Substantial Action?

[aceofhearts]

Hello. My hubby was playing in a tournament today and this came up.
A player goes all in for $5500. The dealer announces that the player is all in for $3900. Player A calls and Player B calls. When action gets around to player C the dealer looks back at the player who was all in and announces, oh, I made a mistake, the player is all in for $5500. The dealer called over the TD and explained to him the mistake. Player A did not want to call the 3900 and was given the choice to forfeit the $3900 he originally called or put the correct amount of chips into the pot, because a player behind him had acted. Is this correct?

[Note: this thread has been corrected so that it reads "... I made a mistake, the player is all in for $5500..." It had originally read $3900 in that sentence in error.]

[MikeB]

Hi Ace:

Here's a link to a prior thread that covers this topic:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=118.msg642#msg642

See Dave Lamb's answer in the link above, it's an excellent interpretation. I would point out that in the scenario you outlined, both the original all-in bettor and the dealer have substantial responsibilities in getting the all-in bet count right.... and yet all the responsibility appears to be placed on A with no consideration for the contributing errors of others.

Perhaps we should consider formalizing a rule on this issue at a future TDA Summit.

[chet]

Hello. My hubby was playing in a tournament today and this came up.
A player goes all in for $5500. The dealer announces that the player is all in for $3900. Player A calls and Player B calls. When action gets around to player C the dealer looks back at the player who was all in and announces, oh, I made a mistake, the player is all in for $3900. The dealer called over the TD and explained to him the mistake. Player A did not want to call the 3900 and was given the choice to forfeit the $3900 he originally called or put the correct amount of chips into the pot, because a player behind him had acted. Is this correct?

I am confused.  You said the player is all in for $5500, but 3 sentences later you say, "oh, I made a mistake, the player is all in for $3900".  Then you say, "Player A did not want to call the 3900 ..."

I am assuming that the original raise is in fact $5500 and that Player A did not want to call the additional $1600 on top of his original call of the $3900.  

So the question is, "What constitutes "Substantial Action"?  

I was not able to find a definition in Robert's Rules of Poker or in the TDA Rules.  However, the 2010 WSOP Live Game Rules, in Rule 100 I found the following: "...In button games, substantial action is considered to occur when a player has raised the pot or someone has called and the next player has acted on his hand..."

Based on my interpretation of this rule, I would agree with the decision.  However, I would like to know more about a couple of things,
1.  experience level of the players,
2.  were the chips pushed forward so the players could see them,
3.  were the chips 'stacked' by size,
4.  why didn't Players A and/or B question the amount of the all in, etc.

Depending upon these (and maybe some others), I might be inclined to invoke Rule #1 and back up the action.

After posting the above I saw MikeB's response and I totally agree.  In the post referenced by MikeB, I submitted that an error of 10% or less would be reasonable grounds for requiring players to 'call' the additional amount.  Here the difference is more than that, but unless there are really serious extenuating circumstances I still agree with the TD's decision.[/list]

[aceofhearts]

my fault this is what it should say:
Hello. My hubby was playing in a tournament today and this came up.
A player goes all in for $5500. The dealer announces that the player is all in for $3900. Player A calls and Player B calls. When action gets around to player C the dealer looks back at the player who was all in and announces, oh, I made a mistake, the player is all in for $5500. The dealer called over the TD and explained to him the mistake. Player A did not want to call the 5500 and was given the choice to forfeit the $3900 he originally called or put the correct amount of chips into the pot, because a player behind him had acted. Is this correct?

sorry for the confusion.

[Nick C]

I have to agree with Chet, the question has to be corrected but, I think we figured it out. The way I see it, if the mistake was noticed in time (before substantial action) then the all-in amount would change the action to both players that called (TDA Rule #29 covers this one). Like Chet says; what constitutes substantial action? I will submit the definition of substantial action from the Las Vegas Hilton Rule Book. Notice the mention of the dealer:

"SUBSTANTIAL ACTION" MEANS EITHER THREE PLAYERS ACTING , OR TWO PLAYERS ACTING BY PUTTING MONEY IN THE POT. THE DEALER COUNTS AS A PERSON IF HE HAS CONDONED THE ACTION."

I don't see how any TD could force a player to be obligated to their $3900 call when they were misled by the dealer. I don't know how you could enforce a ruling based on percentage but I have to think that a $1600 difference in this case is quite substantial. Not only does substantial action come into play, but the action changing to the remaining players (even if it were noticed after five players acted) would have to be corrected. If I had to make a ruling at that table, Players B and C could reconsider their call and that is only because Player A went all-in. They could complete the bet to $5500 or take back their $3900, they could not raise.

