after Player C's actions before stating "Call", I'm making players C, D and E only call 15.000. If there is a pause, then I will enforce the raise. I <3 Rule #1.

You can blame Player B for not using good terminology, but you can't blame Player B for saying, "I'm in" and then putting in the proper amount of chips to call. The mistake lays with the Dealer and Player C IMO.
@wsopmcgee on Twitter