WSOP Ruling & a slight twist on "Accepted Action"

[K-Lo]

K-Lo,

I'm having a tough time following these scenarios but, I think the fact that there was no mention of specific amounts, all players are responsible for the largest amount wagered by any player. This is a perfect example (and the only one I've heard), that would support Accepted Action.

Sorry, I will reword using an explicit example.

A bets 500.  B goes all in for 4500.  C has everyone covered, and calls 4500.  
Action returns to A who goes all-in... It looks like a total of around 4100.  Dealer doesn't break down stacks though, and tells everyone to flip 'em.
Board is dealt out, A wins.  Dealer counts out A's stack... Turns out it is 5100.  

Is C on the hook for 4500 or 5100?
What if C challenges that the rules say the board should be redealt since he never had the opportunity to call the 5100?

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

The amounts are helpful but, if they were not announced, or no confirmation was requested, it could go either way. I now understand the complexities of the situation. I will however, insist that the proper board remain.

Obviously the dealer thought that Player A's all-in was not enough to raise Player C's call. Player B is gone, so do we force Player C to put in another 600? On my last post, I thought that a strict use of TDA rule Accepted Action would be used. Upon further review, I don't like using it because the dealer is the one that screwed up! Damn it! Will somebody train those dealers

Short answer: Player C is only committed to 4500, and the board stays!
The bad part is; if Player C had won, the dealer would have pushed Player A's 5100 over to him!

[K-Lo]

To those who like the WSOP ruling (and I do, although I think we currently have to rely on Rule 1 to get there), maybe we do need an explicit rule that says something to the effect of: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be all-in situation, all players will be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting action had not yet, in fact, been completed.

So, interestingly enough, a variation of the last situation that I was describing earlier has come up again:

http://borgataseptemberpokeropen2012.blogspot.ca/2012/09/event-1-tough-break.html

My position is still:  whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be an all-in situation, all players should be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting actions have not yet, in fact, been completed.  I have a lot of trouble here backing up the action all the way to fourth street, when the 30K player had the opportunity to stop the action when the other players flipped over his cards, and when the dealer tapped and burned a card before the river is dealt.  I would definitely follow the WSOP precedent here and would personally have ruled that the 30K player "accepted" that the situation was an all-in situation.  Whether he owes 30K or the full 36K may be disputable, but there's no way I'm re-dealing the river here.  These all-in situations are NOT the same as a premature turn or river with betting action still to come.

The ruling is technically correct I suppose if the TD is reluctant to rely on Rule 1, but I think we should be moving towards treating these "incomplete action when all-in" situations in the way I am suggesting.  I don't really want to call it "Accepted Action" anymore because I don't want to confuse it with the other debate about whether or not we can rely on a dealer's incorrect count.

[Nick C]

K-LO,

I have to agree with you on this one. I don't think the final "proper card' should be removed and reshuffled. Like you say, there could be an argument for not putting the extra amount (600) in the pot but, changing the river card is not in the best interest of the game. I can't figure out why so many TD's and floorpersons insist on the strict interpretation of a rule, when common sense and logic should trump this tournament altering call.

We are always preaching for all cards to be tabled when a player is all-in.
We insist that all players and dealers should be on the lookout for chip dumping.
We assist dealers if we see a pot being awarded to the wrong player.
Why do we allow a new card to be dealt, that could take the pot from the non-offending player, and give new life to another?

There are rules that relate to similar situations; Player a bets and is in for multiple raises and for some reason the dealer burns and turns before the player calls the final raise. In these situations the card stays, even though it was prematurely dealt. The reason is simple, everyone knows the player would have called with his nut hand.

How can we (TD's and Floor), allow a mistake by the dealer, to take a pot away from a deserving winner?

Another horrible call!

[Tristan]

The board should not be run again.  All of us agree on that point.

As far as call or all-in goes...hmm, I'm pretty undecided on that. 

