2011 WSOP Rule #89 - Accepted Action

[chet]

WSOP Rule #89 reads:

Accepted Action: Poker is a game of observation. It's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amount into the pot, it is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount.

My initial comment/thought/question:

Should all players at the table, whether in the hand or not, have responsibility to ensure the accuracy of 'counts' whether done by a dealer or another player and if an error is noticed bring that to the attention of the dealer/player?

I cannot even estimate the number of times I have seen errors made when counting chips in a bet or all-in situation.  Part of TDA Rule 41 No Disclosure says, "Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times...." and then goes on to describe what actions are NOT appropriate.  On the other hand, given the charge in the first sentence of Rule 41, would it not be proper for any player at the table to point out these kinds of errors?  We recently had a rather long discussion regarding a player with a math handicap.  How does that situation relate to the WSOP rule?

BTW:  Matt recently tweeted about this, so I would think this might come up at the Summit.

[Nick C]

Chet,
You bring up another valid issue. IMO this is the problem that so many of us have with the rules; there are too many, and they contradict each other. I don't feel like running for RRoP right now to find the exact rule, but trust me, it is written that any player, dealer, or floorperson that sees any irregularity or error occur has an ethical obligation to speak-up. I will assume that it pertains to wagered amounts or, betting out of turn, or the dealer awarding the pot to the wrong player. Based on poker ethics I would say yes, any player should speak-up. I guess it is up to us as to which rule you would rather follow, the one I just mentioned, or the "one player to a hand rule?"

[WSOPMcGee]

Nick,

The rule you're referring to is in the Showdown section of the R.O.P.E. under General Rules of Poker. Not sure exactly what section it is within the RRoP.

3. Any player, dealer, or Floor Person 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.

Also in the No Limit section of the R.O.P.E.

Because the amount of a wager at big bet poker has such a wide range, a player who has taken action based on a gross misunderstanding of the amount wagered may receive some protection by the decision-maker. Unfortunately, in tournament play a verbal "call" or "raise" may be ruled binding even if it is obvious that the player grossly misunderstood the amount wagered. Even in cases when a dealer or player has miscounted the amount of chips being wagered, players making a motion with additional chips to make a call or verbally state "call" are said to be "accepting the action". Accepting the action means, win or lose, you are agreeing to accept all of the action that you can receive.

Now I know your stance on players who act when misunderstanding the action to them and/or unclear bets. The language used in the ROPE says a player MAY receive some protection. But also says may be bound and "accepting the action".

The One Player to a Hand rule does not pertain to this situation. It pertains to aiding and assisting other players on how to play a hand. Advising and/or Criticizing the course of play by another player.
Rule IX from the R.O.P.E.

One player to a hand:

   1. Reading a hand or the board for another player prior to hands being tabled for showdown. Should a player need help to see the board they may request the dealer to tell them the rank of cards and suit.
   2. Telling another player to turn their hand faceup, i.e. table their hand, at the showdown. It is the players own responsibility to table their hand to be read by the dealer.
   3. Receiving advice from anyone during the play of a hand. Advising and/or criticizing the play of others at anytime.
   4. Disclosing the contents live or folded hands.

[Nick C]

Thomas,
I guess that you agree with me then. The rules are vague, and one can contradict another. The word "may" should be elliminated in a rule book. You also mention......  It is the players own responsibility to table their hand to be read by the dealer.

[chet]

Nick: 

I disagree about removing the word "may".  If you change it to "must" or "should" or "shall", you are tying the TDs hands when it comes to making a ruling based on fairness.  You speak a lot from time to time about conflicting rules, etc., TDA Rule 1 is intended to give the TD room to apply the rules in such a way as to best fit the circumstances of the situation.  Your change effectively negates that part of TDA Rule 1 that provides that flexibility. 

I am sure that in your long poker history you have seen many situations in which you used that flexibility to make sure the "penalty fits the crime".

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet,
I can agree that I MAY have used a better choice of wording. However I SHALL try harder next time. Seriously, you're right, those words are important and it gives us more flexibility based on any number of situations. I think completely eliminating those words would be a little extreme but, I think I got my message across.

You are also correct on your quote when you said; "I am sure that in your long poker history you have seen many situations in which you used that flexibility to make sure the "penalty fits the crime". Yes, and I wish I had some of the "bad calls" back to do over again.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thomas,
I guess that you agree with me then. The rules are vague, and one can contradict another. The word "may" should be elliminated in a rule book. You also mention......  It is the players own responsibility to table their hand to be read by the dealer.

I agree that some rules can sometimes contradict one another. However, there is a hierarchy to them and that is what helps us explain to players why we decide what we decide when there is a decision to be made.

I'm completely in chet's camp when it comes to using the word "may". Rule #1 is paramount in the hierarchy and gives us flexibility. As many legalese of any corporation go, reserving the right to change, modify or  "blah blah blah" anything they want, I see no reason for us to lock ourselves into any decision "because the rules says so". I think you objected to that kind of  language by JasperToo.

[Nick C]

Chet listed Rule #89 for the 2011 WSOP. I am just now realizing that it is a new rule that was never there before. I see it as another change that will not fix anything. The more the rules are ammended, the worse they become. So....when a dealer tells you the bet is 5000, you'd better reach over and count it yourself, because what anyone says means nothing." Dealer, can you tell me exactly how much Johnny bet?" "Yes sir, he bet 1200." " Thank you, I'll call......."No, wait!" "He bet 2200 and that puts you all-in and he has the "nut's." "Sorry for the gross misunderstanding but, as of 2011, that doesn't mean anything anymore."

Someone please tell me I got another one all wrong....PLEASE. just in case you dont feel like scrolling up to the top again:
I want to bring one of the new 2011 WSOP Official Tournament Rules to your attention:

SECTION VI-POKER RULES

#89 Accepted action. Poker is a game of observation. It's the players responsibility to ensure the accuracy of another player's bet and/or all-in wager regardless of what is stated by the dealer and/or other players at the table. If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or another player at the table, then places said amount into the pot, it is assumed he/she is accepting the action and will be subject to the correct wager and/or all-in amount.

Here's a new one you can add to your list of headaches to come.

[JasperToo]

I think that there is an underlying problem that is showing up in this thread that is counter intuitive to what TDA is trying to do.  That is that there is a variety of rules floating around RATHER than a standard.  Not to be negative to your work Thomas, I am not, but it yet another 'set' of rules.  (I haven't had a chance to do more than scan your work so I couldn't point to any other differences that might be in it but this one section on Gross Misunderstanding can serve)  And obviously WSOP rules are non standard, probably need to be because of their circumstances, at least to some degree.

I do agree that the TD's need a little leeway and I suspect Nick isn't contradicting himself but is thinking of some specific instances when 'may' shouldn't be used in the rules rather than a general consideration.

As to the original post WSOP rule #89 stinks.  A player certainly can't count the chips himself, no reaching into the pot whatever.  The dealer needs to be responsible for that.  I suppose it could be done in a fashion that allows the player to 'count with the dealer' rather than just take his word for it and that is how he should be accepting that action.

And I agree that TDA rules (and RROP) require all players to point out bet irregularities and help read the board at the end to ensure the best hand wins.

[Nick C]

I know this is a very old post, however, I thought it would be interesting to revisit after nearly 2 years.