Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules

[Nick C]

I have some questions regarding the new 2011 rules.
    # 8. Balancing Tables B
I am having difficulty understanding, or trying to follow, the placement of the button. Maybe using seat #'s might help?

 #9:  Number of Players at Final Table. I have known for years that stud tournaments played 9 at the final table. I just want to know why?

 #38 Raises: (formerly TDA Rule #31) Before attending the 2011 Summit, I was told that the Discusion Forum was the best way to bring a rule to the table for change. During the past 18 months nothing brought more to the forum, or was debated more than Rule #31, yet the rule remains exactly as it was in 2009? Over a year ago, I was told that the rule would be addressed.

 #42 Anyone that follows the Forum, or was at the Summit, knows how I feel about Accepted Action. IMO, the slight changes in wording from the WSOP rule #91 is not enough. Underlining the last sentence of rule #37 only adds to the confusion. Also, adding rule #1 is another indication that more work is needed on this one. Suggestions: Shared responsibility from all parties involved in the hand, the bettor, the dealer and the caller.
 During the summit, the Venetian had an excellent rule about accepted action. Everyone applauded when it was read. Shortly after that it was requested that it be read again, but it could not be located. I'd like to see that one in writing.
I thought that combining the last line of #37 with #42 would be better than just adding rule #1.

Your thoughts.



 

[chet]

Nick:  I really don't understand your question to rule 8.  In my mind it is perfectly clear.

In Part A, there is no mention of the button as it is not applicable.  Part B addresses what happens with the button when a non-flop (Stud, RAZZ, etc.) and a flop game is involved.  It says quite clearly, in my opinion anyway, that when the LAST HAND of a Flop game (Hold-Em OR Omaha) game is finished, the button is moved to the position it would be in IF THE NEXT HAND WAS STILL the same game.  The button is then FROZEN in that position until the non-flop (Stud, etc.) round ends.  When the Flop game resumes, the button will be in the correct position for the first hand, based on where it was when the last flop round was played

So, if you want an example:

A.  The button is in seat 4 for the last hand of the Flop Game round.  Seat 5 would have been the SB.
B.  After the hand is completed, the button is moved to Seat 5 and is FROZEN in that seat until the NON-Flop Round is completed.
C.  When the game again changes to a Flop Game, the button is in seat 5 where it should be, Seat 6 will be the SB and so forth.

Does that clear things up?

[Nick C]

Yes, that is all I asked for. Thanks. What about the other rules I mention?

[chet]

Rule 9:  My and I stress this is MY opinion on rule 9.  The purpose is to eliminate the need to have two short handed tables regardless of the type of game.  So in a flop game it eliminates the need to have two 5 handed tables, in stud it eliminates the need to have a 5 and 4 handed table until you get down to 8 and so forth.  But I could be all wet on my interpretation on this one.

Rule 38:  I don't have any question with Rule 38.  As to why it wasn't discussed, I can't answer that as I was not able to attend this years Summit.

Rule 42:  I understand that you don't like this rule.  However it was adopted by a majority of the membership as I understand it.  I have tried to find the Venetian Rules, but I have not been successful as of yet.  That said, somewhere in this process a decision has to be made about the amount of chips "at risk" by the calling player.  In my opinion the calling player is the "line of last resort" as it is this player that has to make the final decision.  I have some mixed feelings about the player being held to incorrect information, but the line has to go somewhere and this is where the TDA has decided it should go. 

At this point, I think we need to let this rule stand and it can be reviewed, modified, deleted whatever at the next summit.

You asked about my thoughts on the other rules and now you got'em   

[MikeB]

I have some questions regarding the new 2011 rules.
    # 8. Balancing Tables B
I am having difficulty understanding, or trying to follow, the placement of the button. Maybe using seat #'s might help?
Hi Nick: Several versions of this were drafted before settling on "move to exactly the position it would be if the next hand was holdem". Because sometimes there's a dead button, etc. and the button does not always cleanly move from one seat number to the next. So it's just left as "exactly where it would be if the next hand is holdem". And from there, whatever player would have the BB if the game were holdem is the player moved during stud. I know it's a mouthful, but it's not easy to write it any more plainly than it is. See also Chet's answer on this.
 #9:  Number of Players at Final Table. I have known for years that stud tournaments played 9 at the final table. I just want to know why?
The best answer I think is that if they played less, say 8, then when you're down to 2 tables you'd have one table playing with 4 players in a 7-stud game which is quite short of players. Using 9 as the final table you have two tables of 5 playing when you're at the final 2.

 #38 Raises: (formerly TDA Rule #31) Before attending the 2011 Summit, I was told that the Discusion Forum was the best way to bring a rule to the table for change. During the past 18 months nothing brought more to the forum, or was debated more than Rule #31, yet the rule remains exactly as it was in 2009? Over a year ago, I was told that the rule would be addressed.
What questions do you have on #38? The only question I recall in 2011 was regarding whether the rule should have the language "largest previous legal bet or raise" i.e. if a player had put in an all-in wager in but less than a "legal bet or raise" then the raise would have to be of legal size. When this was discussed the conclusion was that an all-in wager that is less than the minimum required is by definition not considered a bet or raise but rather an "all-in wager". So, by saying that if the player puts in at least 50% of the previous bet or raise, by definition that means a legal-size bet or raise. And when it says "must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise" again, by definition the largest previous bet or raise would be of legal size or it wouldn't be called a bet or raise in the first place.    Is that the primary issue you have with the rule? Perhaps some clarification on that point might be warranted.