Honestly, looking at the WSOP example, I would rule it a call and that Mosseri would not be entitled to any more money from Yakovenko.  Mosseri created the foul by only calling and then exposing his cards which caused the other players to expose theirs.  I do not think it is unreasonable for the other players to think he may have been covered, but he should have known he had more than the bet.  If not...well, he still committed the first foul.  If the board had been different, and Yakovenko had won the hand, I still like that no more of the chips would be committed because Yakovenko flipped his hand without being sure of the action (second foul).  No one should benefit from a foul IMO.

[K-Lo]

Tristan, I like your thought process.

[Nick C]

Tristan,
I like your reasoning, as well.
Nick

[WSOPMcGee]

Tristan, just wanted to say that 

But.. I like the reasoning and thought process. HOWEVER, you put the blame at the foot of the wrong player IMO. Yakovenko announced ALL-IN (that's foul #1). Mosseri believed he was calling an all-in bet. After calling with no action behind any longer (Seat 3 folded out of turn) Mosseri turned his hand over because that's what you do when all players are all-in and there's no further action. No fault on his part IMO. After Shaun Deeb (who was all-in for less) turned his hand over, Yakovenko turned his hand over LAST. That's foul #2 on Yakovenko's part. Again IMO. If Yakovenko didn't believe he was playing for an all-in pot then he should've stopped the action before Shaun Deeb turned his hand over. And again before any cards were dealt. But he didn't. Yakovenko only spoke up when he had lost the hand.

You have to treat it sort of like a crime scene. If an assailant believed he had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't leave the scene. They would stay and explain things to authorities, etc, etc. In all other cases, people flee or look for a way out, a way to escape.

In this case Yakovenko took an Angle shot, Announced All-in #1, Got called #2, All players exposed their cards #3, the dealer ran the board because everyone was all-in (same thing he would do in ANY cash game) and then after realizing that he was going to lose the hand Yakovenko tried to grasp onto a remote technicality that the player in Seat 2 only said call and was hoping for a favorable decision from a floor staff member, which sadly he almost got.

I know I'm biased because I'm a WSOP staff member, but this is the perfect hand to use as an example for accepted action and why it's in place.

[Tristan]

Tristan, just wanted to say that 

Lol!

I see what you are saying, and maybe the situation happened different than I read it...but the way I read it, Mosseri was told Yakovenko had more than pot.

"Yakovenko said to Mosseri that he actually had more than the pot, but Mosseri still wanted a count on Yakovenko's entire stack, using a few choice words. With all the chips Yakovenko had, it took him and the dealer a little bit to break down all the stacks. When it was finished, Yakovenko was said to have had 407,300."

"At one point when Mosseri was in the tank, he did some talking about his hand out loud, which Yakovenko wanted him to stop doing. Mosseri had announced his hand, saying, "I have aces and one suit," while plenty of other players were hovering around. Yakovenko took this as Mosseri "polling his friends" about his hand. There was also a point when Mosseri looked back at his cards and Greg Mueller leaned down to peak in from behind, which Yakovenko also requested be put to a stop.
Mosseri tanked for what most estimated at 10 to 15 minutes before Yakovenko finally called the clock on him. "Wow, this is the first time in my life anyone has called the clock on me," said Mosseri. Mosseri was given a minute to act on his hand by the floor staff and eventually said, "I call."
Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htm

I do agree that Yakovenko did commit a foul, but it also looks like Mosseri was informed of it prior to action. 

Mosseri should have no excuse for flipping up his hand when it was clear to him that it wasn't for all of his chips when he called.  For all we know, this was an angle shot that he could use if he lost the pot.

Yakovenko should have no excuse for turning up his hand since he knew he wasn't all-in.  For all we know, this was an angle shot that he could use if he lost the pot.

You can go even further and say that Mosseri committed another foul that we haven't even discussed.  He revealed contents of a hand while there was still action pending...and he was informed that there was action pending before he did it. 

Either way, there were a lot of crazy factors in this scenario!

I still stick with my answer of a call though.  I feel that it is in the best interest of the game to minimize the damage.  No matter which way you rule it, there will be people that think it was the wrong way.  Ruling it a call, in my opinion, is the lesser of two evils here.