How would you rule?: Accepted Action issue...

[MikeB]

So, in this scenario, as TD, if I came to the table I would ask the players if the dealer broke down the stacks or if she simply looked at the stack and gave a number.  If the caller did not ask for the stacks to be broken down then it is all on him.. too bad so sad.  If the stacks were broken down and there was that big of a mistake (hidden chips, dirty stacks, whatever) then I would invoke rule #1 and only make him pay the 259.  

Jasp: not disagreeing with your reasoning here, it just should be pointed out that if the caller is only obligated to pay 259 if he loses, then he should only stand to win 259 if he wins... We can't have an untenable situation where a player can win 339 but only lose 259. And we all expect the all-in bettor who loses to leave the tournament. This is a wrinkle whenever we deviate from strict AA and the bettor loses.

So using the values in this thread, a player goes all-in and pushes out 339 in chips... the caller makes sufficient effort in the TDs mind to determine that the amount bet is 259... the caller wins and it's determined that 339 was actually pushed out, you will only award 259 of that to the caller, eliminate the bettor, and remove the other 80K in bettor's chips from the tournament, yes? Of course the caller may go ballistic when this happens, protesting that he should get the entire 339...

I recall this side discussion at the Summit on the AA issue; it's one of several reasons this issue is a bit more complicated than it first appears.

[Nick C]

Mike,
That is an excellent example on how to handle that situation. That is what I would expect in the best interest of the game. Your ruling however, does not really comply with TDA #41, as written.  I like what you wrote and I believe that others will agree; Accepted Action will not be as scrutinized if you could find a way to incorporate language that will consider leniency, or better yet, relieving the caller from unclear financial liability, IF the caller makes sufficient effort (to attain the correct amount) . I wish I had knowledge of this side discussion that you mention.

[MikeB]

This isn't my ruling, I was expounding on Jasper's illustration... this is a wrinkle that must be considered whenever a TD makes a "Rule 1" exception which changes the amount of an all-in bet from the actual chips pushed to some other amount. Rule 1 exceptions are compliant with TDA Rule 41 as provided in the last sentence of the rule.

[JasperToo]

Mike, I agree with you 100%.  But isn't the reality something different?  What I mean is, if the caller has gone to all the trouble of getting a correct amount by having the dealer break down the stacks and he had the winning hand, the dealer would likely just scoop the chips and push to the caller.  We would never "discover" the extra chips. 

But if somehow they are subsequently discovered before the push then I believe only giving the called amount to the caller is correct.
Here's another little wrinkle that would complicate it more but I think goes along with your conclusion:  In this story let's say that the caller had 300, the bettor has 339 and the Accepted Action is for 259.  The caller wins and the extra 80K is discovered.  The caller should only be awarded 259, the bettor should retain 39k and remain in the tourney and the 41K should be removed from the table.

That is certainly way complicated but in the end would be the most fair, if every effort was made to obtain a correct count.