TDA summit 2011 - Substantial action question

[W0lfster]

As I can see, from looking through the Summit on video I am still debating what the rule or proposed rule is on substantial action as decribed at the Summit. My guess is that if on the

flop for example the SB checks and the BB is skipped and the UTG checks as does UTG+1 and UTG+2 does this mean the player does not have a dead hand because there was no

aggressive action (bet or raise) after the skipped bb?

Please, as many examples as you can would be much appreciated,

Thank you

[Nick C]

I will give you the new definition of substantial action; Two bets involving chips (bet and a call or a bet and a raise) or any three actions (bet, fold, call.... bet, fold, fold- or bet, fold, raise- or check, bet, fold ....or 3 checks ...etc). I will not get into any situations right now because there are far too many to list.

SUBSTANTIAL ACTION: Two bets involving chips, or any three actions.

*I changed an incorrect example after Wolfster brought it to my attention.

[W0lfster]

Arrr ok, thanks Nick its cleared my head a bit. However, when you say 'bet call fold' doesnt the bet and the call just count as substantial action anyway?

I am also confused as to what makes a dead hand with substantial action and what makes a player still have live cards but can only call or fold if they have not stopped the action in time

with substantial action.

From what I have gathered from the summit, am I right in saying if there is a bet, call or a bet, raise or a call, call does this mean the player's hand is dead if he/she hasnt called attention

before 2 players have acted after the skipped player?

I looked in RROP that somewhere it says, you can stop the action by calling "time", please explain what this is thank you.

[Nick C]

Yes it does, my mistake. The second part of your question was not really clear to me at the summit. IMO it takes more than substantial action to kill a hand. If a player is skipped and substantial action takes place before it is discovered, the action returns to the skipped player and he can only fold or call. There was quite a bit of debate on that one, so I guess we'll have to wait. I am not in favor of killing a player's hand unless the next round begins. By that I mean the dealer burns and turns, and then it is noticed. There was some confusion in a similar situation that was discussed at the summit, and I believe it was not really related to the subject of substantial action but should have been defined as premature dealing. The question was related to the dealer acting too soon, before the last player called. If that happens, the card that was prematurely turned by the dealer can not stay on the board (even if the skipped player decides to fold). Substantial action never took place in that situation.

Wolfster, IMO the biggest problem with most of these situations is determining who is the offending player?

[JasperToo]

My understanding of the substantial action debate at the summit is that a player who faces action (for instance the UTG player preflop) who is skipped and then allows substantial to occur before calling attention to the skip loses his right to act on the hand and his hand is dead BECAUSE he was facing action before he was skipped.

A player who was not facing a bet (post flop, the SB or a later player who was checked to but didn't actually check himself, thus skipped) would be allowed to act PASSIVELY when it gets back around to him.  This bit is mostly because if he is shooting an angle you would never really be able to prove it because all he as to say is "Oh, I checked too"....

Nick I think the thing that came out of this was that the onus for paying attention is on BOTH players so that the skipped player could lose his hand but that we, as TD's should be dispensing penalties to the OOT player as well.  And be clear that the successive actors are not really playing out of turn as is the first player to the left of the skipped player.

[Nick C]

There was mention of adding a "procedure guide" (for lack of a different wording), for dealers to follow. A good dealer should prevent any OOT action from occuring, thus eliminating substancial action.

IMO, the summit cleared-up the conflicting understanding of the number of players that acted after the skipped player that is required to be considered "substantial action" (or significent action). There was always debate whether it was at least two, or three. At the summit, it is my understanding that they settled on two. There was also mention of the dealer being considered as one of the "players" in certain situations, but that was not clearly stated as to whether that would be written into the definition of substantial action. I will not get into anything until the TDA announces the "new" definition.

Jasper, what you are saying is still too vague. Every situation could be different. Why was the player skipped? Why didn't the dealer stop the OOT bettor? Why didn't the skipped player speak-up? Was he hiding his cards intentionally?

[JasperToo]

There was mention of adding a "procedure guide" (for lack of a different wording), for dealers to follow. A good dealer should prevent any OOT action from occuring, thus eliminating substancial action.  You are right about this, but it still happens

IMO, the summit cleared-up the conflicting understanding of the number of players that acted after the skipped player that is required to be considered "substantial action" (or significent action). There was always debate whether it was at least two, or three. At the summit, it is my understanding that they settled on two. No they settled on THREE or TWO depending on if it involved chips.  So TWO actions involving CHIPS or THREE actions.  There was also mention of the dealer being considered as one of the "players" in certain situations, but that was not clearly stated as to whether that would be written into the definition of substantial action. Yes, I remember you brought this up, but as I recall the general consensus was that while a good dealer should be signaling the end of action he should not be considered part of the actionI will not get into anything until the TDA announces the "new" definition.

Jasper, what you are saying is still too vague. Every situation could be different. Why was the player skipped? Why didn't the dealer stop the OOT bettor? Why didn't the skipped player speak-up? Was he hiding his cards intentionally? You are implying that if a player is simply skipped do to no malice on his part that your decision would be different than if you could demonstrate that he was somehow being sneaky.  The what I heard at the summit was that if a player got skipped he was skipped regardless of the reason, he needs to pay attention, and if he was facing action before he was skipped - dead hand - if he was not facing action before he was skipped - he can still call or fold.  This actually makes decisions much easier for the TD as it puts it on both players.  Now all the TD has to do is give out a penalty to the OOT player

[Nick C]

Jaspertoo,
That's exactly what I'm saying. Are you saying, that a player deliberately hiding his cards, or intentionally letting the action pass him by, should be handled the same as a player that is skipped by an OOT bettor or the dealer? This is what rule #1 is for. We better wait for the final draft on this one because I'm very interested on how the rule will be written that kills a players hand when an out of turn bettor and the dealer pass him by.