That's how I see it.
Nick C
   

[Stuart Murray]

I agree with Nick,

I like Chet's argument of 10% being substantial enough to change the action, I would also back up the action to players who have already called and allow them to retract and re-consider their action.

However their is another view to take on this matter:

There is an argument that the players should of paid attention to the count along with the all-in player, and all three are responsible along with the dealer for the miscount, which could be an easy way of enforcing the WSOP rule that the money stays in and the players can only complete or fold.  Dealers and Players make mistakes and it only takes one person at the table paying attention to stop the action before these situations occur.  I would certainly never rely purely on the dealer if the stacks are being counted i'm watching that count to see if I agree with it.  I might also consider (dependant on the house rules) backing up the action, leaving the calls in and then giving the three players warnings/penalties for not assisting the dealer - remember the rule "3. Any player, dealer, or floorperson who sees an incorrect amount of chips put into the pot, or an error about to be made in awarding a pot, has an ethical obligation to point out the error. Please help keep mistakes of this nature to a minimum." applies at all times, not just showdown.
Good item - thanks for sharing

[Nick C]

Stuart,

I also like the 10%, I just don't know how you could make that ruling without slowing the game down to a crawl. Obviously the bet was unclear and misinterpreted by all. The dealer did try to correct it as soon as he realized his mistake. I'm not sure what rule you are refering to, perhaps TDA Rule #30. If player A were not all in, I would probably change his bet to $3900 (remember the bet was announced as $3900 by the dealer). Stuart, I think that your tournaments and any other members that "pass the deal" have a much more difficult job to do as a TD. There has to be more complex issues than we face in a casino using a house dealer. What really makes the situation interesting is the Player went all-in, whether he said it , or just pushed it in. In the original post, the dealer announced the player was all-in for $3900, so the responsibility lies with him. He did the right thing when he realized his mistake, but the correct action to be taken is up to the floor. That is why we are having this discusion. Hopefully we can add some helpful information so the right call can be made.

Thanks for listening.
Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

apologies Nick, I should of clarified that rule is taken from RROP under 'The Showdown'

Indeed, self deal games can be a nightmare at times, with very complex issues requiring resolution with little co-operation at times from the players at the tables, it is so much easier when I have dealers at tables (good dealers) but that is rather impractical when they are playing for points only or in small stakes games for £5!  The UK gambling commission is great 'letting' us play poker in pubs in the UK but the levels are so redundantly low that it does attract poorer players, with the better players often progressing to casino/online gaming where they can achieve the stakes and levels they desire.  On the other hand though, they are the most fun, friendly and sociable games they can play in and the majority go home with a smile on their face!

I think the 10% can be ascertained as a 'rough' guide which can float about given the amount of chips/blind levels etc, as it is a rule #1 decision anyway.  It would be beneficial to know what was said/done when the chips of player A went in the middle.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,

I love the game, but I don't play nearly as much as I used to. I think you "hit the nail right on the head" when you said that the low end games and/or games played with new players or players with less experience are a lot of fun. I remember when I enjoyed playing. Oh what I would give to go back and have a nice fun session instead of a heated competition riddled with loud mouth know-it-alls. Keep it pure, I think you do it right.

Nick C

[Martin L. Waller]

Hi fellows,

I don't see where one player calling is "substantial action".
The action can go back to Player B to call or pull back is chips.
Substantial action would have been Player D or further.
If you go with the 10% guide then the action would still go back.
How ever we see this it still should be the players that know what is going on.
The dealer is in control but players are not released from their responsibility.

Good luck,
Martin

[Nick C]

Martin,

  I was hoping that someone else would have replied before now. I don't know if you were confused by the question, but if not, I have to disagree with you on this one. The initial bettor went all in for $5500 (there was no mention of a verbal declaration from him) however the dealer did announce the (incorrect) amount. You might have been confused by the first player to call (identified as Player A), because when the next player acted (player B), that was substantial action. A bet, followed by two callers. This is when the dealer realized his mistake. I have given my solution on an earlier post. I am only trying to define "substantial action." Going to player D as you stated, is five players, (the original bettor +A,B,C, and D) that's too many.

Maybe I'm confused, too.
Nick C