Accepted Action - Rule 41

[K-Lo]

As you may know, in a number of recent threads here on the forum, there have been several TDs that expressed concerns that new Rule 41 (Accepted Action) is flawed.

Rule 41 currently states:

41:   Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD's discretion.

The general principle underlying such a rule (which appears to have origins from WSOP rules) is well-taken:  players are ultimately responsible for their own actions.  In this regard, the rule on Accepted Action places all responsibility solely on the potential caller of a wager, to verify the correct amount of a bet.

The 'debate' over the TDA rule on Accepted Action has recently been rekindled in response to one of Matt Savage's "Situation of the Day" tweets, and it appears that player reactions to the rule are also mixed:  http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/65/mttc-live/rule-regarding-dealer-miscounts-1167855/. So not only do the TDs on this forum have differing opinions on whether or not the rule as currently written is good, but the range of player opinions is also broad.

Personally, i would like to see this Rule amended.  I am not against the general principle that players need to be responsible for their actions, and this includes requiring potential callers to verify the amount of a bet before calling it.  However, the question in my mind is, what can the potential caller do in order to fulfil that obligation to verify the amount of the bet?  I strongly believe that, at the very least, if a player asks the Dealer to count a wager, the player should be able to rely on the count given by the Dealer.  The dealer's job has involved, for the entire duration of the tournament, counting chips and pots, and there is an inherent sense of trust by players that the Dealer ought to know what he or she is doing. Furthermore, the dealer is often in a better position to perform the count, particularly if two players are at opposite ends of the tables, or when a player has a visual handicap (e.g. due to age or disability).  

It is one thing if another player/spectator gives a count or estimate which a potential caller relies upon -- most players can appreciate the fact that they shouldn't automatically "trust" this type of information when given by opponents;  however, telling players that they can't even trust a Dealer (who is supposed to be impartial) who is asked to verify a count just smells unfair.

I personally would like to see the Rule changed to something like the following:

"Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling, and to ask for verification of the amount by the dealer if there is doubt as to the correct amount.  If a caller receives incorrect information regarding a wager from a player, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount.  However, if a caller requests a count and receives incorrect information from the dealer which is not corrected by the bettor, and then places that amount in the pot, the caller will only be responsible for the lesser of (a) the actual amount of the wager and (b) the count given by the dealer.

I think this fairly puts some responsibility to correct incorrect information given by dealers on the bettor, and allows (and even encourages) players to fairly rely on information requested from the dealer.  This proposal shares some similarity to EPT's rule 40 on Accepted Action (see http://www.europeanpokertour.com/about/rules/), except that the "relief" provided above only applies to misinformation given by Dealers, whereas the EPT rule treats misinformation given by the dealer and by other players in the same way (as I noted earlier, I think they are different - the Dealer is the only person who can give a truly "objective" count).

Thoughts?

[chet]

Great suggestion with the following correction. 

You need to change the "and" between "A" and "B" to "or".  The caller cannot be responsible for both.

chet

[K-Lo]

Great suggestion with the following correction. 

You need to change the "and" between "A" and "B" to "or".  The caller cannot be responsible for both.

chet

Isn't "lesser of A and B" grammatically correct?

[JasperToo]

I think this fairly puts some responsibility to correct incorrect information given by dealers on the bettor, and allows (and even encourages) players to fairly rely on information requested from the dealer.  This proposal shares some similarity to EPT's rule 40 on Accepted Action (see http://www.europeanpokertour.com/about/rules/), except that the "relief" provided above only applies to misinformation given by Dealers, whereas the EPT rule treats misinformation given by the dealer and by other players in the same way (as I noted earlier, I think they are different - the Dealer is the only person who can give a truly "objective" count).

Thoughts?

Once again K-lo you are spot on...  I fully agree that some of the onus needs to be on the bettor ("Hey Dealer, you missed this 25K chip!)  And I believe that if the caller asks the Dealer to count several things should happen: The Dealer should break down the stacks so the entire table can see the count and eyeball them easily themselves - counting with the dealer.  The caller should be able to rely on the Dealers count at that point and only be responsible for the declared amount.  The bettor should be counting as well, after all if he wins he would want to win that missed 25K.  And the rest of the table should speak up if they see a miscount. 

[JasperToo]

Great suggestion with the following correction. 

You need to change the "and" between "A" and "B" to "or".  The caller cannot be responsible for both.

chet

Isn't "lesser of A and B" grammatically correct?

Yes

[K-Lo]

Once again K-lo you are spot on...  I fully agree that some of the onus needs to be on the bettor ("Hey Dealer, you missed this 25K chip!)  And I believe that if the caller asks the Dealer to count several things should happen: The Dealer should break down the stacks so the entire table can see the count and eyeball them easily themselves - counting with the dealer.  The caller should be able to rely on the Dealers count at that point and only be responsible for the declared amount.  The bettor should be counting as well, after all if he wins he would want to win that missed 25K.  And the rest of the table should speak up if they see a miscount. 

Precisely.  The amended rule will encourage more potential callers to ask for a count by the Dealer, so that they will benefit from the protection that the rule gives.  In turn, since Dealers will break down the stacks quickly and properly as a matter of procedure, there would now be more occasions where everyone at the table can easily review counts over the course of the tournament and have the opportunity to help identify any errors.  This better protects all players at the table (and in the tournament), and can only be good for the game IMO.

