Player was not aware of raise amount. How should TD Rule?

[Nick C]

After 4 pages of response, I looked to the original subject title: (Player was not aware of raise amount. How should TD rule?)...The player was not aware....hmm, so because of Accepted Action; we are expected to either force the calling player to call the correct amount, or at least surrender the "short amount" they were willing to call?
Somehow, this does not serve the best interest of the game. I'll go back to comments from others on this subject..."something about this reeks!"

Come on TDA members, let's fix this one.

On Day 1 of the 2011 TDA Summit, Accepted Action was introduced.  My first impression was; it was so ridiculous that it would never pass. As the debates and suggestions wore on, I began to realize that somehow, this rule was going to be added.

On Day 2, after more heated debates, (and the addition of the right  to use TDA Rule #1), we were asked for a show of hands "if we could live with it"... for now? It was apparent that we were running out of time, and we had other rules that needed to be addressed. The new rule was introduced.

Since that Summit, Accepted Action has proven to be the most controversial and debated rule in the history of the TDA. I hope that some of the suggestions for change are seriously considered at the next summit.

The accuracy of every bet is the responsibility of the dealer to confirm. Ken mentioned; the dealers that fail to count down a stack, and just spill the chips into the pot! This is where the problems begin...the incompetent dealer. The correct dealer procedure would eliminate the need for Accepted Action.

When action is head to head: Player A bets 500 and player B insta-calls. Player B should be responsible for the exact amount pushed by Player A. (because he did not ask for confirmation). If Player A makes an unclear verbal declaration, that is a different problem. If we try to break down each possible situation, we will realize that chips in the pot is the safest way to get an accurate understanding of the intent of the bettor. Most situations that we face, in every day poker tournaments, do not involve hundreds of chips being wagered on a single bet...most of the time the bets are easy to asses, visually.

The correct count must be confirmed on every called bet. Period. In multi way pots, where a bet amount is unclear or a request is made for clarification, the dealer should stop any further action until the correct amount is determined, then, and only then, will action proceed. Why not? It has to be counted why not upon request?

I think everyone knows how I feel about Accepted Action. What surprises me is the way some of our members are weakening on their original feelings. After a year and a half of Accepted Action many have found a way to accept it, even though you know it's unfair. For the record: I was the one that opposed Accepted Action at the 2011 Summit...the only one!

[chet]

Nick:  I will grant you that Accepted Action is a very contentious subject and there are respected folks on both sides in this discussion. 

I think only one or two of the members who have posted have indicated "real world" experience with this issue.

So my questions are: 
1.  In the real world of live poker tournament action, how many times has this rule been invoked?
2.  What were the player reactions when told this rule was being invoked?
3.  How many times has TDA Rule #1 been used when this situation arose?

If this is not something that comes up with some "regularity" then I believe we are making much ado over very little.

Chet

[Nick C]

Leave it the way it is...it's perfect

[K-Lo]

If they said call, and then threw out the 1k...I would make them call.

If they throw out 1k without saying call, I'd give the option to chip up or fold and ...

I think someone brought this up before... If we are permitted to do this, are we not giving players the incentive NOT to verbalize their actions? 

[Nick C]

Ken,

Your double negatives are making your last statement difficult to understand. Do you encourage verbal declarations?

[K-Lo]

Yes, I think we should always be encouraging players to verbalize their actions.  I currently handle many situations much like Tristan, but if I were put into a corner, I don't think I can really justify treating non-verbalized undercalls and verbalized undercalls differently.

[Nick C]

Yes, I agree. I've always encouraged verbal declarations for clarification. However, there is a good argument that supports the opposite. The rules, IMO offer more  "protection" from a misunderstood call, or unintentional call when a player pushes the lesser amount forward, as opposed to saying call.

My best example: Player A bets 500, Player B Raises to 5,000...Player C says "call" and pushes 500 forward. The amount is corrected by the dealer and Player C says, "I'm out, I thought the bet was 500." The TD is called to the table and Player C is forced to complete his bet to a call of 4500 more than he intended.

Same situation except Player C says nothing but pushes his 500 (short call) forward. The amount is corrected by the dealer and Player C again says; "I'm out, I thought the bet was 500, not 5000?" The floor is called and Player C is offered the following 2 options: surrender his 500 or complete the bet to 5000.

If we do not consider substantial action, then I don't know what the answer is. There was discussion at the 2011 Summit and some agreed that the incorrect action could be corrected as long as the next player has not reacted (substantial action). However, this practice has not been used on any posts from our members. Depending on circumstances, Player C would be at least committed to surrender his 500 with no option to withdraw.

So how do we define "gross misunderstanding?" Should we never consider the actual "intent" of the player? 

[Tristan]

I think someone brought this up before... If we are permitted to do this, are we not giving players the incentive NOT to verbalize their actions? 

This part is tough.  You are right, in some ways it encourages people not to verbalize.

There is one subtle difference between the two though.

When a player says call, pauses, and then pushes out chips, they have an opportunity to get a tell.  What if they said call and saw that flash of triumph on their opponent's face?  Of course they only meant to call the big blind then!  It is, in essence, very similar to a string bet.

Admittedly, players could try this with the silent undercall method, but it is much less likely.  The error is more obvious.

I don't think that we can treat 'call' as an ambiguous term.  Did they mean call the first bet or the second?  What if they said call, the other player flipped their cards, and then claimed they thought they were calling a lesser amount?

If we are not happy with how these two situations are treated differently, there are really only two options.  We make a verbal statement non-binding, or we make both situations a must call.  I would think there would be more opposition to making verbal non-binding. 

[K-Lo]

Tristan, you make good points.  I think the strictest AA proponents will tell us that they should be the same though, and in both cases it should be a call under AA.  It does seem harsh, especially when there is some evidence that no angle was being played and the wager was unintentional - but I believe that is where we are going this summit, assuming we are not supposed to be already there.

[Nick C]

Quote from Tristan:

"If we are not happy with how these two situations are treated differently, there are really only two options.  We make a verbal statement non-binding, or we make both situations a must call.  I would think there would be more opposition to making verbal non-binding." 

Why do we have only 2 options? What about substantial action? Why shouldn't it apply here? Is it only for action after a player is skipped? Or, After action has taken place on a hand where the dealer failed to move the button and instead of a misdeal, the hand continues because UTG 1 & 2 have acted before it was noticed?

There must be more protection for any player that is misinformed by the dealer, or was obviously the victim of a gross misunderstanding. Do you really believe, that allowing a correction to the proper amount before another player reacts, is not in the best interest for any game?

[K-Lo]

We are taking about the basic undercall situation where there has been no action at all following, substantial or not.

There must be more protection for any player that is misinformed by the dealer, or was obviously the victim of a gross misunderstanding. Do you really believe, that allowing a correction to the proper amount before another player reacts, is not in the best interest for any game?

Preaching to the choir.  I do fear, though, that ship may have sailed long ago.

[Nick C]

Ken,

It sounds to me like you have inside information on this years summit. I probably won't attend this year, so I will voice my opinion on the Forum. There are other rules that need attention for sure, but I know that Accepted Action will be the most debated.

If I'm preaching to the choir, why do you feel the choir's input won't change anything? Rules should be adopted because there is a need for them. They should also be easy to understand...Accepted Action is not a good rule and we were better off without it.

Chet, I'm beating the dead horse...again!

[Tristan]

I should point out; I don't mind having the two examples treated separate.  It could discourage players from verbalizing in that situation in some ways, but I haven't seen it as having that effect in practice. 

I feel that forcing the silent undercall to call the full amount automatically is a greater harm than slight discouragement of verbalization. 

Just my opinion.