[WSOPMcGee]

I will give you the new definition of substantial action; Two bets involving chips (bet and a call or a bet and a raise) or any three actions (bet, fold, call.... bet, fold, fold- or bet, fold, raise- or check, bet, fold ....or 3 checks ...etc). I will not get into any situations right now because there are far too many to list.

SUBSTANTIAL ACTION: Two bets involving chips, or any three actions.

*I changed an incorrect example after Wolfster brought it to my attention.

Nick,

Not sure if this is what was decided (wasn't there the 2nd day)...  but your description of the rule is not what I suggested. I said two actions involving chips. Very different from what you're suggesting. I'll have to check with Matt/Dave/Linda/Jan and see what was actually decided.

[WSOPMcGee]

I will give you the new definition of substantial action; Two bets involving chips (bet and a call or a bet and a raise) or any three actions (bet, fold, call.... bet, fold, fold- or bet, fold, raise- or check, bet, fold ....or 3 checks ...etc). I will not get into any situations right now because there are far too many to list.

SUBSTANTIAL ACTION: Two bets involving chips, or any three actions.

*I changed an incorrect example after Wolfster brought it to my attention.

Nick,

Not sure if this is what was decided (wasn't there the 2nd day)...  but your description of the rule is not what I suggested. I said two actions involving chips. Very different from what you're suggesting. I'll have to check with Matt/Dave/Linda/Jan and see what was actually decided.

Alright here goes....... to be clear.

Substantial action is: Two actions involving chips (#1 a check and a bet, #2 a bet and a fold, #3 a bet and a call, #4 a bet and a raise) OR 3 actions (3 checks, 3 folds).

[Nick C]

Thomas,
  Are you saying that your examples #1 and #2 are substantial action? How is a check and a bet two actions involving chips? Or a bet and a fold? On the contrary, if you are correct, this is far more confusing than it ever was. Two players putting chips into the pot, after a player is skipped, is substantial action. The way I understand it is, if a player bets (after the skipped player), and the next player folds, another player must act. Period. If you are right, it's not clear at all.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thomas,
  Are you saying that your examples #1 and #2 are substantial action? How is a check and a bet two actions involving chips?

Because there are two actions: #1 check (that's an action), #2 bets (that's the 2nd action).

Or a bet and a fold?

Again because there are two actions: #1 a Bet (that's an action), #2 a fold (that's an action).

In addition, in each example, one of those two actions has chips involved. That's 2 actions involving chips. That makes it substantial.

Also, I'm not referring to Wolfster's question about skipped players. I'm just reiterating what substantial action is and how TDA is going to define it per the summit.

[JasperToo]

I am not sure that I agree with wsopmcgee's interpretation of the rule but the rule as he stated it is the one I heard at the summit.  2 actions involving chips or 3 actions.  He is saying that if just 1 action involves chips then a subsequent action (or previous action I suppose) would constitute the second and, therefore, substantial action. 

When I read the rule as stated above I would interpret it as two actions with chips:  so a bet and a call, bet and a raise, a raise and a re-raise.  Or three actions, which would be a bet, fold, fold.  Check, bet, fold. check check bet, check check check, check bet call (which actually fits both scenarios of definitions).  So it will be interesting to see if there are any examples with the new rule and subsequent debate.

Nick, yes.  I am saying that a guy who purposefully hides his cards and lets the action go by would end up with the same decision as a guy who was accidentally skipped because he was not paying attention or those three checks went by so fast he may not have had time.  Life is a bitch, visual game, pay attention.  The poor guy that wasn't paying attention will start after the first time his hand is killed (again, only if he was facing a bet when the action past him - and surely if he or the dealer is yelling time as the third guy is checking we don't have to count the third action).  The guy that is shooting an angle by hiding his cards is going to get a dead hand if he was facing action or have a small advantage by seeing the action before it gets to him if he was not.  Remember the guy that was not paying attention also gets that advantage if he was not facing action.  So, I think it is very balanced and makes it easy for a TD to make a clear, explainable, supported decision.  The other side of this is the penalty to the OOT player.  As those are dispensed more often in those situations you all of a sudden have everybody paying attention to the action.  we may lose a couple hands an hour because of it but that is worth it to have people act in turn.

[Nick C]

 I'd really like to hear from Jan, or Matt, or Linda, or Dave on this one. How do you figure that a check and a bet, are two actions involving chips? Wow, just when I thought I knew what substantial action was, you throw this at me.

As far as all this talk about "angle shooters," get rid of them. If your dealer doesn't know how many players are in the hand, I would think that one of the players would speak up if a player is skipped. Jasper....you really play where players hide their cards? Let me tell you something. If you have a compitent dealer in the box, you won't have to worry about any of this. Substantial action would be non-existent.

 Jasper, three checks went by so fast? First of all, the first player that checked (out of turn) was the offender that induced the next player to bet, and then you can look to the idiot dealer and the skipped player. We can't have rules that contradict each other. If I'm in a hand, I know who's in the hand with me.

Clarity is what we are looking for. Will someone please clear this up?

[JasperToo]

Well, I don't think I have seen anybody actually going out of their way to 'hide' cards but a fair number of players like to have their cards close to the rail or on the "wrong" side of their chip stack.  Could this be meant to hide the cards?  Maybe, but the result is the same.

Yes, the first OOT is the offender and needs to be penalized!  This rule does not at all contradict itself or another rule.  What do you see as the contradiction?