[chet]

According to the 'on-line' grammar checking sites, both "and" and "or" appear to be grammatically correct. 

Regardless, I think this is a very appropriate solution to a problem that is important to a whole lot of TDA members.

Now, do we need to wait until the next Summit to get this adopted?

Chet

[DCJ001]

Once a player makes a bet or raise, the calling player should have the burden of verifying its size along with the dealer. When a dealer breaks down stacks, the calling player should be paying attention. If I am all in, my chips are in the pot, and are no longer in my control.

If the decision is on the calling player, the burden should be on him to verify the amount of the call.

[Nick C]

This was one of my first posts after returning home from the 2011 Summit:
 My point is; let the TDA set the standard and let the other major events incorporate the TDA rules into their house rules. Why should we (the TDA), create new rules, or ammend any existing rule (like WSOP Accepted Action), when we know it will only cause problems. On a lighter note, how can "pass" not be recognized as a legal word for poker?

Nick C

#42 (now #41) 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 #41 would be better than just adding rule #1.

Your thoughts.




       Re: Questions about 2011 Poker TDA Rules
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2011, 11:37:50 AM »   
________________________________________
Thanks Chet,
I respect your opinion. Especially when you have similar feelings about rule #41. 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.

As far as Rule #41. 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.




« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2011, 04:39:51 PM »   
________________________________________
Mike,
Why was it needed (Accepted Action)? 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.



    Logged

Response to Mike Bishop:

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:

41: 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: (preferred)

41: 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 BOTH 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.

[K-Lo]

If the decision is on the calling player, the burden should be on him to verify the amount of the call.

I agree.  However, the issue, in my mind, is whether the calling player can rely on assistance from the dealer, and still be considered to have taken sufficient steps to verify the amount of the call.  

I don't think we routinely allow players to leave their seats to count other player's chips, and we certainly wouldn't allow the calling player to handle the bettor's chips.  We only allow Dealers to handle the bettor's chips.  But, if a player were forced to verify a count without the Dealer's assistance, wouldn't it be fairer if the Dealer at least pushed the whole bet in front of the potential caller so that he could physically count the bet himself?  Since we know that is never going to happen... then the compromise solution is to allow a player to ask the Dealer to count the bet for him, and to allow the player to rely on that count.  

Some have expressed this concern with the proposed change:  what if the Dealer gives a count that is incorrect, but the caller doesn't give any chance for the bettor (or other players) to correct the count by snap-calling?  I acknowledge that this is a valid concern.  I have to think about this a bit, but if it appears that the caller is angling by snap-calling, Rule 1 could be applied, and the proposed rule could be left as is.  Alternatively, we could suggest an alternative wording:

Draft - version 2:
"Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller's responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent's bet before calling, and to ask for verification of the amount by the dealer if there is doubt as to the correct amount.  If a caller receives incorrect information regarding a wager from a player, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action and is subject to the correct wager.  However, if a caller requests a count and receives incorrect information from the dealer, and then places that amount in the pot, the caller will only be responsible for the lesser of (a) the actual amount of the wager and (b) the count given by the dealer, provided there has been reasonable opportunity for players to draw attention to the dealer error.  

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
Is there something about my shorter version that doesn't work for you?

41: 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 BOTH the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.


I also think there are better words than "continuous" in the first sentence. How about mutual observation or just; Poker is a game that demands observation by all active players.

Or

Poker is a game of observation.

I like your suggestions. I just think the TDA is always looking for a shorter version. I'm all for any change that "shares" the responsibility of clarification on the correct amount of a wager, to the bettor, caller and the dealer.

[K-Lo]

Hi Nick.  Welcome back.   

K-Lo,
Is there something about my shorter version that doesn't work for you?

41: 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 BOTH the BETTOR and the DEALER, the outcome will be determined at the discretion of managment.

I don't prefer "both the bettor and the dealer" as I think it is very different when the miscount comes from the dealer rather than the player.  It is reasonable to expect that the dealer will be objective and non-partisan.  When asked for a count, the Dealer is expected to give an exact count.  In contrast, most players will accept a TD's advice that they shouldn't "trust" statements from their opponents in the same way, and some of it may just be table talk anyway (e.g. "oh I'm sure I have you covered", or "it's probably around 10K").  There isn't an obligation for the bettor to provide any count under the rules, let alone an exact count (and I don't think there needs to be).  This is why I think there needs to be a distinction between misinformation given by the dealer and misinformation that may originate with the bettor (or other player, spectator, etc.).

Also, I worry that the language "inaccurate count from BOTH the BETTOR and the DEALER" is somewhat vague -- what if the bettor doesn't give a count at all?  What if the bettor gives an incorrect count, but the dealer then gives the correct count, or vice-versa?  I think my proposed change (version 1 or 2) is not too long, and given that much of the language is taken from the original rule, it would be easy for people to determine what has changed. 

[Nick C]

Okay, so how long do we have to wait for a response from the board? We've not heard from anyone that likes the current rule.

[DCJ001]

Rule 41 is fine.

Players need to be accountable for their actions, paying attention, and not asking dealers for the amounts of all in bets or raises while they're turned around away from the tables talking to their friends.

[Nick C]

What?