 #42 Anyone that follows the Forum, or was at the Summit, knows how I feel about Accepted Action. IMO, the slight changes in wording from the WSOP rule #91 is not enough. Underlining the last sentence of rule #37 only adds to the confusion. Also, adding rule #1 is another indication that more work is needed on this one. Suggestions: Shared responsibility from all parties involved in the hand, the bettor, the dealer and the caller.

 During the summit, the Venitian had an excellent rule about accepted action. Everyone applauded when it was read. Shortly after that it was requested that it be read again, but it could not be located. I'd like to see that one in writing.  

I thought that combining the last line of #37 with #42 would be better than just adding rule #1.

As to Accepted Action, there are really two clear "contingents" on this issue: the strict-interpreters and the more lenients. And at this point there's not a super-majority in either camp... Probably the more lenients applauded the Venetian language but the strict interpreters didn't. Also there's a segment in the middle who believe that Rule 1 is always implied and doesn't need to be explicitly stated.  I think there's another issue involved and that goes to the nature of your tournaments. If you tend to have extremely large tournaments and you don't see the same people week after week, I think there's a tendency to prefer strict interpretation because it is so clear and unmistakable who is responsible: always the caller... that gives you "maximum functionality".  If on the other hand you see the same players on a regular basis and have a somewhat smaller turnout, then "maximum fairness" becomes a bit more important, hence the Venetian-type language which expressly allows for weighing the extent to which the caller took reasonable precautions to get the pot counted....   The only way to bridge these two positions is with the language as provided... heavily tilted to Accepted Action but with expressed recognition that Rule 1 may be involved in some decisions at TD's discretion. For example, I'm a little bit more in the lenient / Venetian camp but I recognize that explicitly stating it as they have it could cause functional problems with larger events.   The language adopted allows both venues to be compliant. We'll just have to see what everyone reports their experience with the rule to be.

[Nick C]

Thanks Chet,
I respect your opinion. Especially when you have similar feelings about rule #42. I really like the part about letting it stand and it can be reviewed, modified, deleted  at the next summit. I don't think we should wait that long.

[Nick C]

Hello Mike,
Congratulations! You are a great addition to the Poker TDA board of directors.

I went back on the forum about rule #38 Raises. I realized that much of my discussion was via emails with Dave Lamb and Jan Fisher. My main concerns are the last sentence. In no limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. I have explained myself on the forum many times. Think of a hand where the first player to act checks. The next player bets and the next player goes all-in with less than a ful raise. The first player that checked will have every option open to him, fold call, or raise. He can raise because the next player bet. The all-in is irrelevent. I could understand it better if the wording were changed. I see it as confusing.

As far as Rule #42. It needs a lot of work. At the summit we were asked, if we could live with a rule after it was debated for a while. I was the only one that replied with no to accepted action. I still feel that way.

[MikeB]

As for Rule 42 what sort of changes can you envision when:
1: About 50% are in favor of strict accepted action and
2: About 50% are in favor of a more lenient "verified action" ?

As the rule is written now, it's based on 1, but venues which have a well-crafted verified action policy are covered under the "Rule 1 may apply" clause.

The only "improvement" would be if one side or the other can come to dominate and from the 2011 Summit floor discussion that seems a long way off. Again, I think the underlying reason is the nature of the tournaments that each camp manages which tends to have them favoring one standard or the other...

[Nick C]

Mike,
Why was it needed? There were much better suggestions than the one chosen.
Poker requires mutual participation. Players are obligated to be clear on all wagers, but the ultimate responsibility is with the player that is calling the bet. Telling a player that he has to put another 1000 in the pot because the player understated his wager is not good enough for me.

TDA rules existed for 10 years without Accepted Action. Others have asked, and I am curious also, as to what happened in the WSOP that suggested a need for this rule?

An improvement would be it's elimination.

[MikeB]

Great question Nick.... and there are several answers.

First, look back over the posts in this forum over the past 2 years and you'll find numerous questions regarding what to do in cases of "misunderstandings", and further, what if it's a "gross" or "minor" misundestanding, etc. etc....

The 2011 Summit went a long way towards clarifying this:
A: Note the new language in Rule 35 "chips placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot". This effectively says that if you have a misunderstanding about the bet size and you put less in, if you're the actor in turn you have to leave it in.

B: Note the new language in Rule 36 that 100% crystal-clarifies that out of turn bet will be returned if the action changes to the OOT bettor. Otherwise it is binding.

C: Then to the issue of Accepted Action. This clarifies that if a caller makes a mistake about the amount that has been bet, it's his responsibility to make the bet right. The TD can use Rule 1 in "certain circumstances" in his discretion. That means that if it is the policy of that venue to give allowance for the caller making reasonable effort to determine the bet amount, then the venue can invoke that policy. If it isn't, then it's strictly accepted action. Even those venues which are highly skewed
towards strict accepted action reserve the right to over-ride it with an implied Rule 1 if they consider circumstances gross enough to warrant it.

So I would say the principal application of Accepted Action is in getting bets right and in clarifying what happens if there's a misunderstanding of the bet.

[Nick C]

Mike,
I am not oppossed to the caller being the responsible party on any bet. I am in disagreement with the rule as written. Example:

   42: Accepted Action
  Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling.

THAT'S IT!
              OR:
 
    42: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling. In the event of a gross misunderstanding, or an inaccurate count from the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.

IMO, telling players, that were given inaccurate information, (especially if they request a count), that they need to put all of their chips into the pot because the bettor understated his wager by 10,000 is nothing short of criminal.

I'M NOT AGAINST ACCEPTED ACTION.........ONLY THE WAY THE NEW RULE IS WRITTEN.

 
   

[MikeB]

The Accepted Action language is very similar to that used in all WSOP events.

See WSOP Rule #91.

From your comments I take it that you are in the "more lenient" camp on this issue. That's why the Rule 1 clause was added. With the Rule 1 clause you have 100% latitude to make any ruling you feel is fair if there are "unusual" or "extreme" or "gross" circumstances... or IMO, as per specific language that a venue may have drafted which makes exception for a player who has taken reasonable efforts to count per their house standards.

[Nick C]

Mike,

I am well aware of WSOP rule #91. I also think that rule #1 is there for any situation that may arise and it is not necessary to add it to any rule....it goes without saying. I am asking you, what is wrong with my suggested options for rule #42? Is it possible that others feel the way I do? Or, am I beating a dead horse?

[chet]

Nick: 

Quit beating the poor horse!!  I think you have made your point.

As I said previously, let it stand for now and at the next Summit it can be addressed.  Since this was voted on at the Summit and adopted, I see no point in continuing, you have posted your objections and thoughts time after time. 

I happen to agree with you TO A POINT (see my prior post), but I don't see too many other members jumping on your wagon.  It appears to me you are in a minority here, a very vocal minority, but still a minority.

If you don't stop beating the poor horse, I am going to have to consider having the SPCA visit you! 

Chet

[MikeB]

Mike,

I am well aware of WSOP rule #91. I also think that rule #1 is there for any situation that may arise and it is not necessary to add it to any rule....it goes without saying.

The problem is that some of the more lenient camp wouldn't accept the rule without explicitly stating that Rule 1 may be involved. And their reasoning is understandable. If I push out all-in 120k but it's miscounted to the caller as 95k and I'm called and I win the first thing I'm going to do is demand my full 120 k under the accepted action rule. If Rule 1 isn't explicitly stated, but it's invoked on the spot by the TD, I'm going to complain that I'm being singled out, and there's nothing in the AA language that says anything other than the caller is subject to the full correct bet, yes ?  By having the last sentence explicitly mentioning the obvious (that Rule 1 can be invoked at TD's discretion): A) the full membership including prominent leaders of the "most lenient" camp agreed to the language. The vote was overwhelming to adopt it as it's now published AND  B) when I complain that I want my full 120K, if the TD feels that the caller made reasonable efforts to get a correct count, the TD can explicitly point to the language and say "sorry sir, but the rule does in fact give me the explicit right to make an exception in this unusual case".

I am asking you, what is wrong with my suggested options for rule #42? Is it possible that others feel the way I do? Or, am I beating a dead horse?

Just my personal opinion here:

42: Accepted Action
 Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling.

A: This doesn't say what happens if the caller doesn't determine the correct amount for whatever reason(s)
B: I suspect there were numerous venues that wouldn't have voted for this shortened version... you can always propose it at the next Summit, and of course see what opinions you receive on the forum. but also C: this wasn't what was voted on overwhelmingly.

42: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponents bet before calling. In the event of a gross misunderstanding, or an inaccurate count from the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.

The intent of the sentence you added here is indeed permissible under the Rule 1 language explicitly added to the Rule to get it adopted. The more "strict" camp didn't want to have any explicit mention of Rule 1 and the "in the middle camp" didn't want the explicit statement about "misunderstanding" because that might invite callers to always protest that they made a reasonable effort when in fact they didn't. I suspect the "more lenient" camp would prefer language as you have it here, but again that's just my personal guess. So, bottom line, the very best answer is probably that this language is what was needed to get the rule approved by all camps.  I truly think that from the functional standpoint, the way you say you want to interpret these situations is 100% compliant with the rule as written... do you not think the rule allows you to evaluate circumstances the way you say you prefer to do it?    

Thanks for exploring this, it helps to flesh out the meaning of the Rule, what the options are under it, etc.   If there's a super-majority in favor of amending the language, that can always be proposed at the next meeting.